The Clinton Attack Plan
The Clintons will attack Obama in harsh, personal terms for two main reasons: they hope to attract attention from the media, which they need to overcome Obama's advantages in paid ads, free media coverage (like the extraordinary coverage of his extraordinary Houston speech last night), and field organization, and they want to instill doubts about Obama in the voters in Ohio and Texas who threaten to follow the pattern of the last ten votes, where in the last few days across all demographic groups there has been a decisive change of mind among the Clinton-leaners to move to the Obama side.
The attention-seeking will work. The free media, especially the cable shows, will report the Clintons' charges. The allegations may be straight from the Rove playbook -- illogical, self-contradictory, twisted, trivial. But whatever they are, they will be reported. In a sense, it is the news that Mrs. Clinton and her sharp-tongued surrogates want to make and so they deserve the coverage.
But
will the attention inure to her benefit? Will it actually stop voters from moving to Obama, the way they have done now in vote after vote, across all demographics, in a clear sign that overall he is a much more popular candidate?
The first problem is that Mrs. Clinton does not do this sort of attack very well. She claims, for instance, that she is not doing it, even when her own campaign is orchestrating the calumny, as in the case of the charges of plagiarism. She does not project leadership when she attempts to imbue minor policy debates with momentous significance. She does not show a sense of humor. She verges on appearing to be nasty. She seems to be demeaning Obama, which makes her seem desperate. And her husband always did a brilliant job on the offense when he was the candidate, but has not figured out how to do attacks for her.
The second problem is the nature of the attacks themselves. So far, there is no there there. A speechmaker cannot successfully criticize a rival for giving speeches. Someone who copied the call for change cannot complain that a rival used a word or phrase someone else used. Successful attacks in politics usually depend on policy differences that can be used to explain a choice that voters can make. But the policy differences between Clinton and Obama for the most part favor Obama -- Mrs. Clinton spent too much time hammering out her position in the middle of the political spectrum to be able now to get to Obama's left, where she probably thinks the voters of Ohio lie.
The third problem is the repugnant nature of the racial attack theme launched by the Clintons in advance of the South Carolina primary. It was intended to galvanize support among older whites and all Hispanics. Instead, it has turned many in the media against the Clintons, has encouraged more donations to Obama, helped generate huge turn-out against Mrs. Clinton among people of color, and has hardly put Mrs. or Mr. Clinton in a flattering light.
Still, Mrs. Clinton will attack. The issue for Obama is how to respond. He will be attacked both by her and John McCain over the next two weeks. They will go low and will be outrageous. It will be an unorchestrated but vicious tag-team affair. The key for Obama is to respond quickly and accurately, not to overreact or underestimate the impact. He must be humble enough to seek the voters' support, not demand it or expect it, and proud enough to hit back against her and McCain rapidly and strongly. He needs to stay on the offense. All this is very difficult. It is not harder than what he has been through, but it is very difficult.
We are all Obamaniacs in my family and we want him to win. So we believe he can manage this critical test. It is, after all, a foretaste of what the Republican attack machine will do for the next eight months -- yes, for eight straight months they will go after him. Mrs. Clinton is right in at least one statement: she has faced this sort of attack for a long time and weathered it. So must Barack Obama. It won't be fair and fairness has nothing to do with the charges he will face.
Clintons attack. Racially charged. Repugnant. Go low, be outrageous. Desperate, nasty, demeaning. Rovian.
Well gee....aren't you original.
Way to put to bed the notion that Obama supporters are simply irrational and mindless. You "want him to win" and therefore you "believe?" Says it all.
You unthinking hack.
February 20, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Touchy, aren't we?
February 20, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, you gotta admit. Kind of nasty. And from an admitted foe, it seems more like slander than analysis. Just sayin...
February 20, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exacty.
February 20, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's "exacty" mean, exactly?
February 20, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons have developed a reputation for selfishness and negativity during this campaign that is continuing to turn voters off, as exit polls seemed to show in Wisconsin.
In state of after state, Clinton's graceless primary night speeches give the back of the hand to voters. She doesn't thank the people who voted for her; she doesn't thank the people who volunteered for her; she doesn't congratulate her opponent and his supporters. They are all immediately forgotten. And you can then count on someone in her campaign to come out with a statement over the next few days about how all those people and their hard work fail to count for anything. For the Clintons and some of their most dedicated supporters, you're either with them or against them, and if your state doesn't pay the Clintons the respect of voting for them, it apparently gets cast into flames as part of the vast anti-Clinton conspiracy. The aspirations of loyal Democrats in red states who labor for years in an uphill battle against Republicans are openly ridiculed if they don't deliver a victory for Hillary Clinton.
It's this kind of look-out-for-number-one mentality that lost them the support of people like John Kerry, who thinks the Clintons didn't chip in enough to help the team back in 2004, so that they could prepare their own run in 2008.
The problem is that it is becoming apparent that Clinton has little record of actual accomplishment to run on. She has a thin record in the Senate and is apparently responsible for no major legislative achievements. The Clinton health care initiative she took charge of in in the 90's was a failure. And even her campaign is looking like a tactical and organizational failure. And this undermines her promises about the things she will do in the future, since she hasn't delivered in the past. She's got nothing left to offer but attacks.
If Hillary Clinton is seen as spitefully trying to pull down Obama with her as she exits the arena, to the detriment of the party and the Democrats' chances in the fall, there is going to be a large rallying to Obama, and a more organized effort by party leaders to put a fork in her campaign once and for all.
February 20, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton and McCain are going to be a "tag-team," then it seems the obvious thing to "connect" those dots for the voters.
Indeed, I can imagine the "cartoon" where you follow the numbers and connect the dots... and find McCain and Clinton in an embrace or some such.
February 20, 2008 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons have developed a reputation for selfishness and negativity during this campaign that is continuing to turn voters off, as exit polls seemed to show in Wisconsin.
Has it ever occurred to you that that reputation is undeserved and that the reason why voters say such things at exit polls is because the Smear Campaign against the Clinton's by the media has actually worked.
Why do so many people believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11 EVEN Today?
In short what the people believe about things involving public affairs can (and is) easily manipulated by the media propaganda machine.
All that is thought by the public about public figures comes to them not by personal knowledge of these people but by the Media. Meditate on that for a while. It sounds like a truism but it has deep significance
February 20, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons have developed a reputation for selfishness and negativity during this campaign that is continuing to turn voters off, as exit polls seemed to show in Wisconsin.
Has it ever occurred to you that that reputation is undeserved and that the reason why voters say such things at exit polls is because the Smear Campaign against the Clinton's by the media has actually worked.
Why do so many people believe that Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9-11 EVEN Today?
In short what the people believe about things involving public affairs can (and is) easily manipulated by the media propaganda machine.
All that is thought by the public about public figures comes to them not by personal knowledge of these people but by the Media. Meditate on that for a while. It sounds like a truism but it has deep significance
February 20, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton should just give it up there is no way she can change the image of being a scripted phony. She could bow out and still show some class. Or she can bloody Obama and be seen as a mini McWar I mean McCain. Yeah McCain's a FREAK!!! The whole 3rd Bush term is creepy and what pride McCain shows when he was with HW was pathetic. You saw HW's face even he thinks McCain is creepy. LOL
I do enjoy the new attack of Obama the questioning his accomplishments. Like being a failed businessman and TX Gov worked out so well for us. BWHAAAAHAAAHAA!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/02/19/larry-king-david-frum-is-told-his-kettle-is-black/
The ending is great.
February 20, 2008 8:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The surrogates are already attacking in Ohio.
Friends are forwarding the emails circulating now, showing pictures of an Obama headquarters (unnamed, except for Obama posters and signs, but highlighting the "Che Guevara" poster on the wall. All the usual memes about not covering his heart with his hand or refusing to mouth the pledge of allegiance because "he's one of them mooslims that wants to turn our great country over to Islamofascists" carries some weight in the "beer and bowling" belt of Ohio.
The damage that these (most probably) unofficial surrogates will do in the name of their candidate will make her sense of desperation palpable to most, while feeding the intolerant few that will probably end up (IMHO) sitting out or voting for McCain.
Alphonse (Al) Kada
February 20, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recently, I've been using the "reply to all" function and correcting the mistakes I find in them, but I do that at risk of alienating some friends or family. Initially, I was somewhat more diplomatic and only corrected the one sending the original e-mail, but I've decided that I need to try to correct the false impression in anyone who received the original. Another option, of course, is to just ignore them. How do you handle these e-mails? (I encourage anyone/everyone to respond to that question.)
February 20, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since my family and friends have known for quite some time that I'm, uhh, a bit outspoken politically, they are used to my rants against this type of BS. When McCain was savaged in South Carolina, I stood up for him (!), well, just because that type of "negative campaign" (isn't it just great that our political consultant establishment has homogenized racist, sexist, fightin' word slurs into an approved tactic!) demeans the entire political process.
But I can only reach those I know. How many other's have gotten these forwards from someone they trust, and believe them?
Again, IMHO, it's Garbage In, Garbage Out. If your candidate is spewing garbage, voters can rest assured that they will be next in line if that candidate is elected.
Alphonse (Al) Kada
February 20, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll try my best to make an observation or two here that doesn't resort to wrestling-match imagry to make its point. As a Clinton supporter of very long standing (BOTH Clintons), I'm coming slowly and somewhat painfully to the conclusion that this isn't our year.
Not DEEPLY painfully to be honest. I don't look at politics that way anymore, and I guess I have a kind of strained, world-weary sympathy for those who do. I don't have that Manichean sense that there's only ONE true way, and that everything else is at best corrupt, and at worst, evil. That may very well explain why I don't understand the result that seems to be coming.
Nevertheless, "coming" it almost certainly is. The alternative would appear to be a destructive, protracted delegate war, with Sen. Clinton dealing from a weaker position to the extent that winning would be purchased so dearly as to be hard to distinguish from defeat. This won't happen.
I suppose this will limp on thru Texas and Ohio (I wouldn't bet the house on even that), but I suspect that will be the end. Sen. Clinton MUST score major, decisive victories in BOTH those races to continue. That bears repeating, for the record: +10 margins in BOTH states. What's the chances of that in this current environment?
I honestly think the Democratic Party is making a mistake in selling short the most talented and sophisticated political dynasty of our generation (even with the baggage they carry), but only time will tell. It's entirely possible I'm the one who's wrong, and it won't bother me at all to be so proven. On to November!
February 20, 2008 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, a Clinton supporter who basically thinks that my fellow party members are making a mistake with Obama, but I'm coming to accept that I've lost that argument.
I really hope he's not a wimp. That's what I fear about him more than anything else. When it comes to the general, and to dealing with the Republicans after we win the White House, I'd better see some tough Chicago street smarts out of this guy. Less Oprah and more Saul Bellow.
February 20, 2008 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that was brilliant! "Less Oprah, more Saul Bellow." Hear-hear.
I'll be watching.
February 20, 2008 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not me. What part of 'change' don't you get? Why do you want a refreshing change agent to become just another old-style politician? It's not being a 'wimp' to say what you believe, instead of concentrating on negative campaigning about how the other guy is so ignorant, deranged, or corrupt. You are resigned to Barack Obama, but you want him to be just like Hillary. That's the whole point, he's not.
I'm not naive, and I've been around a long time. I'll bet I'm considerably older than the vast majority posting here. But I'm becoming a bigger Obama fan all the time.
February 20, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Change" as in as time passes stuff happens? wow that's deep. So Obama is for "change we can believe in" As opposed to "change we cannot believe in"?
Change does not need anyone's belief to happen and the slogan is as empty as any can be. The lemmings use the conceptual space created by the word "Change" and let their imagination go wild: I will not default in my mortgage, Obama will come to the rescue. The dollar is not going to keep sinking and oil prices will come down to 25 dollars a barrel again, and yes that all this Kumbay change will be brought about by Obama caus, you know, he is the AGENT of POSITIVBE CHANGE himself.
You guys are such dupes it is sad.
February 21, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
It has become very apparent that Hillary Clinton is running as the "Hands On, Ready From Day One" nitpicker!
Hillary turns her back on those who vote for her in the states that she loses. She never thanks them for having come out for her.
Does she not realize that were she to capture the nomination she would need those same people to vote for her again.
Her intentional snubbing of the voters in the places that she got defeated is clear evidence that she is just a self absorbed person, who has no time for even those who have supported her in states where she has lost. That is why the Clintons were willing to throw the African American community to the wolves, for the sake of expediency.
Hillary has a pattern of behaving like that. Look how she turned her back on her friend, Loni Guinier. Hillary was the person who pushed for Loni to be nominated, but after Ms. Guinier's name had to be withdrawn, Hillery never spoke to her again.
Bill and Hillery just use people, and as soon as they no longer need them, they cast them aside.
The voters who voted for Hillary over the last 10 contests should remember that she did not feel that you were worth thanking for your support.
February 20, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's becoming frighteningly clear that the Clintons will do anything to win, even if it means tearing apart the democratic party. Obama is winning, fair and square. If she want to comeback, she needs to fight fairly and with grace and dignity. If she doesn't, she will certainly get nowhere and will bring the rest of the party down with her in her descent.
February 20, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is HRC going negative, under the table so to speak, unexpected? Married to the favorite native son of the former confederate state of Arkansas and home of that other free thinker Mike Huckabee....
The real question is whose 527 group will be worse on Obama...Clinton's or McCain's.....or will there be a difference?????
February 20, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
For most of the past year, I accepted, and even welcomed, the inevitability of Sen. Clinton's candidacy. It seemed to me that the only workable electoral strategy for Democrats was 16 states with a bank shot off of Florida.
Gradually, I changed my mind as I watched Barack Obama attract new voters, young voters, independents, blacks, whites and even working women. He's not eeking out small victories; he's beating the heck out of her by wide margins!
I was a Clinton supporter through all the travails of the 90's - and many were of their own making. But the sight of a former President, one who has had such an enormous impact in his post-incumbency, playing the race card in South Carolina disgusted me. To hear the way Sen. Clinton's campaign has belittled Obama, demanded that Michigan and Florida be ceded to her, and threatened see this campaign resolved in floor fights and back room deals...we'll, suffice it to say I'm more than a little put off.
There was a time when she could have stooped to conquer. Now she's carping, shrill and utterly phony. I'm also afraid that she's about to make things much worse.
I only hope that party leaders will not let this go on much longer.
February 20, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Magisman said.
February 20, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
From hearing them talk way before any of this stuff started, I think the Clintons, victims of a slime machine, spent time formulating the plan that they will fight the repubs on their own level and beat them silly with it. There was also a lot of setting up this "inevitability" thing.
We are seeing the failure of this planning. She is presenting herself as the "scrapper" that will take on the machine. The only trouble is, this is not what people really want in a president. Had enough of this crap thank you. There is a victim mentality in this. Leave that stuff for others to carry out. Perhaps she would be a good choice for VP, ala Spiro Agnew. But do we really want even that? The machine needs to be busted, but not by these candidates.
Now, the inevitability cracks, and with that, down it comes like a dam burst.
I think it is time for her to accept the inevitable. That way some honor can come out of this.
How's about Hillary as a supreme? If there's one thing that will get rid of Scalia, that would probably be it.
dc
February 20, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a very strong Obama supporter, I almost hate to say this, but one of Obama's short term projects needs to be teach Michelle to keep that inner radar running all the time so she does not make too many more gaffes. The gaffes themselves are not that hurtful, but they are yanked out of context, twisted, and then repeated an nauseam.
My amateur psychologist sense of Michelle is that she is a fine surrogate for Obama but she still has a strong need to defend her husband's aspirations. She would be better off just relaxing and being herself, and slacken up on giving speeches and lectures at which she seems very much like a fish out of water. She can seem condescending at times. I saw the video clip of the "I am proud" thing, and it was painful to watch. Talk about the deer in the headlights look.
February 20, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I reference the story about Ms. (first name?) Feinman who wrote It Takes a Village for/with Hillary and never got acknowledged. She did get compensated by the publisher for her work, but Hillary did not give Feinman any credit. In her acknowledgement Hillary said she does want to name any one person for fear of leaving someone out.
February 20, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly can understand those who were Hillary supporters from the beginning. I went into this campaign season with only mild negatives about Hillary, solely from her war votes (and her refusal to say it was wrong).
Once I saw her debate performances, I was more impressed. She's clearly strong in that format, with facts and figures and policies at her fingertips. I started to warm to her a bit.
And then she started to lose elections...and the floor fell out from under her campaign. Each week, they do something to disgust me more. Trying to seat FL and MI, making plagiarism claims, calling him an empty suit... If she wins the nomination, it will be partially due to dirty tricks.
I no longer understand Democrats that support her. They could only do so by turning a blind eye.
February 20, 2008 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, ... he is an empty suit. He is a guy in love with the sound of his own voice. When I watched his Houston speech this morning, I saw a politician giving a brilliant performance. I did not see the next MLK, the next Jesse Jackson or the return of Jesus Christ himself.
I'm sorry that you think that selecting a candidate on the basis of demonstrated ability to work hard for her constituents and deliver on promises is a bad way to choose. Instead, you choose on the basis of "looks good on TV and says what I want to hear."
I happen to think you're wrong.
But hey, he does look good on TV. I'll give you that.
Thanks.
mp
February 20, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Magisman captures my feeling very eloquently. Well said Magisman!
February 20, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, what kind of kills me about these unstopping and seemly unstoppable ad hominem attacks against Hillary Clinton, is that she has demonstrated in her Senate campaigns (two of them) the ability to stump and work the voters and demonstrate her commitment to her job. Her job. She won her first election by convincing Republican upstate voters that she would do the job for them. And she won reelection by a large margin by actually doing her job.
Obama supporters, among whom Mr. Hundt admits his presence, think that this kind of demonstrated hard work is either a joke, or worthless. Somehow, Mr. Hundt thinks, delivering a brilliant stump speech is the equivalent of delivering the votes on legislation. It isn't.
My prediction is that, when President Obama fails to deliver, the Obama-bots will have a ready-made excuse: It wasn't his job.
Thanks.
mp
February 20, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's background on Obama's record. Post it whenever you get the chance. Obama can't afford to be inaccurately defined as a lightweight.
HILLARY VS. OBAMA LEGISLATIVE RECORDS:
During Obama's first (8) eight years of elected service (in Illinois) he sponsored over 820 bills - 233 regarding healthcare reform, 125 on poverty and public assistance, 112 crime fighting bills, 97 economic bills, 60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills, 21 ethics reform bills, 15 gun control, 6 veterans affairs and many others. IN ADDITION, DURING HIS FIRST YEAR IN THE U.S. SENATE, HE AUTHORED 152 BILLS AND CO-SPONSORED ANOTHER 427. THESE INCLUDED:
*The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law)
*The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law)
*The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, (passed by the Senate)
*The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law)
*The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee)
In all, since he entered the US Senate, Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1,096. AN IMPRESSIVE RECORD, FOR SOMEONE WHO SUPPOSEDLY "HAS NO RECORD"
HILLARY CLINTON, WHO HAS SERVED FOR 6 YEARS IN THE U.S. SENATE, AND CLAIMS TO KNOW HOW TO "GET THINGS DONE" HAS MANAGED TO AUTHOR AND PASS NTO LAW ONLY TWENTY (20) PIECES OF LEGISLATION, ONLY FIVE (5) OF WHICH HAVE ANY REAL SUBSTANCE:
1. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
2. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
3. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
4. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
5. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system
http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/mov/fe/oscars08/oscarsballot08_1.pdf
February 20, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's good to have this document. I note that you equate "cosponsoring" on Obama's part with actually having worked on bills. In fact, cosponsoring looks good on paper but is legislatively meaningless, since it is simply the equivalent of saying "yeah, put my name down, too". People have been known to "cosponsor" bills without even having read them, and come to regret it later.
But, we'll have some fun with the list.
Thanks.
mp
February 20, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yowsa, well, here is some quick fun. There is a saying that an attorney in court should not ask a question to which he does not already know the answer.
Clinton: Bills sponsored (i.e., she wrote them)
107th -- 90
108th -- 71
109th -- 90
110th -- 104
Obama: Bills sponsored
109th -- 66
110th -- 63
Clinton: Sponsored bills passed/approved by Senate
107th -- 9
108th -- 10
109th -- 6
110th -- 7
Obama: Sponsored bills passed/approved by Senate
109th -- 4
110th -- 3
Okay, so much for the "Obama the workhorse" meme. That's right out. Perhaps, he should have spent more time in his office and less time at campaign HQ.
Let's have some more fun, later. When I have more time.
Source of above numbers: http://thomas.loc.gov/
Thanks.
mp
February 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll say, forget the Clintons and their attacks. if you have been paying attention just past a couple of weeks, Hillary and McCaine have been reading from the same page.( as TPM pointed out today, Obama's campaign has started engaging against McCaine's.)Obama does not need to engage in 2 battles at this point, all he has to do is to keep his campaign cool and go after McCaine. by the way so far today every single one of Hillary surrogates, I heard on 2-3 different liberal radio shows, simply said "I don't know anything about 527 for Hillary", really...
February 20, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Powe are you seriously saying that Hillary won "tough" elections in her two Senate runs? I was in NY at the time of her first one. She was lucky Rudy dropped out. Lazio was a toad that everyone hated. Her opponent in her second run was a nonentity.
Admittedly Alan Keys is insane, but Obama's primary fight for the Democratic Senate nomination in Illinois was a hard-fought battle against very tough odds and a big field of competition.
February 20, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
The first election was tough because she had to overcome some serious baggage -- the "carpetbagger" label, her heritage as a Clinton and some electioneering gaffes. If you live in New York (I live in CT), then you know that it is not a given that "Democrat == elected" here. Post election analysis gave her the win and the margin of the win on the basis of her strong showing in Republican upstate.
Let me just add, generally, that there is a fair bit of assumption outside the Northeast that this part of the country is dyed blue. In fact, politics on the local and state levels is a hard-fought campaign and Republican strength at those levels is considerable. Joe Lieberman is an outlier in the general curve of national representation of the Northeast, but he is indistinguishable from many pols at the local level -- which is why he has been reelected many times. He is one of the few who has been able to translate that local conservatism into a statewide vote.
I think her position as Senator and reelected Senator puts the lie to the Obama camp claims that she can't get Republicans to cross the line to vote for her. They already have -- twice.
She worked hard to get elected. Once elected, she worked hard at her job. That counts with me.
Thanks.
mp
February 20, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You make your views abundantly clear, even redundantly. So let us Obama supporters stipulate that Senator Clinton is a hard working politician with good campaign and legislative skills. And let's also stipulate that she is very familiar with the White House floor plan, except perhaps the back room of the oval office.
But to suggest that her modest accomplishments in the Senate over two terms greatly outweigh Obama's in less than one term, your argument starts to sounds as desperate and pathetic as your candidate does. Obama's leadership and executive skills are on display almost every day as he goes from State to State accomplishing his goals, and runs an enterprise with a budget of a couple hundred million that began as a start-up about a year ago. Hillary has been working on her business plan and raising capital for at least 10 years. So who appears to be the more accomplished executive? (Hint, check the vote totals).
February 20, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe satire can be a potent political weapon, and someone should do a satire on putting together the "dream ticket" of McCain and Clinton, with the crux of the story being who gets to be pres. and who gets to be vp. Could be fun.
February 20, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like to see more Saul Bellow too.
On the other hand, Oprah would trump Bellow in a general election.
I'm just sayin.'
February 20, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I almost never use "reply all" as having too many risks to counter balance the inconvenience. The central problem is that you have to be certain that whoever is on the list is someone you REALLY want to get your message. And that is not always easy. Best is to cherry-pick the distribution list and send to those you REALLY want to contact. For what it's worth.
However, if the list has only a few people and you can eyeball it and say, OK, I want to let ALL these people know what is on my mind, go ahead. I did this yesterday to note the passing of someone we all knew, and there were only 5 people on the list, including myself.
Second if you are going to reply to all, include yourself or do a blind copy to yourself so you have a paper or e-trail of whom you sent a reply-all to.
February 20, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I forgot to address your original question of mistakes in the original. Etiquette wise, I think this is a no-no, and might offend people who did the original. You can send a separate note to the originator who can correct and resend the corrected version. My thoughts.
February 20, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael Powe
Exactly my sentiments. And it is curious how the media (Including TPM Cafe) have almost exclusively allowed pro Obama bloggers post but censored people like Johnson, who see him as we do. I'm called a crazed lunatic by the Obamamaniacs for pointing these curious FACTS out.
If Obama had gotten anywhere near the scrutiny and (unfair in my opinion) criticism as Hillary has gotten here and elsewhere, there would be outrage on the streets. So --I might be wrong but I don't think so--the fix is in and TPM Cafe is on board with the MEDIA CONSENSUS MAKERS and the lemmings are falling in line.
It will take a much deeper revolution that the faux rhetoric Obama puts out to finally decouple the influence of the media from the minds of res populus
February 20, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, and we all know Bill and Hillary hate, just hate the sound of their own voice.
February 20, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
General comment: For some reason I click on reply to add to the original poster's comment, but they come as new posts. Don't understand.
February 20, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Me too, Suntzu. (Though this one will probably pop into position correctly...because my life is pure irony.)
February 20, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sheet. It did.
The one thing I did differently this time was to log in first, then click Send to post. Previously, I keyed in my comment, then was asked for my password. HTH.
Sorry for the mini-hijack.
February 20, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that Sen. Clinton would be an excellent choice for the Supremes. And if she drives the Scalito/Thomas/Roberts junta nuts, so much the better.
February 20, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary was such a great hard working campaigner in her New York Senate races, then why is she not accomplishing the same thing on the National Stage.
She started out with huge Poll leads over all her opponents, and she has squandered all of them, as well as that huge Washington Lobbyists War Chest that she had amassed.
Since she keeps telling us that Senator Obama is a lightweight, and she is the Heavy Weight Champ, then why is it that he has put her on her arse on the canvas in each of the last ten rounds.
By her own definition: Hillery is getting pummeled by a lightweight. How does that make her a qualified contender for the championship bout!. When it comes to words, Hillary is the one that is mouthing all the Doublespeak nonsense.
Face it folks. She is the real fraud in the fight.
February 20, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary was such a great hard working campaigner in her New York Senate races, then why is she not accomplishing the same thing on the National Stage.
She started out with huge Poll leads over all her opponents, and she has squandered all of them, as well as that huge Washington Lobbyists War Chest that she had amassed.
Since she keeps telling us that Senator Obama is a lightweight, and she is the Heavy Weight Champ, then why is it that he has put her on her arse on the canvas in each of the last ten rounds.
By her own definition: Hillery is getting pummeled by a lightweight. How does that make her a qualified contender for the championship bout!. When it comes to words, Hillary is the one that is mouthing all the Doublespeak nonsense.
Face it folks. She is the real fraud in the fight.
February 20, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't see the next MLK, Jesse Jackson or the return of Jesus Christ either.
But I do see a brilliant guy whose politics and policies I agree with, who's run a really smart campaign against Hillary's often boneheaded and inept campaign, and who clearly knows how to lead.
The rest, of course, remains to be seen. As it would with Hillary if she were to win the nomination.
February 20, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
John McCain has shown no indication (or particular predilection) for "go[ing] low" with "outrageous" claims against his opponents -- not in the GOP Primary and, since securing the nomination, not against either Obama or Clinton.
Referring to Obama's platitude-laden speeches as "eloquent but empty" is neither low nor outrageous. How else can a candidate be expected to contrast himself or herself with an opponent?
I would agree with you that Clinton may go low and be outrageous in her last gasp efforts to defeat Obama, but I think it's disingenuous of you to lump McCain and Hillary together in that manner.
February 20, 2008 3:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you believe it yesterday Chris Matthews ask Texas State Senator Kirk Watson to list Sen. Barack Obama's accomplishments in the Senate and he could not say one thing, and he is backing Sen. Obama. Later we hear John McCain lay out the GOP plan for the general election, Sen. Obama's words with no solid plan, and his Foreign policy,(Lack of),this is the guy they want to face and you are handing it to them. This guy is a Jimmy Carter repeat, and we know how that went. I hope you are happy with your golden boy, and are singing the same tune in about a year or so, good luck you will need all you can get.
February 20, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality Check:
Obama has trounced Hillery in the last ten contests.
Hillary has not had the grace to even thank those who came to vote for her in those ten contests.
Now she is insulting the intelligence of all those who voted for Senator Obama.
Why should any of those who voted for or against Hillery in those ten states, vote for her in November, after she has spit in their faces now.
February 20, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are a lot of vicious comments here, aren't there? I guess when your candidate's losing, these things come out. Or is it just that all the reasonable Clinton supporters have switched sides by now?
I have never understood the virulent Hillary Clinton HATRED, but it's very widespread. Maybe things are different in New York, but New York is not all of America. Last summer, I supported Barack Obama because I didn't think Hillary Clinton could get elected (and still don't) and absolutely not drag other Democrats into office on her coattails (something Obama is bound to do). But I was impressed with both of them.
But the more I see and hear of them in this campaign, the less I like Clinton and the more I like Obama. There's just no comparison. Barack Obama has been on-message, eloquent, and inspiring, while also running a superbly-managed, superbly-led campaign, well-organized, well-orchestrated, and light years ahead of his opponent. The more I learn of his legislative experience, the better I like that, too.
With Clinton, it's just the reverse. She's run a terrible campaign, poorly-organized and poorly-led, and she's quickly descended into Republican-style negative attacks and the crookedest schemes since Nixon. She seems to have nothing to offer voters but the Clinton name, but apparently, she thinks she deserves to be nominated on that basis alone. I'm just very disappointed in her. I'm becoming more and more disgusted by the day - even starting to wonder if the Hillary-haters had seen something I've missed all these years.
I really think she's just lost all sense of proportion in this campaign, and it's really sad to see. Her reputation is going to be badly damaged this year. Well, it has already, I guess. That's not what I wanted to see.
February 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
What disappoints me the most is hearing our fellow Democrats (Obamaniacs) use the same lines the Republicans have used for years against the Clintons. I get the feeling that if the tables were turned, they would not pull together in the general election and vote for the nominee. Obama would be very sad about that I am sure being the "Uniter not Divider" that he is. What Would Barack Do? Why cant he reign in his own followers spewing hate and misrepresentation? See Michael Powe's shoot down of the "Obama passes everything meme".
Sorry, but I am a life long Democrat and I see some real ugliness in these comments about Senator Clinton. Shameful, unsubstantiated, and just wrong.
Lets get our act together NOW and understand a primary is not a democracy and fighting for a nomination is NOT undermining the Constitution (as many have laughably argued here). This is politics. If you cant hack it, take up knitting.
February 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again... Hack.
February 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grow up.
February 20, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cute picture.
February 20, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Getting away from vicious comments (at least for the moment), I'm heartened to see that big media players are finally taking a serious look at the question oif which generation Obama is a part of. The New York Times ran a piece a couple days ago (on Sunday) in which they pose the question of whether Obama is part of the Boomer Generation, Generation X, or the generation in-between Boomer and Xers--Generation Jones. Last week (in the Feb. 11 issue), Newsweek ran a piece in which the author (Jonathan Alter) made a strong case that Obama is not a Boomer, nor an Xer, but is rather a part of Generation Jones. I feel like this is a relevant and important question, and that the media will increasingly be exploring it, particularly given the huge age/generation difference between McCain and Obama.
February 20, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I feel like this is a relevant and important question, and that the media will increasingly be exploring it,..."
Very funny. And I almost - almost - took you seriously, and demonstrated my complete cluelessness. :-)
February 20, 2008 4:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't stand much of a chance against
John McCain, but at least it will be fun to watch the Obamabots' reaction to the Republicans' unraveling the Empty Suit of Hope. (There's still time to stop the madness and support Clinton.)
February 20, 2008 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obamabot? I'm insulted! I'm a SHEEP, thank-you very much! Didn't you get the memo, like Rae?
Baaa...
February 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, clearly I was wrong:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/prohillary_527_ad_it_takes_mor.php
I'm sure this is only the first in a new stream of "repugnant", "nasty", "low" and "outrageous" "attacks!"
Oh Lord...What's become of this great country!? I ask you?! Reed, whatever are we gonna do?!
February 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Testing...
February 20, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
What on earth gives you the impression that I was joking? These issues of generational identity are absolutely an important subtext to this election. Obama used the word generation 13 times in his relatively brief announcemt speech last year, and since then he has talked a great deal about generations in his campaign (as well as in his book "The Audicity of Hope"). This likely race between the first Silent Generation candidate (McCain) and the first Generation Jones candidate (Obama) will have lots of discussion about these generational issues.
February 20, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
February 20, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
Do you know why they call it "Generation Jones?"
Because we're always "Jonesing" about something.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jonesing
I was born in 1961, too. I don't really identify with the boomers, I understand why Obama wouldn't, either.
February 20, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
One thing that really weirds me out is referring to oneself in the third person, like Bob Dole did a number of times in the 1996 campaign.
In last night’s speech Obama made use of the third person diminutive at least twice:
“Obama may make a good speech”
“Obama may have good ideas, but he hasn't been in Washington long enough.”
Illeists for Obama?
February 21, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink