Huh?
We understand that the Clintons want to raise Obama's negatives. They have been doing it for weeks now, most pointedly in encouraging surrogates like Billy Shaheen and, famously, Bill Clinton to inject racial stereotypes into the voters' calculus.
But what is the point of attacking Obama for not debating his rival in Wisconsin or for giving good speeches or for swapping metaphors with Duval Patrick?
If we have to have still more debates, we are going to have a hard time keeping the electorate awake for the rest of this campaign. The voting is entrancing; the speeches are awesome; the crowds are stunning; the debates are the least interesting or illuminating aspect of the whole campaign. I understand that if the Clintons are short on money, they would want debates to substitute for the advertisements they can't buy. But buying ad time to complain about the lack of debates is passing strange.
Complaining in a speech about the rival's speeches seems self-cancelling to me. Nor does a silver-tongued (if occasionally red-faced) orator like Bill Clinton make a good advocate against the importance of speeches; where would he be if he couldn't use the spoken word to reduce his enemies to speechlessness?
And if sitting around the telephonic campground with Patrick and exchanging words, images, and phrases is a violation of the governor's intellectual property rights (which, by the way, Patrick doesn't assert), then what have the Clintons been doing with speechwriters for the last three decades? Maybe Senator Clinton would have done well to have used her own material more often, but she can hardly claim that she's never used someone else's handiwork. Even in writing her own books she's depended, to a debated and probably far from total way, on other people's words and phrases.
So what's the theme here? We are told by Clinton campaign sources -- and we do need help understanding, I admit -- that the purpose of these attacks is to challenge Obama's authenticity. Authenticity is of course the issue with Senator Clinton; what she truly believes, would do as President, and is like as a person is a mystery that her long and exhaustive campaign has heightened, rather than dispelled. It is part of the Karl Rove playbook to attack the rival on the grounds where one is weak; the best defense is a good offense. Consequently, since she is subject to the charge of inauthenticity, she wishes to level that accusation against Obama.
But for the Clintons all connections to the Bush clan so far have been unfortunate. She shouldn't have voted for the President's war; her husband shouldn't have been a partner with Bush I in giving speeches or raising money for tsunami relief; the two of them missed the mood of the Democratic Party and now 70% of the nation in neglecting to express early and often disapproval of the current President. To imitate Bush's political agent seems part of making the same mistake.
I am not saying that it is a mistake for the Clintons to try to go on the offense. But that petty, illogical and distracting attacks -- the ones chosen by the Clintons now -- remind Democrats of what the Bush team did to Gore and Kerry. That's why I believe they will redound to the discredit of Senator Clinton. As an early and confirmed Obamanic, I know I've lost perspective, but soon the voters themselves will decide.
I agree with you about everything except the debate point. The reason you want to dismiss the debate point is that you're an Obama supporter who knows that the debate is Hillary's strongest format. She has more knowledge at her fingertips than he does. It's simply her strong suit. So she should be trying to goad him into more debates. Problem for her is that the challenger is the one who tries to get the champ in the ring, not the other way around. I worry that she's acting like a challenger.
But maybe that's her clever ruse. If everybody loved the underdog Obama in the end then Clinton is trying to steal his underdog status and the sympathy of the rest of the primary voters.
February 18, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton has been doing all sorts of things lately that seem aimed at hurting Democrats and damaging Obama's fall campaign prospects. Among them are:
1. Openly mocking and undermining Howard Dean's national fifty state strategy with a string of dismissive statements about how various states and their voters don't count.
2. Jumping on the bandwagon with the recent McCain campaign financing charges, which seem aimed at either undermining Obama's fundraising prowess and advantage over McCain, or at providing political cover for McCain to ditch his own public financing pledges.
3. Using Bill Clinton to help promote an anti-Obama generational divide, something else that plays into McCain's hands in the fall.
4. Engaging in a number of attacks that are not even comparative, but seem strictly aimed at raising Obama's negatives.
It's beginning to look like Clinton is running for 2012 rather than 2008, and is doing her best to damage Obama for the fall.
February 18, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mark Penn is the idiot here, not Hillary.
Though I can't for the life of me figure out why he isn't fired. Maybe she's afraid that she can't find somebody who can take over the campaign in the thick of all this?
If so, she's wrong. I could do it. I'd just make a lot of public statements apologizing for Mark Penn while she gave an actual reason for her candidacy and that would probably at least make progress.
It's really sad to see some one I like fall apart because of an out of touch PR man like Mark Penn.
February 18, 2008 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you don't think it reflects poorly on HRC that she hired, and refuses to fire, a known union-busting, Big Oil and Big Tobacco PR flack to run her campaign? It's not like his record is a secret. What happened to "the buck stops here"?
February 19, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just watched the Wisconsin governor make the point on CNN that during the time that the Clinton campaign was running ads complaining that Obama wouldn't debate in Wisconsin, Clinton was not in the state, while Obama has been there everyday since the Potomac primaries.
February 18, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure why that's important... Is she supposed to hang around Wisconsin hoping that Obama mans up for a debate?
February 18, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good Point. You are saying that Hillery comes pre-manned.
Sounds like those pants suit are designed to conceal more that her stout legs!
You may have revealed the Clinton campaign's deep dark secret, that it may be a man on man campaign after all.
February 18, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam,
below is a sample of your charges against Hillary which suggest to me that you scour the right wing chat rooms for your anti Hillary material:
"Good Point. You are saying that Hillery comes pre-manned.
Sounds like those pants suit are designed to conceal more that her stout legs! You may have revealed the Clinton campaign's deep dark secret, that it may be a man on man campaign after all.
Stay together Clinton Cult. After Hillery, you will then be able to emulate those Peron Cultists by electing Jennifer Flowers and Monica Lewiniski.
Facts are facts. Hillary jumped to the head of the line because she is Mrs Bill Clinton.
Mrs Bill Clinton will not release her White House records or her tax returns so we have very little to judge he on.
1993 Health Care Fiasco. White House Travel Dept. Fiasco. Her brothers taking large bribes, while living under her roof, to try and get Presidential pardons for convicted drug traffickers."
This kind of shallow, 'mile wide, half inch deep' commentary is usually found in FreeRepublic.com.
February 19, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Distinctly below the belt, liam, and unnecessary, and I have to say, sexist to boot. "Stout legs"??? Come on. There's plenty to disagree with in HRC's record, policies, and circle of advisors without stooping to this. I've posted plenty on the former. Give the personal stuff, sexism and attacks based on appearance or other meaningless non-issues a rest.
February 19, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
A bit late, but nonetheless welcome.
February 19, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
destor,
Let me explain it to you.
Clinton has been complaining that it is not right of Obama to deprive the voters of Wisconsin the opportunity to see him in action.
Obama has been in Wisconsin up-close and in action with the voters of Wisconsin while Clinton was working on her firewall in Texas.
Look, Clinton is clamoring for debates because she's good at debating and she needs the free exposure. Obama, with more money, from a purely strategic point of view, would be foolish to assist Clinton in obtaining the free exposure.
February 18, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I see what you're saying. But it seems a weak argument. She's saying that those voters need to see them go head to head one more time. You're right, she's saying that for the self serving reason that the debate is the one format that seems to favor her so far. But it's fair for her to say, "I think you all should get a debate between us and since that won't happen, I have an appointment elsewhere," without it being a contradiction.
But let's face it, we're both reach here. She wants to debate because she's a good debater. He'd rather give speeches because he's a good speaker. Who could blame either of them?
February 18, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly blame neither. It's a campaign; and one, I think, that has been relatively tame and civil.
It's late in the campaign and things are not going in the Clinton campaign's direction, so they're becoming a bit more strident to try to knock the Obama campaign off its game.
It's how the game is played.
It seems that the Clinton campaign has made some serious strategic errors, believing that things would be wrapped up by Feb 5 being probably the most serious.
February 18, 2008 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
We agree. We're just pulling for different candidates. Either way, see you at Crush McCain Time(TM) in the general.
February 18, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed.
February 18, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the Clinton campaign management's belief that it would be (sorry) mission accomplished on or before 2/5 was the fatal flaw. Heads should roll over it.
Obama's campaign management quickly did a post-mortem on NH and adjusted accordingly. They've made other mistakes but haven't blindly pressed on with the same tactics regardless of outcome.
Finally, Clinton's high negative polling numbers have been a persistent problem for her. I'm not sure if her campaign realized that as November gets closer and closer, electability becomes a bigger and bigger issue in the minds of voters.
February 19, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are still two more debates coming up. I'm guessing that what Clinton is after here is not mere exposure, or a chance to show off her overrated knowledge of policy detail. Like many trailing candidates, her hope now is to use a debate to lob face-to-face verbal bombs and manufacture some ugly fracas which will drag Obama down into the mud with her, and if she is lucky provoke some Obama gaffe.
February 18, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Mrs. Clinton's campaign is unsure exactly how to slow down Obama's momentum. They are throwing mud to see if any sticks. This will hurt her in Wisconsin, Ohio and maybe Pennsylvania and Texas. Many voters don't love Obama, but really hate HRC. She is giving those voters reasons to vote against her.
February 18, 2008 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reed,
Well said. At least this one part: “As an early and confirmed Obamanic, I know I've lost perspective, but soon the voters themselves will decide.” As for the rest, what are you talking about?
It is taken as gospel truth that Clinton campaign played the race card when, if anything, it was played against them. Every assertion by the Clinton camp is derided as a smear or laughable distortion or calculating trick. The double standard for Clinton is appalling.
Here you assert that debates are less valuable than campaign speeches (written by others, even). Campaign speeches, inspiring to the adoring crowds, are little more than scripted commercials. Debates are our only real chance to get at what the candidates are about, short of real investigative journalism into their careers, which is almost non-existent. But since it is Clinton requesting debates, they are now characterized as meaningless, boring and uninformative.
Obama used someone else’s words without attribution in a speech about the importance of words. Now I know he has a well-honed sense of irony, but I somehow doubt he was using it in this speech. And you imply that Clinton has plagiarized or used ghostwriters on her books. I’ve never heard that, do you have sources? Reed, take a breath and reconsider your position. Is it really “petty, illogical and distracting” to call for a debate or question plagiarism in a speech about words?
February 18, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to see more debates and less commercials, actually.
February 18, 2008 8:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me, too. I wonder if either candidate will be sporting a little twang when they come down to Austin in a couple of weeks. They just announced this morning that Obama was coming to our town (Hillary was here last week). I was making plans to attend this morning, mainly because I love good speeches. But I have no interest in going now. Obama’s appropriation of someone else’s words is, without question, plagiarism. The fact that fellow “Yes, We’re Canned” politician, Deval Patrick, said after the fact that they share ideas does not mitigate Obama’s passing off someone else’s words as his own. Obama is accused of lifting slogans like “Si Se Puede” and sections from other speeches. And it is more of a breech with him because he has created a movement based on his inspiring oratory. I’m not in the least surprised that Obamanics or the media frame this as honest appropriation or irrelevant. I think hope is blind.
February 18, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
In terms of HRC and Ghostwriting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_takes_a_village
Scroll down to the "Ghostwriter Controversy" section and it references several sources in regards to how HRC didn't give credit to her ghostwriter.
While he may have "sampled" Patrick's "Just Words" riff, he's referred to this notion of HRC diminishing Obama's rhetoric in other speeches in Wisconsin. As stated in other comments, Patrick and Obama are good friends and have the same campaign manager. It's possible that Patrick suggested to him to go with that rhetorical tack in the important Founder's Day speech.
But hey, it's part of the game. And HRC got her blowback today since the nightly news showed her copping other speeches, as well as referring to the fact that she's stolen Obama's "change" theme. If your opponent calls you out for being too good of a speaker, that's a high class problem.
February 18, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link. I was thinking of “It Takes a Village…” when I asked that. That is pretty sleazy. How does it even detract form an author to acknowledge that someone assisted in writing a book? I think it’s borderline fraudulent on HRC’s part and doesn’t leave her standing to accuse Obama along those lines.
As far as Obama is concerned, I didn’t hear of the story until I read Reed’s post and then googled it. I didn’t read much of either the Clinton or Obama camps spins on the subject. But Patrick implied that they didn’t specifically discuss Obama quoting this passage, just that they shared ideas and strategies generally. Reciting specific quotes or paraphrases is a different animal. I'm sure Julius Caesar ran on "change" and it may be low to cop campaign ideas but it's not unethical in politics.
A quick definition of plagiarism (also from Wiki):
Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement. Unlike cases of forgery, in which the authenticity of the writing, document, or some other kind of object itself is in question, plagiarism is concerned with the issue of false attribution.
Sounds like it to me.
February 18, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to add (or expand on) two more points:
(1) Plagiarism is not about intellectual property rights. Permission to copy has nothing to do with it. If I give permission to someone to let them copy my answers on a test, it's still cheating—even though I gave them permission.
(2) In academia, plagiarism is (now) taken very seriously. There are very strict guidelines about when you need to cite quotations (more than 3 words), citing paraphrased materials, and even giving proper attribution for the ideas themselves. Part of these guidelines are designed to give the reader additional material they can read if they want to delve deeper, and part of these guidelines is about giving credit where credit's due. In politics, however, plagiarism (by academic standards) is so common place that it's misleading to call it plagiarism. Just as with much of academia in the 19th century, there's often an assumption that when you use someone else's words that the audience knows whose words you're using (or they at least think they do—as others have pointed out, those famous speeches that are so often quoted/paraphrased included quotes/paraphrases from previous speeches by less famous figures). There are no well defined rules for how to cite previous speeches, even if you wanted to. (For that matter, until the advent of PowerPoint, most academic speeches weren't likely to provide proper citation when they took material from other sources.) I know many people have given examples of how he could have cited the previous speech, but the truth of the matter is that this is not common practice in speech-making.
February 19, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
You’re points are well taken, Ben, and I agree that politics is not academia. Things are not as rigorous or ordered in politics, and I don’t belong to an organized party- I’m a Democrat! Maybe I should have said, “As Twain often claimed, “I don’t belong to an organized party…” You see, citing the source of a quote isn’t too demanding if you really want to let the audience know who the author is. And I doubt anyone in the Wisconsin audience where Obama spoke those words (as if they were his own) knew of Patrick’s 2006 speech.
No one is asking for footnotes, parenthetical citations or MLA formatted Works Cited pages; just something like, “My good friend Deval Patrick says…” Hey, John McCain cites his sources (“You know that Beach Boys song, ‘Bomb, bomb Iran’”). Obama is just a politician running for president and shouldn’t be pilloried over this, but he is just a politician running for president and shouldn’t get a free pass, either. And those raising the question of plagiarism, even his political opponents, shouldn’t be mocked because it is not a trivial allegation pulled out of a hat.
I’m not saying this is some big deal like a peer-reviewed paper for a prestigious journal or a SOTU speech, but it is common and expected that speakers will reference sources when quoting them (ask Joe Biden). It does call into question Obama’s reputation for authenticity as a great orator. No politician in American history has exploded onto the national scene on the basis of a speech like Obama. More politicians have created big movements based largely on promoting change through speeches and many have turned out to be hollow campaigns. His inspirational, motivational speaking is a large part of his campaign and this speech in particular was about the power of words, his words, so it does matter that he has been loose with truth.
February 19, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very well said, as usual, Don. The politics of democratic party destruction.
February 19, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plagarism is stealing. His friend had used those quotes to great effect, and passed them on to Obama. Yes, it would have been better to give attribution, but this really isn't Plagarism, and I think you are trying desperately hard to demonize Obama.
The person whose quotes he used did not object. Why do you?
February 19, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jan,
I agree. Plagiarism is stealing- stealing credit. That's what I object to. Maybe I am trying too hard to criticize Obama but only as a backstop to the unwarranted criticism of Clinton and the Obama worship. I’m not trying to demonize Obama but bring him down from the pedestal he’s been placed on. The distorted coverage and giddy threads stoning HRC on TPM prompts a response that, perhaps, swings too far to the other side. But his actions as a state and US senator have shown him to be pretty close to Clinton, a centrist middling establishment politician who compromises with big money players, not a populist progressive bent on drastic change.
Either candidate is solidly democratic and will govern from left of center (which has moved even further to the right) and will at least stop the hemorrhaging of the Constitution. At the same time, neither has used their position to oversee, roll back, or prosecute Bush’s power-grabbing crimes, mismanagement, incompetence and giveaways to the corporate elite. Obama plagiarized Patrick’s words. Anyone expert in plagiarism from an academic, journalistic, or legal perspective knows that this was plagiarism, plain and simple.
The context of this plagiarism is a candidate for the highest office in the world who has established a large following through persuasive speaking, speaking to the issue of authenticity vs. sloganeering, which makes it an even more culpable offense. I know the media and sites like TPM won’t criticize at Obama (right now, anyway) and I realize I’m just raining on the parade. But I really hate to see Democrats suckered into fawning over pie-in-the-sky promoter even more than Republicans and Southern Dems fawning over Reagan’s hucksterism (not that Obama is anything like Reagan except as a feel-good speaker). And I’m not saying he should be drummed out like Biden, who made a more innocent mistake, but people should at least take his great speechifyin' with a grain of salt and stop acting like any legitimate criticism is a slur or campaign smear.
February 19, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mrs Bill Clinton is still running TV spots in Wisconsin, this evening, demanding that Senator Obama meet her for a debate last Friday.
How would that work. Have the Clintons got their hands on The Way Back Machine?
February 18, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clinton campaign is just trying to land a pump that will resonate with the voters. King of like a prize fighter trailing in points in the late rounds trying to throw a knock out punch.
February 18, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, responses are clearly partisan at this point. So, I might as well admit I prefer Obama... As to the Clinton attacks, who cares? She is old news, and not relevant anymore. Is she still running? The more she airs grievances against Obama now, the less they will bite against Obama in November. And, it will be Obama in November. Let her at it. Obama needs to take the high road.
February 18, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree with the consensus that debates favor Hillary.
I have seen all the debates, and can only think of 1 moment that Obama didn't do well, and it wasn't that big. On the Other Hand I can think of 3 instances that weren't kind to Hillary.
It may be that the debates are Hillary's best areas, in comparison to her speeches, books, record, and misleading ads. I don't think that gives her a leg up on Obama.
He does fine in debates. Hes smart, and specific, and bobs and weaves with the best of them. I think that Hillary's strategy of hyping the debate factor may backfire on her, in the same way her Texas fire wall may back fire.
With all of her hype, Obama dose not have to "win" to make her look bad. Keeping things close to even in Texas, and a even debate may do more to point out her hype, than make Obama look bad.
February 18, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
One would expect Obama to improve his debate performance, and even if Clinton is already good at it she will only see Obama close any gap.
February 18, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mrs Bill Clinton became desperate for more free TV time after she pissed away the huge campaign war chest that she had collected from the Washington Corporate Lobbyists.
Senator Obama managed his small donations campaign funds, and did not have to resort to trying to change the rules, like Hillery always seems to do.
The Wisconsin debate was something Mrs Bill Clinton pulled out of her desperately broke arse, and was never on the previously agreed to primary debate schedule.
February 18, 2008 8:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only one pulling things out of their arse, is you.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.asp
According to open secrets, as of December, (the last month they have reporting on-January numbers come out in 3 days), Obama raised less and spent more than Clinton, overall, and Clinton has more cash on hand.
But hey, go ahead and continue with your ugly, sexist lies. They only confirm what it is about Obama's fanatics that make so many uneasy.
February 18, 2008 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just wish this guy would spell her name correctly.
February 18, 2008 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"her husband shouldn't have been a partner with Bush I in giving speeches or raising money for tsunami relief"
i am not a fan of Mr Clinton, but how would
raising money for tsunami relief be one of the reasons?
February 18, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton had a choice to make a few years ago: he could chose to be an ex-President, who goes around advancing the interests of his country, or he could chose to remain a Democratic politician, who works to replace the Republican administration with a Democratic one with his choice as President. When he ran around holding hands with the elder Bush, working for tsunami relief and other causes, he made the choice to be an ex-President.
But, then Hillary became a leading candidate for the presidency and Bill did an abrupt 180 degree turn back to being just a Democratic politician. That bothered many of us, at least in a vague, uneasy sense. It still bothers me to hear our ex-President, a Democrat, attacking a Democratic candidate for president. It is, at best, in bad taste.
February 18, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right about that vague uneasiness. Bush's disastrous presidency combined with the intransigence of the republican congress made us want a clean sweep.
I have an image stuck in my head of Bill Clinton riding around in a gold cart with Bush 41. At the time Bush 41 was president, while I didn't agree with his politics, I at least thought he was competent to be president. But Bush 43 has tarnished his father's image as well as the republican party's image, not to mention the country's image abroad so now that golf cart image leaves me with a vague uneasiness too.
February 19, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rats! I posted twice and with a typo to boot.
gold cart = golf cart
February 19, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I liked your analysis, Reed. It helps explain the inexplicable and petty attacks. I don't think they're penetrating the electorate here. Unless they boomerang and come back to haunt her.
February 18, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a lifelong resident of the Gulf Coast and witness to the devastation of many hurricanes, I vehemently disagree with your point regarding the work Clinton and Bush did for Katrina Relief. I felt that this was a wonderful example of the passion of the American people to move beyond partisan divisions and contribute to a cause that affected millions of Americans. This single act reminded me that we are humans first and foremost, and that Progressives and Conservatives can find common ground.
Are you proposing that moving beyond partisan divisions to help hurricane victims "missed the mood of the Democratic party"? If not, then why did you so callously lump this point into an unrelated issue like the Iraq War? Were you just hoping to score an unnecessary political point?
I don't care who you are supporting. Speaking ill toward Presidents Bush I and Clinton for working together is absolutely and utterly offensive. Clinton (and his political strategists) had little to gain politically from doing this. But residents of the Gulf Coast did benefit from the united front represented by these two leaders from very different worlds. I hope that you take the time to read this and reconsider your feelings toward everybody who contributed something toward this nonpartisan cause. If not, then at least refrain from referencing it for divisive political gain.
February 18, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it's pretty obvious that Clinton already knew BO wouldn't agree to a debate in WI and is just using it as a line to fling at him ("Why won't BO explain his positions to the people of WI" etc., ad nauseum). So no one in the state of WI has cable where they could have watched the EIGHTEEN previous debates? GMAFB. I, for one, look forward to the upcoming two agreed upon debates to watch her squirm her way through another tortured non-answer answer to the question (which WILL be asked) of why she voted to allow Dumbya to start his little war.
"Dan, I will not be ignored!"
February 18, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The more Hillary and company throw mud at Obama, the dirty they get.
February 18, 2008 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
As an Obamaphile, you don't want him to have any more direct exposure to Senator Clinton, and as the candidate who is behind, she is anxious to get that access. It's the nature of campaign. If you think that there are too many debates, then that should have been a concern when we were having those foolish 'debates' with bizarre questions posted on line in places like YouTube by so called interested citizens. As for me, I want some more debates between the two of them, the same as I want debates between the R & the D nominees for the Fall election. As for the logic, or propriety of the attacks and tactics by the Clinton campaign, just remember, when it was one of them being attacked by the Republicans, you were only too happy for them to operate that way, and described them as political geniuses. The only difference is that now they are the opposition to your candidate.
February 18, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
workerbee:
You write: "According to open secrets, as of December, (the last month they have reporting on-January numbers come out in 3 days), Obama raised less and spent more than Clinton, overall, and Clinton has more cash on hand.
But hey, go ahead and continue with your ugly, sexist lies."
Actually, llam is right. The numbers you cite are from 2007, but if you do remember, on Feb. 6 Ms. Clinton revealed she had to "loan herself" $5M... which, of course, reveals a "desperately broke arse". It's not the language I'd personally use, but if you hung around men at all, you'd know that this type of language is not used with regards to women, but also to other men as well.
There's nothing else in llam's post that suggests "sexist lies".
You seem to be seeing sexism in every negative criticism of your candidate.
February 18, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, the guy that calle Edwards "the candidate with the white penis" was being sexist, but on the whole, I thi nnk it's been a lot worse for Hillary.
Shameful, actually. Especially the apologists that try to turn it around and basically say, "shut up and iron my shirt, bitch."
What was it you were trying to say again?
February 19, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most entertaining debate was the one before South Carolina, with The Two Senators squabbling and John Edwards playing the grown up in the room.
Maybe they could hold a debate in the week before Ohio, with John Edwards asking the questions, and if one of them doesn't show, he endorses the other one.
February 19, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I personally have never been able to watch debates. It's all about "gotcha" - hoping to trip up your opponent to saying something stupid that can be used against her/him (Dole's "all wars were Democratic wars", the Bentsen/Quayle "you're no JFK" remark. It's never about the content - that's pretty much known already - it's always analzyed in the media of who scored more points. I cannot remember any time when debating skills were important to the performance of a president. Why debates are considered to be so important I'll never know.
That being said, I think Obama's been holding back on Clinton. If her attacks start to work, perhaps he needs to go on the attack, too - like pointing out that she's full of bunk with her "ready on day one" line. She screwed up health care reform in '93, she and Bill lost Congress to the Republicans in '94 in a landslide, she supported NAFTA, she can't run a campaign, etc. She says she's been through the Republican wringer, but she ain't seen nothing yet. She hasn't been through it since '96 and there's a lot of water under the bridge since then - New York senatorial races were a cakewalk in a liberal state. We saw the impact of Republicans on them in '94. If it had been a decent candidate in '96, they might not have survived.
February 19, 2008 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton keeps up with the public financing and plagiarism attacks, Obama might be able to wrap up the next debate with a quick "I know you are, but what am I?"
February 19, 2008 8:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that, you know, Senator Obama...um...when he's in a black mood...and feeling oppressed...uh...launches these kind of attacks, saying things, you know, that..uh...no decent person would say...to boost his appeal. But I think, umm, you know, this kind of gamesmenship is not what the American people are looking for...
February 19, 2008 8:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now that he's the frontrunner he wants to avoid debats. Hmmm... sounds like a political move don't you think.
Don't you think that when talk is your main quality, and when people are hard pressed to name your accomplishments besides oratory, you should at least be able to create and to improvise?
February 19, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Except that Hillary was quoted in The Honolulu Advertiser as saying:
Talk's cheap. Let's look at the track record.
Oh, crap. Nevermind. Let's debate, please?
February 19, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's attacking her too. It's just more subtle. Her (campaign's) attacks are more obvious.
Reminds me of something a friend of mine said to me once. Her teenaged son and daughter had skipped school one day, she found out and confronted them with the following line 'If you are going to give me an excuse, don't insult my intelligence with a lame one'.
Sometimes the Clinton's tactics insult my intelligence with their obviousness.
February 19, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only people who continually bring up race are the Obama surrogates who see racism in every single remark, comment and statement.
February 19, 2008 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's rich. How often do you hear someone being accused of being racist if they don't support Obama? Now, how often do you hear someone being accused of being sexist if they don't support Hillary?
Exactly.
February 19, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I haven't seen anyone accusing Obama supporters of being sexist if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.
February 19, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, don't you just love the passive aggressive subtlety of the Obama campaign? Such a wonderful indication of character.
February 19, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard people, most especially in the media, accused of sexism because of specific words, arguments and actions -- but I have never heard anyone in the Clinton campaign suggest that supporting Obama was sexist. Can you please give some examples?
February 19, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say it was coming from the Clinton campaign. It's not unusual here on TPM, but the NY NOW comes close to doing just that. (I know, it was the gist of his speech that was somehow sexist, and not just that he was supporting Obama.)
February 19, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are willing to burn down the Village, and to hell with saving the child, if that is what it takes to get their way.
They are now desperate, so they have decided to engage in the politics of personal destruction.
It will not do them any good. Even if they win the nomination, the African American community will not forget how the Clintons went about destroying the good name of Senator Obama, and they will not come out for Mrs. Bill Clinton in November.
That will have a ripple effect down the line, which will lead to the Democrats not gaining in the House and Senate.
The Clintons will have turned over the Congress to the Republicans once again.
The Clintons do not care about that. If they can not have their way, they will destroy the party, again.
Bill Clinton is trailer trash with a college veneer. His lecherous life style belongs more on Jerry Springer than in our White House.
February 19, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Bill Clinton is trailer trash with a college veneer."
Who is indulging in the politics of "personal destruction?"
I hope you are one of those "independents" or "moderate Republicans" that the Obama campaign is courting -- because such ugly classism coming from supporters who claim to be "progressive" is approaching the final straw for me, and quite a few other people, in terms of our willingness to trust or support Democrats in the future.
February 19, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, me too. Because whenever I see "ugly classism", the first thought I have is to stop electing Democrats. LMAO. And then the second thought I have is, wait, maybe I'm replying to a 7th-grader.
February 19, 2008 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are going to excuse it in Democrats? Shame on you.
February 19, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, but I might be willing to put up with a few trash-talking democrats if the party looked to be the best home for folks like me looking to get some progressive policies in place.
Or, maybe I should just run with your idea that by ignoring trash-talk from one democrat it means we're excusing it in all democrats, and the only valid response is to change my voting preference 'cuz somebody somewhere on the internets was talking mean. Sounds like a plan.
February 19, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mrs Bill Clinton claims that Senator Obama is too inexperienced to be able to compete against the Republican nominee.
Mrs.Bill Clinton touts her thirty five years experience as the reason that she is better prepared to compete against the Republican nominee.
Mrs. Bill Clinton, to date, has won less delegates, and far less of the popular vote than Senator Obama.
Since she is having trouble competing with a candidate that she claims is too inexperienced, isn't Mrs. Bill Clinton thereby admitting that all she has accumulated is thirty five years of useless incompetence.
Since Mrs. Bill Clinton has not being able to easily best the candidate that she claims will be a pushover for the Republicans, isn't she therefore revealing that she would be the Republican's Dream Pushover Opponent.
February 19, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Chino blanco --
A party that makes excuses for bigotry -- of any kind -- and puts forward candidates who are willing to profit from it, isn't ever going to do a damn thing except pay lip service to progressive issues.
Furthrmore, Obama supporters can't argue on the one hand that any Democrat is better than no Democrat and yet argue on the other that a Clinton is no different from a Bush.
February 19, 2008 12:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who are you arguing with? Me? Or your own straw men?
C'mon, if you're gonna call me out by name, could you at least have the courtesy to reply to an argument I've actually made. If you rather prefer to argue with yourself, no need to call me out to play, is there?
February 19, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I might be willing to put up with a few trash-talking democrats if the party looked to be the best home for folks like me looking to get some progressive policies in place"
That quote, from you, is the argument I was replying to.
"trash talking" on the basis of gender and class isn't acceptable in a party that claims to be progressive. Being willing, for political expediency, to "put up with" such bigotry (most especially, as long as it isn't aimed at "folks like me") IS excusing it. Expecting progressive values and policies to prevail in a party that excuses and "puts up with" such attitudes is unrealistic.
February 19, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The NY chapter of NOW didn't come anywhere near to calling people who don't support Clinton sexists, it called Edward Kennedy an asshole...or words to that effect.
February 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink