Hillary, Murdering Bitch
We got her now. It is bad enough that she whacked Vince Foster (at least that's what the rightwing crazies say), but she has now crossed the line. She helped kill Benazir Bhutto, a Pakistani woman promoting democracy. That's downright heinous. Thank God that Senator Obama's spokesman was on the job today and ensured that Hillary would not escape from another murder. According to Obama's mouthpiece, David Axelrod:
Obviously, one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it’s in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent, has become more powerful within that country and that’s a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq. That’s a serious difference between these candidates and I’m sure that people will take that into consideration.” . . . “She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq, which we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that’s a judgment she’ll have to defend,” Axelrod said.
In case you failed logic in college, Axelrod believes that Bhutto's death is a direct consequence of Hillary's support for the resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq. Why? Because the resources committed in Iraq were shifted away from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda seized the opening, regenerated its capabilities, and is running around Pakistan willy nilly killing aspiring democrats because of Hillary's vote several years ago. Let's not even consider that General Pervez Musharaf had a hand in this sordid affair. Nope, it was Hillary working hand-in-glove with the terrorists.
Fortunately, Axelrod did not point the finger of blame at any other candidate for the Democratic presidential nod. He also apparently is satisfied that George Bush's hands are clean on this matter. Otherwise, we would have heard something I am sure about Bush's guilt along with Hillary's.
I never realized that Hillary was so powerful. Her vote and her vote alone in 2002 was the deciding factor that pushed the Senate and ultimately President Bush over the brink and into war with Iraq.
Not buying this? Neither am I. My preceding paragraphs are absurd. Unfortunately, I am not manufacturing Axelrod's quotes. His remarks, made with the full consent of Senator Obama, are not only ridiculous, they are obscene. I have made the point previously that Obama appears to be the candidate the rightwing crazies are wild about. Name me one other Democrat who has tried to play the terrorist fear card like this? Just one? Anyone now doubt that Obama's crowd is reading and using the Karl Rove playbook for political success?
Obama's twitting about terrorism:
I am shocked and saddened by the death of Benazir Bhutto in this terrorist atrocity. She was a respected and resilient advocate for the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people. We join with them in mourning her loss and stand with them in their quest for democracy and against the terrorists who threaten the common security of the world.
This sure has the sound of a good old George Bush speech warning us about islamofascists just before ratcheting up the homeland security threat warning system. The terrorists are coming to get us and its Hillary's fault. If there was any doubt that Barack Obama is neither qualified nor ready to assume the highest office in the land, today's conduct under fire should erase all doubts.
Comments (45)
I suppose you're also going to comment on Evan Bayh's statement that Bhutto's assassination is evidence that we need to elect Hillary and not some dirty hippie like Obama. Because you find presidential campaigns referencing her death crass in all situations, not just when it helps Hillary, right Larry?
Good for Axelrod for reminding people that Hillary's vote to invade has had real and devastating consequences.
December 27, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall Evan Bayh being hired and paid for by Hillary, akin to the relationship between Obama and Axelrod, to be her spokesman. That's for starters.
Second, calling into question Obama's experience and competence seems quite appropriate in light of his stumble bum performance today. I find it crass and obscene when someone who promises new politics, i.e. Obama, is the only one to lay the death of Mrs. Bhutto at the feet of only one politician.
You have not seen anyone other than Obama conduct themselves this way today.
December 27, 2007 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh is a Hillary surrogate, just as Axelrod is an Obama surrogate. He said this while campaigning in Iowa on Hillary's behalf. Condemn both or condemn neither.
Moreover, you are willfully misrepresenting what Axelrod said. Read his comments to Marc Ambinder: http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/12/axelrod_amplifies_his_remarks.php . He wasn't accusing Hillary of killing Bhutto. Only an illiterate person, or someone shamelessly shilling for Hillary, could come to that conclusion.
If you want to help out a candidate who helped get us into the worst foreign policy disaster in our history, fine. But be honest when you're doing it.
December 27, 2007 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't recall Evan Bayh being hired and paid for by Hillary, akin to the relationship between Obama and Axelrod, to be her spokesman. That's for starters."
Larry:
While what you see above is certainly true, it is also true that in the ordinary course a campaign will benefit from and even coordinate with an ally, like an Evan Bayh in this instance. So in that sense I think you are understating the potential for coordination between Bayh and the Clinton campaign.
Bruce
December 27, 2007 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bayh did not suggest, state, or imply that Bhutto's death was a consequence of Obama's inexperience. Obama's guy made a very clear statement--Bhutto's death was a consequence of what Hillary, and only Hillary did. That's the point.
December 27, 2007 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
agreed. Bayh is a Hillary ally so he's coordinating with her. On another note;
Bayh isn't one of the Democrats I'm particularly fond of, he's from Conservative Indiana and that's reflected in his votes and oratory.
I'd feel much better if it were Russ Feingold, Sherrod Brown, or Bernie Sanders to name a few.
I see Bayh as another Lieberman.
I see the Bayh involvement as a little deeper than simply support. (This is not to imply that others don't see it the same way.)
December 28, 2007 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
You really out to be ashamed of yourself in this case. Or at least concerned. Because you have now certifiably slipped off the dock, and sunk deep into an angry, paranoid wingnut mentality. This sort of slander is really vile.
Not only did I not fail logic, I taught it for 18 years, and your "deduction" here is ... um ... strained.
Axelrod, along with many other mainstream observers, is claiming that the resurgence of Al Qaeda, the Taliban and their ilk in Afghanistan and Pakistan is in part attributable to the Bush decision to go into Iraq, which deflected US attentions from the more serious issue of Islamist terror groups well to the east of Iraq. Surely you agree that this is at least plausible.
He is also reminding us that some Democrats, Clinton included, were significantly more useful than other Democrats in helping the administration make that blunder, and were even supportive at the crucial moment. This is indisputable; it is part of the historical record.
He also claims that the resurgence of Al Qaeda is "one of the reasons" Pakistan is in distress. This again, I think you would agree, is surely at least plausible.
And finally, he is implicitly assuming that the Bhutto assassination has something to do with with the underlying "distress" in Pakistan. I don't see how one could question this.
So all one can logically conclude from this is that Axelrod is claiming that Hillary Clinton contributed to the enabling of a very bad policy decision which is in turn a contributing factor to an Al Qaeda resurgence, which is itself a contributing factor to a distressed situation in Pakistan, which is finally a contributing factor to today's assassination.
To get from there to the conclusion that Axelrod says Clinton "helped kill Benazir Bhutto" or that the Bhutto assassination is a "direct consequence" of Clinton's support for the authorization to use force in Iraq is frankly outlandish and hysterical.
As for the "murdering bitch" part, this is the kind of language you use a lot, and seems much more reflective of your own inner rage and demons than any sort of insinuations coming from any of the other campaigns.
I really ought to be pleased with your post, because it is this sort of intemperate and vile smearing that puts the reflexive Clinton hit team in such a bad light, and generally blows back negatively upon them. But somehow, I can't help but just be nauseated. Honestly, what is it about Obama that frightens you so much? Where does this blundering rage come from?
Underneath all the fury is the cornered, defensive plaint that Clinton shouldn't have to answer for her bad decisions, and that when an opposing candidate has the temerity to bring up one of these bad decisions, and cite the bad conditions they have helped bring about, well that is just awful, awful, awful.
The things Hillary Clinton has done in office, the marks on her record, really do matter. Clinton has been called upon to make several decisions related to Middle East policy, and in my view she muffed at least three of them in a big time way. The first, and largest, is the Iraq vote, whose harmful consequences are manifest and hardly debated. The second was her thoroughly unconstructive, nearly fanatical support for a misguided Israeli blitz on Lebanon which has helped contribute to the current instability in that country. The third is her vote in support of Lieberman-Kyl, which might very nearly have helped grease the skids for another foolish, reckless Middle East adventure, had not the recent NIE come along to take the wind out of the Bush sails and bail out the misguided supporters of Lieberman-Kyl. And yet, there is still a chance Bush will be able to pull something regarding in Iran, because Lieberman-Kyl foolishly handed him a non-nuclear pretext in the form of terrorist group designation that brings that group under those already covered by his existing congressionally authorized terrorist hunting license.
If you want to defend Clinton against something, why don't you defend her against these very serious and substantive charges, rather than a hyperbolical and imaginary straw man charge that comes only from your own imagination and blind anti-Obama malevolence.
December 27, 2007 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
December 27, 2007 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K,
I think you are right that Larry Johnson's post was hyperbolical: Axelrod's remarks were not the moral equivalent of the right-wing demonology according to which Sen. Clinton is responsible for Vince Foster's death, nor was Sen. Obama playing "the terrorist fear card" in his own remarks -- they were banal, but not barbed.
That being said, your defense of Axelrod's remarks is also unpersuasive. If what Axelrod was really trying to say was:
that Hillary Clinton contributed to the enabling of a very bad policy decision which is in turn a contributing factor to an Al Qaeda resurgence, which is itself a contributing factor to a distressed situation in Pakistan, which is finally a contributing factor to today's assassination.
--then he really ought to have thought better of saying it. For if, in tracing the extent of someone's responsibility for an event, it requires a chain of four "contributed to's" to get from that person's own actions to the event itself, it's pretty unlikely that there will be much responsibility left to apportion by the time one gets there.
Yes, Sen. Clinton's vote for the Iraq use-of-force resolution was a mistake -- the power credibly to threaten Hussein was useful (it got him to comply with a tough inspection regime), but Bush proved a singularly untrustworthy steward of that power (he wanted his war, inspectors or no inspectors, WMD or no WMD). And yes, the Iraq war, particularly as launched under conditions determined by Bush (that is, with neither real international legitimacy, nor a robust multi-lateral commitment, nor a serious post-war plan), did divert attention and other valuable resources from the fight against the Taliban/Qaeda forces in Afghanistan. And yes, that diversion did allow those forces to regroup, on both sides of the Afghan/Pakistan border. And yes, that regrouping was no doubt one element in the ability of those forces to wreak increased havoc inside Pakistan, including (if it turns out to be the case) having a hand in Bhutto's assassination.
But, in the first place, it is far from clear to what extent U.S. policy has been able to influence events inside Pakistan, whether for good or ill. My hunch is that our actions have had, and will have, far less impact than we might hope or fear -- that events inside Pakistan are unfolding very much on their own schedule and along lines determined largely by that country's own turbulent history.
Secondly, to the extent that U.S. foreign policy has had any role in contributing to the conditions that led to, or made more likely, Bhutto's murder, surely the preponderant responsibility for that must lie with the administration that has been making and carrying out that policy, for the region in general and for Pakistan in particular, over the last seven years -- and not with any single Democratic Senator, no matter how prominent? It is not Hillary Clinton's Pakistan policy that stands in ruins tonight.
Larry Johnson overreacted -- but he did not overreact to nothing. Axelrod's swipe at Clinton over the Bhutto killing was completely unwarranted.
December 28, 2007 2:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amileoj,
The fact that Bush is the person chiefly responsible for the many bad things that have happened on his watch is both obvious and irrelevant. Others have played a contributing role, and they need to be held accountable too. From the beginning of the campaign, as the early front runner, Clinton has constantly sought to deflect criticism by calling for blind party unity and changing the subject back to Bush. This is, of course, standard front-runner strategy. But it is, after all, just an attempt to shield her own actions from proper scrutiny.
Clinton has criticized Obama's health care plan, and that is a perfectly legitimate area of campaign debate and criticism. The fact that the Republicans in general, or Bush in particular, have a much worse approach to health care than any of the Democrats is irrelevant to the Democratic debate. Similarly, the fact that Clinton's foreign policy errors in the Senate are not as bad as Bush's many crimes and mistakes is irrelevant to the Democratic debate.
Clinton's actions, and the national policies she has supported, have consequences. The Iraq war isn't just some idle campaign talking point. The war, which certain members of the media seem peculiarly anxious should be forgotten by the public as quickly as possible, was a dreadful mistake for many reasons that go well beyond any possible side effects on Pakistan, and include the thousands of dead and maimed American soldiers, hundreds of thousands of needlessly dead Iraqis, and many millions of Iraqi refugees. We might also include the untold lost personal savings, livelihoods and fortunes of ordinary Iraqis, and the barbaric damage to their historic cultural patrimony.
The notion that Clinton just wanted to give Bush a big threatening stick, and didn't expect he would actually use it, doesn't wash. Nobody who has a functioning memory, and who actually lived through that fanatical period of US history just a few short years ago, could reasonably think that Bush ever had the slightest intention of refraining from the use of military action. Certainly no astute Washington insider could have been under those illusions in mid-2002. Nor do the totality of Clinton's statements during that time, or her behavior just prior to and after the invasion, indicate she was at all surprised or significantly disturbed by the course of events. She knew the authorization meant war; but it was a war she supported at bottom. It is also weak to suggest that the war would not have been a mistake if it had been executed by a competent manager such as Clinton, rather than bungling idiots such as Bush. The Iraq adventure was a reckless and unnecessary crime, no matter how it was carried out.
We can't know for sure that the war has had harmful consequences inside Pakistan, or that Pakistan would have been any less distressed had the war never occurred. But it is a plausible conjecture that the war has had harmful side effects throughout the region, including in Pakistan, and Axelrod raised that conjecture, and a reminder of Hillary Clinton's role in enabling this war, in a completely responsible way.
The people who brought us this war have to be held accountable. It is not sufficient to argue that only the President caused the war, and everyone else is an innocent bystander.
December 28, 2007 5:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K said:
Naturally, since many in the media supported the war aggessively.
Absolutely, and many cast the war vote to protect their seats by avoiding the 'soft on terror' label. They put their seats in Congress ahead of American lives, limbs and treasury. I condemn them to hell for this.
December 28, 2007 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K,
Thanks for the extended reply. Please see my responses to some of your remarks below:
The fact that the Republicans in general, or Bush in particular, have a much worse approach to health care than any of the Democrats is irrelevant to the Democratic debate. Similarly, the fact that Clinton's foreign policy errors in the Senate are not as bad as Bush's many crimes and mistakes is irrelevant to the Democratic debate.
I wouldn't go so far as to say "irrelevant". I know that I would be much harder on Sen. Obama's refusal to embrace the principle of universality if the rest of his health care policy did not represent a vast improvement on the status quo that the Republicans are mostly interested in defending (when they are not trying to make it worse). Similarly, I would be much harder on Sen. Clinton's Iraq vote if she had been leading the drive for war back in 2002, rather than responding to an agenda framed by a Republican president. What I think is true, is that the fact of a far greater policy distance between any Democrat and any Republican doesn't make intra-Democratic policy debates irrelevant or trivial. On the contrary, they are of course precisely what the primaries should be about.
The notion that Clinton just wanted to give Bush a big threatening stick, and didn't expect he would actually use it, doesn't wash.
You might be right. I honestly don't know what Sen. Clinton thought Bush was likely to do with the authority. I'm pretty certain, based on her contemporaneous public remarks, that she knew, as all who were paying attention did, that there was a war party in the administration, that had wanted war with Iraq long before 9/11, and that wanted it still, come hell or high water, and that there was, at a minimum, a serious danger that Bush would side with that party. Becausse of this, I think she can fairly be faulted for not anticipating that Bush would abuse the authority given him -- as well as for not protesting, sooner and in stronger terms, when he did just that.
Be that as it may, my point was merely that the grant of authority was both useful (it helped get the inspectors in) and also horribly abused (that it gave Bush the opportunity to launch an unnecessary war). I can easily imagine a different president using that same authority wisely, rather than abusing it horribly. That doesn't make it a good risk to have taken, or to take in the future. Had I been in Sen. Clinton's place, I hope I would have had the presence of mind and the courage to have voted no, as I wish she had done. And I freely acknowledge that everyone who voted for that resolution bears some share of responsibility for the war -- though vastly less, in my view, than the President who asked for the resolution, started the war unnecessarily, and then bungled what he started.
It is also weak to suggest that the war would not have been a mistake if it had been executed by a competent manager such as Clinton, rather than bungling idiots such as Bush.
Agreed. I didn't mean to suggest such a thing. What I do think is plausible, however, is that the initial mistake of starting the war would not have been compounded by so many others, of such magnitude, if a less self-deluded administration had been in power.
[I]t is a plausible conjecture that the war has had harmful side effects throughout the region, including in Pakistan, and Axelrod raised that conjecture, and a reminder of Hillary Clinton's role in enabling this war, in a completely responsible way.
I agree that that conjecture is plausible--indeed, as a general proposition, it is highly probable. The next part, however, is where you lose me.
Axelrod was not merely raising a general conjecture about the harmful regional side-effects of the war, while also reminding people about Sen. Clinton's Iraq vote. He meant of course to suggest that those two things are tightly coupled as cause and effect, but that is far less than the half of it.
The key element of his remarks--and the one that has caused all the fuss--is the one your account leaves out. For Axelrod also pretty clearly meant to link the vote for the Iraq resolution, though the medium of the war's harmful regional side effects, to the murder of Bhutto--the domestic political impact of which, after all, was the topic about which he was being asked.
Either he was claiming some causal link between Sen. Clinton's vote and Bhutto's murder, or his remarks make no sense in context, as a reply to the questions he was being asked. I think the intended subtext was reasonably clear: Won't Bhutto's assassination cause voters to look with favor on Clinton's claim of greater foreign policy experience? Why no, it will cause them to doubt her all the more, since she helped bring this about with her ill-advised vote for war in Iraq.
That causal chain, if we try to trace it back from Bhutto's murder to Clinton's vote, is simply too long, with too many links in it that owe little or nothing to the vote on the Iraq resolution, and with too many other chains of events leading off in completely different directions, to make this claim even remotely plausible.
It may be that Axelrod does not beleive it himself. It may be that he was just doing the standard campaign flak's job of trying to deflect unwelcome questions by returning them to the comfortable terrain of a tried-and-true campaign message and that, in this process, he found himself asserting more than he would if he were looking at the matter sine ira et studio. In fact, I'm inclined to think that this is exactly what happened; it is easy to imagine oneself making such a blunder under such circumstances, and then digging oneself further in the hole in the aftermath.
All I was trying to show, in my partial defense of Larry Johnson's post, is that those who have reacted negatively to Axelrod's remarks were not reacting to nothing. Taken at face value they are both bizarre and, especially given the occasion, highly inappropriate. I'm inclined to cut him some slack, but I can easily see why others might not be so inclined.
December 28, 2007 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amileoj,
I don't believe Axelrod's comments are either bizarre or inappropriate, and I believe the passage of only a short amount of time will bear this out. Whenever a candidate levels a significant charge like this, there are 24 to 48 hours of shock, hyperventilation and outrage from the targets of the charge and their media friends, before people simmer down and actually begin to examine the substance of what is said, and realize that it was generally on target.
Despite the defensive hubbub from Clinton's supporters, the events in Pakistan provide an excellent occasion to reflect back on seven years of a criminally stupid and malevolent Middle East policy, and Clinton's own dalliances with that policy and its architects. Clinton's vote for the war resolution wasn't some meaningless expressive act of the sort that might be passed by the Wellesley College student senate. It was a real vote in the real world that gave a president a license to launch a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of people, has sent millions more into exile, has seriously destabilized a broader neighborhood, and has significantly raised the probability of expanded war in one of the most contested and strategically vital regions in the world. Clinton's errors do not just include the Iraq war vote, which might be argued to be one regrettable lapse, but a subsequent pattern of hawkish pandering and positioning that show that vote was no accident.
Maybe it's a stretch that the chaotic and turbulent conditions in Pakistan that claimed Bhutto's life were exacerbated by the Iraq war; and maybe it's not. But Axelrod has performed a service by putting war and security back out on the table, and by breathing life back into an issues that Clinton's supporters and media friends have worked so hard to deep six.
It is possible that Hillary Clinton is finally about to be held accountable for her actions. Clinton's people are desperate to avoid this accounting, which is why they send out their agents to attack the messenger and change the subject. But Hillary Clinton is just a candidate - a deeply flawed candidate. She's not a sacred cow anymore, and the protestations of her followers will, I suspect, be unavailing.
December 28, 2007 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K.,
Thanks for your willingness to continue the dialog. Obviously, I think you're wrong on the merits, but it's good--clarifying, let me say--to have such a thoughtful interlocutor to disagree with. If we on the left are going to throw brickbats at one another, we may as well help each other hit the right target--it increases the chances of our learning something.
Maybe it's a stretch that the chaotic and turbulent conditions in Pakistan that claimed Bhutto's life were exacerbated by the Iraq war; and maybe it's not...
For me the stretch, more specifically, is the notion that the 40% or so of Congressional Democrats who were willing to give Bush the benefit of the doubt on the Iraq resolution in October of 2002, contributed in any meaningful way to Bhutto's assassination in December of 2007.
That's the implication I can't quite swallow. That's the implication that goes down sideways. I'm afraid that nothing you've said quite smooths its path.
December 28, 2007 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose this comes down to the old question of collective responsibility. If several hundred people participate in the execution of disaster, each can say, "Well, I am not personally responsible; because the policy would have been carried out anyway, even if I wasn't part of the seven hundred." But they are responsible as a group, and crediting that excuse universally leads you to a situation in which no one is held accountable.
Whatever question the reporter asked Axelrod and tried to lead him into answering, I thought he was smart to avoid talking about Bhutto specifically, and to focus his answer on the broader question of the causes of Pakistan's currently distressed condition.
December 28, 2007 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K.,
I agree that disaster stemming from collective decision raises the old many-hands problem: who can be held accountable when so many are involved?
But it seems to me that the only corrective to this is precisely to reject the notion of collective or group guilt, and instead to insist on handing out blame as accurately, that is to say as proportionately, as possible. Making everyone who had any hand in a disaster equally responsible for that disaster is no better than declaring them all equally innocent: where all are guilty, as Hannah Arendt used to say, no one is.
For me, the most important thing, where blame for the Iraq disaster is concerned, is to reject any attempt by George Bush and the neoconservative war party to dissipate their own responsibility for events by pointing to all the people they managed to con or pressure into providing them with political cover. Sen. Clinton and the other 110-odd Democrats who voted for the resolution deserve their share of the blame, to be sure. But theirs must remain a distinctly minor share, precisely so that the real culprits are left with the major share they alone deserve.
As for Axelrod, I only wish he had "focus[ed] his answer on the broader question of the causes of Pakistan's currently distressed condition". I think this is precisely what he failed to do, instead reaching for the cheap shot against Sen. Clinton.
December 28, 2007 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amileoj & Dan K.
Excellent colloquy.
Thanks.
December 29, 2007 7:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't think the shot was cheap, Amileoj. Of course, Axelrod is a campaign adviser, not a university professor or above-the-fray foreign policy statesman like Brzezinski or Tony Lake, and it is his job to point out important contrasts between his candidate and his candidate's opponents. He obviously did not assign Clinton anything close to equal blame with Bush, but simply pointed out that she voted for a war which "we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today." This followed the claim that one of the reasons that Pakistan is in the distress that it’s in is because al-Qaeda is resurgent and more powerful in Pakistan, and "that’s a consequence of us taking the eye off the ball and making the wrong judgment in going into Iraq." I think these statement are defensible in themselves and contextually appropriate.
December 29, 2007 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan K said:
DanK, "more useful." isexcellent way of describing that issue. I was a Hillary supporter early on, willing ot forgive her political "cover your ass" Iraq war vote, but when she signed on to Kyl/Lieberman she infuriated me.
I simply cannot understand why, after taking so much heat for the Iraq war vote she votes for Kyl/Lieberman. Are these votes simply a manifestation of a belief she has that she isn't articulating?
December 28, 2007 6:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's hard to say, John. Perhaps these are the policies she deeply supports in her heart; or perhaps she only supports them in her public actions because they are the policies supported by the people she most depends on for her political power. But either way, whether by virtue of conscience or calculation, it looks like she is committed to them.
December 28, 2007 6:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This attack on Hillary by the Obama camp was remarkably stupid. Anyone who read Hillary's speech before she cast her vote would realize that what she was voting for was for Bush to go back to the UN. Anyone who can read should realize that.
Second, we don't know who killed Bhutto nor did Hillary let Bin Laden get away at Tora Bora.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 27, 2007 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
...what she was voting for was for Bush to go back to the UN. Anyone who can read should realize that. \
That simply isn't true. She had the opportunity to vote that way on the Feingold ammendment, which would have forced Bush to go back to the UN. She voted "Nay." Didn't want to look "soft on terror" because then she could'nt get to play president.
Who cares what Hillary says? That has nothing to do with anything! Her votes are there for all to see.
Jan
December 28, 2007 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Logic?
Larry-- stay away from the sherry.
~OGD~
December 27, 2007 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're a hack, Larry. Do us all a favor and go back to being a Republican.
Oh, that's right. You're supporting Hillary, so you already have.
December 27, 2007 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Check Progressivepunch: Obama votes to the right of Hillary.
December 28, 2007 6:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not when it comes to war. And you apparently don't remember the first Clinton administration, which was "progressive" only in comparison to the rabid rightwing we've been dealing with for twenty-five years. Hell, Nixon was less in the pocket of multinationals than Bill Clinton.
Those sights claiming Hillary votes more progressively can be spun any way you want. Because Obama doesn't cast a ceremonial vote here or there, or votes against a larger bill on principle, makes him less progressive only in a vacuum.
Obama has actually worked outside of the traditional corridors of power in order to help the most disadvantaged among us; Hillary's chaired a couple of commissions and given lip service to progressivism while remaining consistently in the thrall of global capital (see, e.g., Wal-Mart and her husband's administration).
If you take a look at both their records, not just from the last few years in the Senate, I defy you to tell me that Hillary comes off as the more progressive candidate. She is undoubtedly the most conservative of the three Democratic frontrunners.
December 28, 2007 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guess it depends on who is doing the rating.
Here's a link from a right-wing blog claiming he has the MOST liberal voting record of all the candidates.
Obama voting record
December 28, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Here's a link from a right-wing blog claiming he has the MOST liberal voting record of all the candidates." They're just gearing up, test marketing if you will. They need to be prepared to say this about whoever is the nominee.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 28, 2007 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the ratings from National Journal, which is more non-partisan than the others we've quoted.
You'll see that Obama has a higher liberal rating in 2006.
http://nationaljournal.com/voteratings/sen/lib_cons.htm?o1=lib_composite&o2=desc
I looked on ProgressivePunch as you suggested and they do rate Hillary better but they appear to only be looking at 2007. So I guess these results aren't contradictory.
December 28, 2007 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the research. I mean,come on, the argument that Hillary is more liberal than Obama doesn't even pass the giggle test.
I cannot understand why so many posters in the leftish blogosphere are pro-Hillary, I really can't. From NAFTA, welfare reform, repeal of Glass-Steagall, and deregulation of the telecomms, to Iraq and flag burning and "lobbyists are just people too, " she clearly has shown what side she is on. And it isn't ours.
Any progressive who looks at her record objectively, and ignores the clearly bogus claims that she has "taken the right wing on and beaten them every time" and claims of her supposed "electability," should vociferously oppose her in the primaries.
Why otherwise sensible people, whose posts I enjoy reading and often agree with, have convinced themselves that she will be a progressive champion in the White House just baffles me.
December 28, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Progressivepunch is a complex site. They choose progressive votes by taking those votes where a majority of 7 senators held to be most progressive vote against a majority of Republicans. The ratings change as more of these votes occur. The first screen shows three ratings -- lifetime, 07/08, and chips are down 07/08. By all of these measures Clinton is to the left of Obama and they involve hundreds of votes. Clinton has been in the Senate for a full term longer than Obama so the lifetime rating covers more votes for her than for Obama. When you use their drill down feature you can break it down by issue areas and even specific votes. There are surprises: on corporate subsidies Clinton voted with the progressives 100% of the time (on whatever portion of the 114 votes in the category) while Obama is not rated presumptively because no votes matching the criteria ocurred during his time. The detail is important because on one dimension Obama did better than Clinton when you looked at the actual votes they were identical except for the times that Clinton missed when Bill was hospitalized. That said, Progrssivepunch does reveal that Obama is a bit more progressive than Clinton on their War and Peace category
January 3, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bastard Bush Blasts Bhutto!
Isn’t that what Jo-Ann Mort is saying in her adjacent post? Or is she just saying the same thing Axelrod is saying?
Really, this mudslingers' shootout between MJ (Obama) and LJ (Clinton) is getting out of hand.
Personally, I default to Edwards for not using the issue to promote his anti-terrist bonafides. HRC, in fact, is running new ads doing just that. She would protect us in a “crisis," which scares me more than any “crisis.” But, hey, that’s what voters were invented to decide. Let’s just leave the smearing and accusations of smearing and smearing the smearers to the highly paid smearers consultants to sort out. TPMCafe is better than this.
December 27, 2007 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn fools, looking to politicise Bhutto's assassination, and failing to reach the obvious conclusion: Bhutto's own stupidity is what got her killed.
Benazir Bhutto knew the score. She had already survived one recent assassination attempt on her life, yet she presented herself as a target of opportunity in clogged traffic outside of the rally's arena. Even though the assassin detonated his suicide bomb in close proximity to the armoured Lexus, all other passengers inside survived the blast. Bhutto would be alive had she not stuck her neck out in traffic.
Damn fools, the lot of y'all, playing stupid political games, and unwilling to reach the truth, no matter how brutal the reality; and who benefits from this habitual democratic fetish for circular firing squads? The same entities who were responsible for America's defense on September 11, 2001. The same Machiavellian players that ran straight to the hell of immoral war with the limited and measured votes of many Democratic politicians, who believed that even GW Bush and his Neoconniving handlers would not have the audacity to wage war upon Iraq, the evidence notwithstanding, who believed that even these immoral politicians would place a higher priority upon the lives of American GIs than the implementation of their distorted political ideology. They were wrong, but far too much blame is being loaded up upon their shoulders for this.
Damn fools, the lot of y'all, blaming each other while the Neocon vermin scurry away once again from facing their own personal responsibility, enabling their future reappearance within the government's bureaucracy, be it wearing the mantle of neo-conservatism or neo-liberalism.
And in the event of a November 2008 election outcome of El Presidente Mayorlissimo Rudy, not a one of you limp-wristed hand-wringing fools will accept your own personal responsibility for enabling the nightmare of endless war.
December 28, 2007 1:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
For all =Obama apologists, I hope that your behavior is not different from Bush's apologists.
There is very no surprise that the connection between Obama and Bush is so strong. Obama's whole campaign seem surprisingly similar to Bush's 2000 campaign: change and optimism (neither really intended), the hatred and unmitigated attack on the on the Clintons, the invention of the social security problem, the personal attack on rivals, arrogance, presumption of intelligence, etc.
It's sad how watch decent and intelligence people joining the cult of personality of Obama.
December 28, 2007 4:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is desperate: his wife has told him that he doesn't get to run again if he doesn't win this time -- Vanity Fair.
December 28, 2007 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Axelrod was responding to a question from the press that framed his answer. Bayh simply let his mouth run as soon as he heard the news. The Hillary gang are getting rather desperate. And if she doesn't own her vote for Bush's war, her "experience" argument is a joke. Can't have it both ways. Hillary's been part of the problem. In the White House and in the Senate. Still is, as her Kyl-Lieberman vote shows.
Also, the notion that Hillary was "really" voting for action by the UN in 2003 is pretty damning. Who could have been that naive with the Bush crowd running the show ?
Let's not go to the recycle bin for the next administration. The more I read the crap coming from clueless Clinton clones, the less respect I have for her campaign.
December 28, 2007 6:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with almost everyone. Sure, one of the worst aspects of the war on Iraq was dropping the ball in Pakistan. Gore said that going into the war. But sure, the main U.S. mistakes abetting the present crisis in Pakistan relate to Bush's uncritical support for Musharef and incoherent hopes for magical alternatives, including coalitions. The Friday Times has a splendid article on it (with a great quote about how "insane" Bush policy has been), as well as a good editorial. And sure, Larry's using that in a loaded, nasty, illogical way to deflect criticism of Clinton.
For me, the worst moments in the last day have come with press coverage, so very eager to return to the horse race, to see who benefits (and they of course do not mean who in the sense of the people of Pakistan, Americans concerned about Al Qaeda, or anything like that). When they repeat that Giuliani and Clinton benefit, I have to ask myself the logic. But chillingly, they may benefit, and the reason is that coverage like this makes it so. Nothing else could sustain Giuliani's positives.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
December 28, 2007 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Axelrod's statement is pretty much stupid, no question about that. But Larry your decision to spend an entire column pointing out this stupidity really does point out your priorities which seems to be to back Hilliary. Please drop that "but I really back Biden" BS.
December 28, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that Axelrod shot his mouth off wrongly, and one should expect better at the very least from a political pro. I further agree with the poster who said one should condemn ALL political attempts to exploit the tragedy, and not just cherry pick those that one can blame on the enemy camp.
That said, what Larry Johnson says here is WORSE. He not only distorts the logic of what Axelrod DID say, but then goes on to top it off with a headline (suggesting "murdering bitch") that simply dispenses with all pretense of logic and just goes for the catchy title. I might expect this on ProteinWisdom or even from RealClearPolitics (though they have fewer columns lately by Dennis Prager); TPM Cafe should always maintain its discourse at an intellectually higher level than this kind of spinning. If I sound snobby, well, TOUGH )&*()&!
I would note that HRC had much more finesse in the way that she too (using the assassination specifically to promote her 'experience' theme in the campaign) PERSONALLY sought to politically profit from this tragedy, a tragedy that was made all but inevitable by Bhutto's return to Pakistan. That is not to put the blame on her -- one might say that the killings of MLK and Bobby Kennedy were all but inevitable, once it was clear that RFK couldn't be stopped by electoral means. The same near-inevitability might be seen of the assassination of Malcolm X. But we must try to go the extra mile in responding to such horrific events in ways that are not merely extensions of our own agenda. On that point, I suppose there's more than enough guilt to go around.
I must say that, while in principle, what Bayh and indeed HRC herself said in response to the assassination of Bhutto might have been morally equivalent to Axelrod's remark, the latter, by being more awkward about what he said laid himself open to just the kind of irresponsible attack we see here in Larry Johnson's column. No doubt others will do the same, just as there was a predictable response to Kerry's comment -- using a term of art frequently used by Israeli experts on terrorism -- about "nuisance".
In politics, at least tactically, part of the game is to calculate at least the obvious ways in which one's logic can and will be distorted by hostile, unprincipled partisans.
December 28, 2007 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, cloudy, I didn't see anything wrong with the Axelrod comment, nor with any of the other comments yesterday by other campaigns. The conditions in Pakistan, and the role that US policy and US politicians may or may not have had in bettering or worsening those conditions, are a perfectly appropriate topic of campaign discussion.
December 28, 2007 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What is wrong with Axelrod's statement is that a political pro like he is should be able to anticipate how anything discussing HRC in the context of the Bhutto assassination like the comment he made would be misused.
It's a little like the poor political judgment by Howard Dean in suggesting that people with a Confederate flag on their trucks might support him over health care. It's not something that would necessarily be awful if you said it privately, as no one has you under a glaring spotlight. But people who are pros on TV should be held to a standard of political professionalism.
That said, the point that what Axelrod DID say has been blown way out of proportion and distorted, being unfairly milked not only by Larry Johnson but by many others, is quite valid.
December 28, 2007 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
See upthread: Larry-- stay away from the sherry.
~OGD~
December 28, 2007 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
The thing I would ask everyone to notice about Axelrod's comment that Larry quotes is that NOWHERE in it does he actually mention Bhutto or her assassination.
He's actually talking about the conditions of Pakistan in general being the fault of the Bush administration and by extension Hillary for supporting Bush in some ways. He's not talking about the assassination specifically. He never says a thing about the assassination in even the quote Larry posts.
The only thing that makes it a quote about the assassination is the quote came after he was specifically asked by a reporter if the assasination helped Obama's opponents in the race because of their supposed greater experience.
I suppose he could have declined to answer, but instead he used it as a jumping off point to discuss unrest in Pakistan in general, which has been going on for months now, well before this, and how current foreign policy has contributed to it. What exactly is stupid about that? Or do we all agree that current foreign policy has nothing to do with the problems in Pakistan and no one should be suggesting it does? Is that what we beleive?
December 28, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thats what I believe. I believe that current foreign policy, the Iraq War in particular, have little if anything to do with the situation in Pakistan, certainly not enough to justify the blame game on Hillary Clinton.
I reject the notion that had we not invaded Iraq but simply focused on Afghanistan that the situation in Pakistan would be any different. The Taliban would still have retreated into Pakistan, the Pakistani army would still be unable to stop it, the Pakistani's would still not have allowed us to militarily invade Pakistan territory, and Pashtun sectarian slaughter and radicalism, which has been around at least as long as the British Raj, would have continued to fester and grow ads it has over the past decades (not months).
I think Axelrod is dead wrong in his analysis and comments and they are naive and simplistic. But then again, he (or Obama) has also said that Kyl-Lieberman justifies on its own Bush going to war with Iran, which it most clearly does not, and I think making that argument is positively irresponsible. So I have to wonder about the depth of the analysis here as compared to petty political partisanship which leads to silly comments based on historical ignorance.
December 28, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone (like Reid, Biden, Dodd, Edwards and, yes, Senator Clinton) who voted against the Levin Amendment (see M. J. Rosenberg's piece) has some complicity in the U.S. taking its eye off the ball and instead going off on the Iraq/remaking the Middle East/neo-con wet dream frolic.
Does that put any of them, with a gun in hand, outside a Rawalpindi PPP rally? Of course not.
Mr. Johnson, your commentaries are usually more reasoned--and more reasonable--than this screed.
December 28, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink