The Clinton Response
This isn't going to work:
"Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton criticizes rival Barack Obama's record on abortion rights in a mailing sent to New Hampshire voters.
The mailer says that seven times during his time in the Illinois state Senate, Obama declined to take a position on abortion bills, while Clinton has been a defender of abortion rights.
During his eight years in the legislature, Obama cast a number of votes on abortion and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive, a vote that especially riled abortion opponents."
I don't expect anyone to give up, and there's nothing wrong with going on the offense. But misleading and misinforming in a mailer is a method out of the past, and is no substitute for a personal message. TV is the only platform for a comeback kid.
I'm wondering if it's possible that Obama abstained from voting on abortion related bills seven times during his eight years.
January 5, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a great way for Sen. Clinton to demonstrate her experience: dig up a bill that she supports but Senator John Sununu (R-NH) helped filibuster. Then, redirect her negativity towards the Republicans.
"The American people want X. Democrats want X. When I am President, I will sign X into law. But given the chance to pass X, Republican Senator John Sununu stood in the way. The only way for X to reach my desk is for the Great State of New Hampshire to get rid of John Sununu."
In South Carolina, she should substitute whatever SC politician is up for reelection. In Arizona, if it comes to that, substitute John McCain. She could prove she's the best one to beat the Republicans by starting early. Let her ads do double duty by driving up the Republicans' negative ratings.
Instead, this nit picking, lawyerly misrepresentation of Obama's record makes Sen. Clinton look petty and desperate, and it helps me remember why I'm vaguely sick of the Clintons.
January 5, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't expect anyone to give up, and there's nothing wrong with going on the offense. But misleading and misinforming in a mailer is a method out of the past, and is no substitute for a personal message."
Well said. But how about some evidence of the mailer?
I am an Obama supporter; but, with all due respect, much of which is due, until evidence of such is provided then it amounts to nothing more than Krugman's email from a friend report of a couple weeks ago.
http://www.expatriateruminations.com/Blog/2007/12/25/paul-krugman-goes-rove/
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 5, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
???
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillary_mailer_hits_obama_on_abortion.php
January 5, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
My Most sincere apology Mr. Hundt and everyone else. I did not arrive via the TPM home page, where I just discovered the story.
Again, I apologize.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 5, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasn't Obama too liberal yesterday???
January 5, 2008 4:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's what the Clinton folks were saying yesterday.
Strive for the ideal, but deal with what's real.
January 5, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"and received a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives."
A new kind of audacity:
"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."
"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/07/obama-abortion-.html
I like this part:
"A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."... "What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so"
That's just the kinda guy we need.
And I guess since Hundt is very concerned about what he calls misleading information he'll have to take another look and see just who was misleading. Hmmmm...
January 5, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still want to know why Reed Hundt, who was vaulted into a position of national political relevance by Bill Clinton has turned on his benefactor in such a crass manner.
Seriously, Reed's opinion only matters here because Bill Clinton appointed him to the FCC. What happened?
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
January 5, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am completely grateful to Bill Clinton for nominating me to the FCC. I began talking often and working with Barack Obama when he was preparing to run for the United States Senate. I formed the view that he was destined for great things. More than a year ago, he asked me to support him in this quest and I agreed. I'm very sure he would not only be a fine President, but also that his election would be a moment of real change for our troubled nation.
January 6, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
debcoop
There is nothing misleading in this mailer. I am a long time NY activist in the choice community and I am very aware of what her role was in getting emergency contraception out of the FDA and into drugstore retail counters.
Now to men this may seem like not much, but to lots of women is tense circumstances it's a very big deal.
She was absolutely crucial in achieving that. The FDA threw endless roadblocks in front of her and she kept on going and got it done....in the face of the vehement opposition of the religious right.
She also has never not shown up for a difficult bill on abortion. Not showing up is the same as voting present in Illinois.
And Obama voted present on scores of other bills on lots of other difficult issues in Illinois. Bills in which no activist group had a strategy to deploy. That totally undermines the fact that he voted present only to help Planned Parenthood. It does validate that it was a strategy to advance his own future political oppurtunities.
It tells you something truthful about him.
So I very much resent the fact that you think this mailer is misleading. Your response is misleading because it's based on ignorance.
January 5, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And so, deb, you think Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers and supporters are your main enemies?
Pogo was right.
Best, Terry
January 6, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. There's nothing wrong with going on the offense, if your opponent has a chink in his armor.
Hillary's (and Bill's) problem is she keeps being offensive, to the intelligence of voters. I hate to break it to her, but this isn't 1992. We can Google this stuff now. Her lying through her teeth isn't helping her.
Would somebody please tell her that? Somebody explain the series of tubes to Mark Penn, so that if Obama is struck by lightening and she gets the nomination by default, she knows not to keep forcefully pitching herself on her own sword with such amazing regularity and zeal.
At what point is she going to get sick of her own foot, and just start going to debates with Kerry's foot in her mouth?
January 5, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink