History in the Making
It now appears that this election year is truly historic. Never mind the politics of race and gender in the Democratic primary; never mind the rarity of a presidential election involving no incumbents from either party. No, I’m talking about something far more profound.
I’ve been using the Google all week to try to find out if a Democratic candidate for the presidency has ever praised his (or her!) Republican opponent on national security at the expense of his (or her!) opponent in a heated Democratic primary. Specifically, I’ve been trying to find out if there was any point in 1984 when Walter Mondale said, “I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, President Reagan has done that. And you’ll have to ask Senator Hart with respect to his candidacy,” or any moment in 1968 when Hubert Humphrey said, “I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold. I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Richard Nixon has done that. And you’ll have to ask Senators McCarthy and Kennedy with respect to their candidacies.”
Granted, it’s not a fair comparison, since Vice-Presidents Mondale and Humphrey had significantly higher security clearances in the Carter and Johnson administrations than Hillary Clinton had from 1993-2001. But I’m just trying to locate any speeches or press releases in which Mondale gave the nod on national security to Reagan or Humphrey gave the thumbs-up to Nixon.
So far, all I’ve come up with is a really obscure moment preserved in Ye Olde Google Cache, from a press conference in late May of 1860 when Stephen Douglas said, “I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Senator John Breckinridge has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And former Illinois state legislator Lincoln has a speech he gave in 1858.” But this doesn’t seem terribly relevant. So it could be possible that we’re seeing something truly unprecedented in American history. And that’s really exciting!
Comments (133)
Greg might point to the first part of this quote from John Adams describing Samuel as another example of dissing your brother:
"always for softness and prudence..."
I wonder if adding the rest changes the context at all?
"...where they will do; but is staunch, and stiff, and strict, and rigid, and inflexible in the cause."
March 8, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama PRAISING Reagan verbatim:
Anyone who says that Obama is NOT praising Reagan's "trajectory" is either a liar or a fool.
True Obama later backtracked these statements. But that shows he is a LIAR. It is CLEAR what he said. Words mean something.
March 10, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I simply refuse to believe she would endorse a republican as more qualified then her democratic opponent. I believe what she was referring to was the gold standard of commander and chiefs, George Washington himself, who was 43 years old when he assumed the Commander and Chief duties for the continental army and served in that capacity till he was 51, he then served again as first president and peacetime commander and cheif from age 61-65. This sets the optimal age for a commander and chief for american leaders at 43-51 and acceptable range for most americans would probably be 35-65.
Hillary was simply pointing out that McCain will be 72 when he takes office, has crossed this threshold (age 35-65) that americans expect their commander and chief's age to be in. Indeed she could have even said McCain is well beyond the threshold of commander and chief. It is odd, she also feels she crossed the threshold (since she would only be 61, but she knows her own abilities better then I and if she feels she crossed the threshold who am I to argue). That leave Barack Obama as the only viable alternative. (Of course she'll likely realize her mistake and correct her statement to say she is coming up on the threshold of top age for a commander and chief but hasn't reached it yet tomorrow.)
March 8, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
But you know, Michael, that these types of attacks always work. Just ask President Douglass who credited his 1860 victory to highlighting Lincoln's lack of experience.
March 8, 2008 7:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm determined to vote for the Democratic candidate in November 2008 but I never thought I would have to hold my nose while doing it, but Hillary's nastiness is making me think I may have to do it if she's the nominee.
March 8, 2008 8:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not happy with either Dem Candidate; Hillary's middle east votes; Iraq war, Levin amendment and Kyl/Lieberman, caused me to stop supporting her. This latest comment Michael refers to just adds to my disgust. As to Obama, I get the feeling someone's trying to sell me aluminum siding. His spiel is grand but there's something missing. Maybe what I feel is missing is a lack of "depth" in his commentary, he seems to address issues in a superficial way, lite on specifics.
Maybe in the back of my mind I'm remembering that old caveat: "Anything that sounds too good to be true, usually is."
Regardless of who the Dem candidate is, they will get my vote.
March 8, 2008 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
As to Obama, I get the feeling someone's trying to sell me aluminum siding. His spiel is grand but there's something missing. Maybe what I feel is missing is a lack of "depth"
I think it's a VERY good idea to vote based on the way a candidate makes you feel. Ask yourself, "Would I want to sit down and have a beer with this guy?"
That's the way to insure that America gets the most competent, honest president.
March 8, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tankard
No, the "sitting down for a beer" thing is for wingnuts who vote for Bush do. I want substance, ergo, my comment about Obama's lack of same.
On the other hand, how do you divorce yourself from your feelings? Aren't your feelings the sum of all you've seen and heard about, and from, another person?
What does it mean to say "I 'feel' Candidate A is the best one for the job"? I think it means more than you want to sit and have a beer with him/her.
March 8, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, it just so happens that I could use some aluminum siding. Can I get some?
Yes I can.
March 8, 2008 1:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmm! I thought you were selling it, not buying it.
March 8, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's have a beer and talk about it.
March 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael,
I think 'no,' you can't get any. I don't believe they make aluminum siding anymore, its too expensive. Its all vinyl now.
How about a bridge instead?
March 8, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here, in Massachusetts, we're not too happy with our Obama lite governor, Deval Patrick. He ran a campaign, arguably the model, on a single state scale, that Obama has expanded to the national level. It was full of soaring rhetoric, good feeling, and a personable delivery. He won going away, from Mitt Romney's Lt Gov, the Republican candidate. Both Obama and Patrick come from hard working backgrounds, and took advantage of access to a top quality education to build their futures. Both became Harvard educated lawyers. Both worked in government, although Patrick had significant high level corporate experience, too. The difficulty came right after the election when Patrick got rolled by an entrenched Democratic Legislature and its powerful Speaker of the House. He committed numerous rookie gaffs, including several serious PR ones, and failed to get much of his agenda adopted, if anything. The second year has been better, but still nothing to write home about, and now he is embroiled in a battle with the same Speaker over bringing gambling casinos into the state. He's headed for another big defeat. My point to this long screed is to make people think that all the high rhetoric and feeling may not overcome a fundamental lack of experience, and if Obama is elected, we have to be prepared for the possibility of a similar fate for his presidency.
March 8, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am more worried about Obama's fundamental lack of honesty and his willingness to con people with promises of unachievable hopes that he knows he can't deliver on and thus that will lead to--once again--bitter disappointment by the credulous people of our land.
March 8, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141,
You might consider working with the front of your mind where the intelligence resides.
Obama is better than his talk. He has to lie to all the Clintonoids that he is a Republican Lite like them. :-)
I am rather awed by the specious claim that Obama is a spellbinder as a speaker. All he does is talk sense with an occasional obligatory slogan. If Obama was a great speaker like JFK, Obama could thrill audiences reading them a soup can label. Nobody ever had more empty rhetoric than JFK unless it was Warren Harding.
Best, Terry
March 8, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terry,
Was the insult necessary?
I offered a heartfelt, honest opinion.
Your insult was childish.
March 8, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
John:
You don't deserve that. Just remember, so far as I know you are the only one around these parts who was eligible to vote for Harry Truman in 1948, and so far as I know you are the only one on here who fought for this country through France and Belgium and into Germany during World War II. TPM and every single commenter on these threads is lucky to have you on board.
I am particularly happy that this campaign has extended to Pennsylvania, because now you get the chance to vote (I think I recall you live in the Keystone State). You have earned your right to vote John, and you have earned the right to express your opinions too.
I know you lean to Barack, and believe me John what you say is critical. It is people like you who will make my transition from HRC to Barack that much smoother in the event he is the nominee. Believe me when I tell you, I cannot say the same thing about myriad commenters and TPM-sponsored posters. I think you know all too well what I'm talking about.
Please don't let petty insults deter you in anyway from posting John. We need your insight.
Bruce
March 8, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
(you forgot Holland) :-)
thanks again for the kind words. I just don't understand the seeming need in some people to insult.
Here's a story for your grandchildren, as I've told to mine;
When we liberated the Woebbelin concentration camp
at Ludwigslust, Germany, those poor souls didn't know what to make of us. They saw soldiers, uniforms, guns, and it scared them. After a time they learned we were Americans, but even that didn't register immediately. Eventually they recognized we were friendly and there to help them.
I walked through the camp with some others and we came across another para from our Company, a tall Jewish kid from Brooklyn, Al Kass, or Krass, who was standing in front of 3 prisoners. He towered over them as they crowded around him, and they were trying to talk to one another, unsuccessfully, I'm sure, then Krass pulled out the Star of David medal he had around his neck and showed them while saying "Juden, Juden".
When those 3 prisoners saw that medal they 'knew' they were safe, they clasped their hands as in prayer, giving thanks, reached out to touch him and the tears started flowing from them.
I remember my feelings were mixed at that moment; joy for what I just witnessed, and sorrow from what these poor souls suffered.
Some things you learn with your eyes you never forget.
March 8, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks John. Nice to remind us all how lucky we really are.
March 8, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bruce,
truly.
March 8, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to say, this is an incredible post. Thank you deeply for it.
March 9, 2008 5:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Killjoy,
I was able to write that post because of $50.00.
I enlisted in the army on January 7, 1943, 6 months out of high school, I was 18.
A number of enlistees were sent to Fort Indiantown Gap, Pa., it was a collection point for new recruits from the region. After a few days we were lined up, about 50 of us.
A Sergeant asked:
"Who wants to volunteer for airborne?"
No one knew what it was, so no one "volunteered".
This Sergeant then said: "Airborne pays an extra $50.00 per month."
That got our attention, so 38 of us volunteered and eventually found ourselves in the 82nd Airborne jumping out of a plane over Normandy, and one day walking through the gates of that concentration camp.
See how much $50.00 can do? :-)
March 9, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141,
We old farts are often called childish. The only one who offered insult was yours above.
It's fine if you think Obama is lying to you. It's an opinion. Politicians are known to lie. I think he is much better than his talk and Hillary even worse.
How is that insulting?
Congratulations on winning your wars. We lost ours and got little but contempt.
Good health to you.
Best, Terry
March 8, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
JohnW1141
Thank you for that. Since I don't care much anymore about how my own behavior is judged on this site (why bother?) I'd to let you know that I've always enjoyed reading your comments a great deal and also that I have often been extremely turned off by Tankard's combative/insult style of commenting in the past, and the fact that he often tries to inflect the insults with sarcasm makes it even more offensive somehow.
March 8, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
correction on the name in the above, meant "terry" instead of "Tankard"...mistake because the two t's have had somewhat similar modus operandi.
March 8, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
art,
sad to say, some people who post here seem to have a propensity to insult. Over the years I've learned that more often than not, 'truth' is the most effective of all insults.
March 9, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. It's a shame. It's the Internet. Sort of like the way getting into a car turns some people into a different kind of person.
March 9, 2008 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
peter,
there ya go, the insulters come in here and engage in "road rage" :-)
March 9, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary, Obama and Foreign Policy
I think Hillary has signaled that she will try to "mend" our relationship with our (fast reseeding) Allies and the rest of the world, something Obama has not highlighted in his speeches. But I direct you to the contribution of Mr. Seaton. He posts a link that shows that Obama far from giving up the neocon agenda faults Bush for screwing it up. This is the link (have not learned how to create a link)
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/03/08/obama-as-a-warmonger/
Obama's foreign Policy is likely going to be a lot more "messianic" that Hillary’s, who is at heart a Realist.
It might be that they both will try to "play out" what the Neocons have hatched during the Bush tyranny, but I think Hillary will play it out towards a less belligerent, exceptionalist direction. No such reassurances can be discerned from Obama's program as expressed in his speech in front of the Council of Foreign Relations.
So yes, Obama has the knack of making people believe what they want to believe anyway (that he will end international strife as we know it) when he in fact knows very well that he can't deliver. That makes him much more of a con artist to me than Hillary.
As for the special issue of Israel.
I tend to believe that Hillary will put some pressure on Israel to stop their occupation of Arab lands. I also believe that she will lean on the Arab nations to accommodate Israel in the region. There is no solid evidence of this to be cited except that even MJ admitted that Bill Clinton (along with Carter and Bush the elder) were the presidents that actually DID lean in Israel. Will Obama do the same? Does Obama have the intellectual means to accomplish this? Does Obama have the guts to do it? It does not look very promising. Voting "present" sounds weak, "Whispering to the Canadians that he does not really mean what he says about NAFTA does not sound very clever. Citing Ronald Reagan as a "transformational" president (and he did mean it in a positive way and we all know that. Otherwise it would not make any sense) indicates an appeasing mentality.
Finally he does seem rather vacuous in his pronouncements. It seems he just can't get into the weeds of policy like Hillary does. Bush was one of those too you know. It should be embarrassing for the Obamamites to see their Blessed Leader during debates with Hillary (who did get the first question all the time) ditto everything she said. It seems he is just not as KNOLEDGABE about the nuts and Bolts of things as he should be
March 9, 2008 12:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Citing Ronald Reagan as a "transformational" president (and he did mean it in a positive way and we all know that."
He meant it in a positive way in the sense that it is an accomplishment to be a transformational president. Yes. But Obama did NOT approve of the DIRECTION in which the country was transformed. When he was asked to clarify this point, he made it quite clear. Do think it was a bit of a sucker punched aimed at Bill Clinton, though, who took the bait.
March 9, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It really does baffle the mind.
And the really interesting thing to me isn't that she throws a fellow Democrat under the bus in favor of the crusty Republican... that's the heinous part... but the interesting part is this... let's read between the lines, shall we?
"... I believe that I've done that [Who can be sure... I'm pretty sure... I mean I think I have... ]. Certainly Senator McCain has done that. [So at least one of us has... I mean, maybe two of us, if you include me... and I'm pretty sure you should... but I'm not going to go out on a limb and say 'Certainly I have', because... you know... I'm not so sure that I have that I'm going to state it as a bald fact... But John McCain certainly has beyond any shred of doubt... thank goodness....]
March 8, 2008 8:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if the comment really shows that Hillary has no real expectation of being the Democratic nominee, since this is not the sort of statement that any sensible candidate would make about a potential rival in the general.
I see a couple of articles here at TPM Cafe questioning Obama's judgement because of things his advisors have said (or supposedly said in the case of the NAFTA thingie), but in this case, Hillary herself has demonstrated far poorer judgement, in handing a quasi-endorsement to the Republican nominee. Since many of the polls show that a significant number of Americans already see this as McCain's strong point, this statement of hers is going to hurt whoever the Democratic nominee may be.
Clinton has superior judgement capabilities? I think not. Of course, maybe all of this is just a smokescreen designed to obscure the inconvenient truth of her Iraq war vote.
March 8, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
The unanswered question is whether all of this that we see paraded before us every day now is having any negative effect on her chances in Pennsylvania. The party bosses in Philly are preening themselves and playing host, but are waiting to see how the wind blows and to hear what threats and promises she and Bill make. In the end, they'll act to save their own skins. It's a question of turnout between the 'burbs and the inner city, but the machine there always turns out the democratic vote for whomever they back. The size of that vote always swamps whatever happens in the middle.
But out here in the hinterlands, it's really hard to tell whether people are being fooled at all. I hear debates between women a lot, and if the things I'm hearing are any indication, Hillary is not well-regarded. The demographics tend younger in spots, because of the universities, and that's not Hillary's crowd.
The campaign staffs have just parachuted in in the past week, though, and no ads have been run. Aside from the university culture in State College, the surrounding country side here in the middle is like rurual Ohio or Texas, and even the democrats tend to be from old mining families. I just don't know... I do know one woman, a Republican 60-something and former local office-holder, who is a ardent Obama supporter and has been, giving money and talking to people she knows. She's changing parties to vote in the primary, and has nothing to do with the University scene. One data point, but encouraging.
March 8, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Both candidates, yes including Senator Obama, have said things in this primary that will be embarassing in the general election. Just for perspective, if HRC is the nominee and tries to do what she should do, and that is to focus on the economy and first and foremost healthcare, you will see the Republican attack ad provided by Senator Obama, in which he did, and still does, attack Hillary's eminently progressive idea that universal health insurance requires mandates. Just wait: you will hear it: "Senator Obama said that HRC would garnish the wages of American workers as part of her healthcare plan". Thanks Barack!
And Michelle Obama, back in early February, said she would have to think about whether she would vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee. Does anyone know if the Obama campaign ever disavowed that?
If the Obama campaign is staffed by people who have demonstrated the kind of panic and rage and hissy fits that we have seen on this website since Wednesday, then the Obama campaign is indeed in a heap of trouble. Michael's post is about expressing frustration about what happened on Tuesday, when the good people of Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island said hold on, our votes count too and we prefer HRC. It has nothing to do with anything so lofty as historical precedent.
But those, like the good professor Michael who have time and again demonstrated nothing but disdain for Hillary Clinton, can now use this as another reason to just loathe her. And the loathers can even pretend that, before this, they thought Hillary was OK, but now, yes just now, they are disgusted and could never support Hillary Clinton in the general election. Please.
Call it a win-win situation: for Hillary, for really putting the Obama team on the defensive and for beginning to peel the teflon off, and for the haters of Hillary who can now feed their hate for an entire weekend. Hot diggety dog!
March 8, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh wait, he didn't do that.
Well, there's still the time when Obama praised McCain's healthcare plans.
Well, except that didn't happen.
It's still a great comparison, though. Apples and oranges are both round fruits, after all.
March 8, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes; one doesn't get the feeling that all this anti-Hillary sentiment is the result of spontaneous combustion based on her latest outrages.
Here's the deal folks, and it is really, really simple. When there are five candidates, you take potshots at the leader and also say that anyone of "my colleagues" would be far better than any of the Republicans.
But then, when you get down to two contenders and the smell of victory is strong, you start cutting down your opponent, particularly and mostly, if the race is tight. When one of you wins, you let bygones be bygones and start ascribing to something you once called voodoo economics.
The political pundits and bloggers yell "Hypocrite!" for a couple of news cycles but are quickly distracted, as well they should be, by all the news about the transition team, the VP selection, and on and on. It's just the way the game is played. Period.
Barack is genuinely trying to break new ground, but he isn't going to repeal the laws of American politics.
March 8, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess my feeling is that Joe Lieberman would have little hesitation in framing his opponent's candidacy this way.
March 8, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
True, I wish HRC had not done what she did. But, to the extent that Senator Lieberman might similarly challenge the bona fides of someone else's qualifications to be commander in chief (as the good Senator Mondale did to Senator Hart in 1984 (there's some historical precedent for ya Michael!)), so too will the pigs at the trough of the current healthcare system, the people who detest Harry Truman's goal of providing healthcare to every American, mimic Senator Obama and his GOP-inspired attack on Senator Clinton's healthcare plan.
Yes, indeed, there will be lots of things both candidates wish they hadn't said come October.
Come on people, cleansing breath!
March 8, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this. I went in to this believing the Democrats had 3 good candidates - albeit I chose Obama because of his demonstrated better judgement on crucial questions of foreign policy and "failure" to surround himself with "liberal" hawks like Holbrooke who had played cheerleader to the Iraq invasion.
But at this point I'm engaged in an atempt to convince myself that McCain would do worse damage to the country and the Democratic Party than having the Clintons back. As a Democrat, I never thought I could ever ask myself that one. In that respect, if she turns out to be the nominee, Hillary's ad and pro-McCain rhetoric is working to McCain's advantage even with this Obama supporter.
March 8, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
"'Senator Obama said that HRC would garnish the wages of American workers as part of her healthcare plan'. Thanks Barack!"
That's what she said will be done. Do you think the GOP is too stupid to use this. Which is why putting "mandates" before "affordablity" is an utterly stupid approach for the general. (Obama has made it clear that he'll consider mandates if they're needed - which they probably are under these non-single payer crazy-quilt plans they're all offering - but he's not handing that issue of using the IRS as a club to the GOP as a talking point. Hillary is. I've been trying to figure out what about that a supposedly smart guy like Paul Krugman doesn't understand, then I realize that his "liberalism" is the "new hat" of a freaked-out-by-Bush technocrat who has paid little attention to politics over the years. Hillary's already given us a GOP congress with her incompetence and arrogance on the health care issue back in '94. It could happen again after a couple of years of Clinton arrogance and melodrama in the Oval Office. She's the GOP's wet dream and the DLC's poster girl. And, of course, with her back to the wall - like Bill's eventually was, we'll start hearing stuff like "The era of big government is over" dripping from her DLC/SayAnything lips.)
March 8, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I rest my case.
March 8, 2008 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
You've got to come up with a better argument than reminding us that Bill Clinton governed in Reagan's shadow and NEVER was able to turn that around. In fact, the GOP got the congress they never had under Ronnie, largely thanks to the Clinton's political weakness, incompetence and impulse to cave when the winds weren't blowing in their direction. Hillary proved that once again by endorsing Bush's war "plan" with her Senate vote. If you like the corporate Lieberman-liberalism of the Democratic Leadership Council, fine. Make the case for that crap. But the notion that Hillary is anything but more of the same, tired politics of the past is delusional. Obama is, at least, honest about how constrained he will be UNLESS Democrats at the grassroots get off their butts. Hillary presents herself as a "fighter" who'll take on the bad guys "for the little people." Bullshit. She'll triangulate and cop out. Go to the DLC website. She's their poster girl - although she doesn't talk about it because the netroots would eviscerate her. If you consider Terry McCauliffe, Mark Penn, Richard Holbrooke and the rest of her entourage "good Democrats", fine. But at least admit you don't really give a shit about shifting the center of American politics and are perfectly happy with the same old Beltway corporate Dem compromises that enabled the GOP to go as crazy-right as they've been able to. Zero leadership from Hillary when the chips were down over the Iraq invasion. Zero. Holbrooke praised the Bush strategy at the time. If this stuff doesn't turn your stomach, fine. But don't pretend that it's anything other than GOP-lite on the decisions that a President can make that matter most. The truth is that she'll lose to McCain, because if faced with a "3am phone call" election, they'll want the person who actually bombed the shit out of people while our children slept safely in their beds - and paid a price for it - not the person who merely voted for war.
March 8, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't say political weakness.
I'd say naivete and lack of skill and a good bit of disorganization in the first administration.
Barack may do better than Bill (especially as he has Bill to study), but don't be surprised if the Republicans jump him more than a few times.
It will be interesting times.
March 8, 2008 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"(Obama has made it clear that he'll consider mandates if they're needed - which they probably are under these non-single payer crazy-quilt plans they're all offering - but he's not handing that issue of using the IRS as a club to the GOP as a talking point."
But "if they're needed," he will then be handing the GOP a club. Yes? Point is, he's triangulating as much as Clinton ever was. And Hillary certainly isn't going to install a mandate that her base can't afford. Affordability and mandates go hand in hand: how do you ever get to affordability if you don't have a LOT of people who have to buy?
March 9, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of Gary Hart, he had this to say on Clinton's praise of McCain:
By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has...severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party's nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.
As a veteran of red telephone ads and "where's the beef" cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). "Politics ain't beanbag," is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.
Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and the nation or to her own ambition.
March 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone please explain to me how to upload a photo?
Thanks
March 8, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Khan,
Log in, then click on (EDIT) next to Your Profile (up on top).
Scroll down to Photo. Then you can Browse and choose a photo that you have previously stored in your computer. Don't forget to save the changes to your profile.
It might take a few minutes for the picture to show up.
March 8, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lookingin,
thanks for the info, I'll put my picture up.
By the way, people tell me I look exactly like Cary Grant. Oh, ignore the MGM Logo in the corner, its a defect in the camera.
March 8, 2008 3:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, now this is funny...
March 8, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pull your raincoat collar up around your ears, skulk into the local drugstore phonebooth and drop a dime to the Rhetoric Police.
Uh oh, what's this? "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixom and Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already deeling, which was we want clarity, we want optimism, we want a return to the sense of dynamism and entreprenuership that had been missing." And this - "I think it's fair to say the republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom."
Well that can't be good, can it?
March 8, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Bev:
Now wait a minute here, did you google those quotes from Barack praising the Gipper and the Newt Gingrich GOP for historical precedent? :)
Bruce
March 8, 2008 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Bruce - why yes I did. I'm outraged of course. And to think that he said those things on the eve of the Nevada caucus! He'll say anything to get elected and yada, yada, yada...
March 8, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I honestly don't understand the outrage over this. Anyone who remembers Reagan's arrival -- and Obama and I are the same age, 46 -- knows that he did, indeed, change the trajectory of America in a way Nixon and Clinton did not. Nixon had to govern economically as a Keynesian (hey, remember wage and price controls?) because the left's idea of the postwar social welfare state had been so expanded by LBJ, whereas Clinton was playing on Reagan-Bush turf from the start and never won back sufficient ground. It's sad but true, and Obama knows it is sad but true. Anyone who isn't prepared to admit this is kinda fooling themselves. In my humble opinion.
If you want to complain about Obama echoing right-wing memes, though, take his comments about a Social Security crisis. I never liked that bit.
March 8, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't understand the outrage to that but you understand the outrage to this. Hmmm...what's missing from your misunderstanding...I know, empathy. The remarks Obama made piss off Clinton supporters the same way Clinton's remarks piss off Obama supporters. Reagan didn't "change the trajectory of this country" - he rolled it back to the robber baron era with the same effect - the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
So Obama was trying to position himself to get the independent and the Reagan democrat vote - Clinton is doing the same damned thing.
March 8, 2008 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, BevD, I think we can achieve some unity on this.
The remarks Obama made piss off Clinton supporters the same way Clinton's remarks piss off Obama supporters.
Yes, that's true. Obama's remarks were, in part, an indictment of the Clinton era, which, for various reasons we need not rehearse now, didn't undo enough of the Reagan-Bush damage. So Clinton supporters (and the Clintons themselves!) are right to hit back. But then you say:
Reagan didn't "change the trajectory of this country" - he rolled it back to the robber baron era with the same effect - the rich got richer and the poor got poorer.
Um, that is a change of the trajectory. A bad one. And that's where my empathy with the Clinton position stops -- where the Clintons begin pretending that Obama was lauding Reagan.
March 8, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo.
March 8, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
A rollback isn't a change, it's a do-over. The Roosevelts enacted change, Johnson enacted change - Reagan just wanted to do over the 1890s with better transportation.
Secondly, I would dispute that a nation is ever on a trajectory, that has more implications than anyone could discuss on this board.
I do, though, understand what Obama was doing - he was trying to position himself with those Reagan democrats and independents who actually were stupid enough to think that Reagan would change anything much less government. I don't however think that Obama is a bad guy or is really praising repubs or Reagan - he's politically positioning himself to appeal to those voters. I don't believe he's trying to endorse repubs and I don't think Clinton is either.
March 8, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev...you are the SOUL of sanity.
Hillary was saying...It's going to take someone with a lot of foreign policy experience to beat someone, like McCain, with a lot of foreign policy experience.
She's saying that she's better prepared to have the foreign policy debate than Obama is. Just like Obama is saying the opposite.
Here's the tricky part: the audiences for these arguments change dramatically when we move from the primary to the general.
So Obama is making a primary argument that really won't work in the general election the way that is appeals to US, unless he triangulates like mad and doesn't piss off all those Republicans who ORIGINALLY thought the war was correct. It's not going to impress THEM that he got it right from the get-go when they didn't. And if he plays the card too hard, they will conclude that he's nothing but a cut 'n run Democrat who would have sold us out on Viet Nam. In short, he won't get the Republicans and Independents that are his calling card, unless he plays it loose and McCain fails to pin him down.
Moreover, the more McCain can frame Iraq as a question about what to do now, the less potent the 2002 speech will become.
March 8, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
McCain's sense of what to do now consists of a 50-100 year plan of occupation (just so long as Americans aren't getting maimed or killed on a regular basis). And he will combine that with a continuation of Bush economic policy on the domestic front, with the result that we will shoot past the $10 trillion mark in national debt and screw ourselves financially for at least a generation. So I say, sure, let him run on that platform. I just wish Hillary weren't giving him so much help.
March 8, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good points.
I suspect that McCain will trim the 50-100 year reference from his speeches and talk about the surge's success.
If the violence in Iraq continues to trend downward, people will become increasingly afraid of pulling out precipitously. They will sense that some kind of "success" is within reach and won't want to "waste" the sacrifices already made.
What will Barack say to allay these fears?
McCain is extremely vulnerable on the economic front and has admitted on tape that he knows nothing about economics.
That admission will haunt him. So I don't see anything good for him in terms of economics. All the trend lines point downward.
If McCain succeeds in making the election about foreign policy AND violence in Iraq trends downward, he'll score some points.
The unfortunate (for him) irony is this: The less violence in Iraq, the more the economy takes center stage in people's minds. So his strongest suit pushes forward his weakest suit.
But Barack will need to work on his Iraq position. Having taken a correct stand in 2002 won't be enough in the general.
March 9, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's a little bit like whether you think that reinstalling the tax rates of the 1990s is "rolling back the tax cuts" or "raising taxes."
Both are true in a way; it all depends on one's perspective.
March 8, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael
It is really incredulous that you take exception to Obama’s “Reagan comments" as being praise of Reagan.
Go watch that clip again will you.
Obama talks about how Reagan was Transformational “in a way that Nixon and Clinton were not”. He talks about the reason why he was successful in his program was that THE PEOPLE were ready for that message. He starts out by saying he does not want to present himself as a “singular figure”….meaning that he will continue in this “new trajectory” that Reagan has set the country on?
Here are some other gems:
“he put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it” does that sound like criticism?
“with all the excesses of the 60’s and 70’s and you know government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in the way it was operating”
“he tapped into what people were already feeling. We want clarity we want optimism we want a return of that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing”.
I don’t know of any possible world in which English speakers exist that would deny that Obama was not praising Reagan.
I do not agree with Obama’s analysis. I think Reagan led directly to deregulation, union busting, out -sourcing of jobs, militarism, corruption due to defunding of regulatory agencies and ultimately Neoconism , and a collapsing economy due the “free marketeering” peddled by him and his followers.
March 9, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
What we're seeing from Senator Clinton seems a little like the wrath of Achilles. Somehow, I don't have too much difficulty imagining her dragging Obama around K-Street behind her chariot. Then again, maybe I need better meds.
March 8, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael:
I'm 48 so not tooooo much older than you but I think the person who best described the way I thought of the "Reagan Revolution" back then was Rosalyn Carter. She said that Reagan made people feel comfortable with their prejudices. I think she was right on the money.
I'm not saying that I still feel anger about Reagan the way I really did back then. And I understand that the passage of time allows us to see things differently, and sometimes more objectively. But I still think that Ronald Reagan was a net disaster for this country, and I feel even stronger about the Gingrich folks from the 90s.
Bev is correct that the reason Obama spoke highly of the Gipper and the GOP was to attract more conservative Democrats. I don't condemn him for that even if it did get my partisan juices flowing. It's politics and, like it or not, they are both politicians.
Bruce
March 8, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
BevD,
Apples to Oranges!
March 8, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Barack was right about Reagan and he was right about Clinton not being able to do a damned thing to turn around the "Reagan paradigm shift." Bill gave us crap like "The era of big govenrment is over", End Welfare As We Know It, and "Tough on Crime" rhetoric that included making sure he made it back to Arkansas to oversee the execution of a brain-damaged convict. And don't get me started at the Clintons inviting Dick Morris into the White House to help them figure out what image to present after they'd demonstrated major political incompetence and the Dems lost Congress. I'm amazed at the brain-dead misreading and twisting of Obama's absolutely correct and essential-for-Democrats-to-reckon-with analysis if we're ever going to be a "change" party rather than DLC GOP-lite wannabes - which is the Clinton record on the most important issue, including her Iraq vote. Too many Democrats have ended up as the Clinton's "battered wives" - willing to rationalize any humiliation. This endorsement of McCain as "certainly Commander-in-Chief" material by Hillary should be the last straw. But, of course, it isn't. Our party is truly pathetic.
March 8, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whoa, here fella! It's an Obama "attack" to bring up mandates? It's Hillary herself who says mandates are the only way to assure "universal" health care. As she so proudly said in Ohio last week, "Obama doesn't want you to have healthcare. He only wants children to have health care."
See, THAT'S an attack: to say that Obama doesn't want you to have health care if he doesn't insist on mandates. That's patently untrue.
For Obama to reiterate Hillary's insistence on mandates. The fact that she's proud of mandates. The fact that Republicans hate mandates and will do everything in their power to jettison mandates -- I just don't see how that's an attack.
March 8, 2008 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I understand your argument but, respectfully, I don't think it has merit. Hillary's attack on Barack's health plan is coming from the left, i.e. it doesn't go far enough to mandate through the government that all Americans are insured. That argument, unlike the GOP-inspired argument that Barack has levied against Hillary, will not hurt him in the general. Indeed, HRC has done him a rhetorical favor on this issue, because he can distinguish his plan from Hillary's by saying that his is a more moderate approach.
Did you really call me fella? :)
March 8, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm actually happy that Hillary has shown her true colors. She did vote for the war. She did vote for Kyl-Lieberman. Her "35 years of experience" does not include enacting universal healthcare. I figure she'll choose guns v butter. At least the Republicans have a little integrity on telling you the truth in that respect. There's no way she's getting us out of Iraq or winding down the war folks. She is L-Y-I-N-G. Whose kid went to war? McCain's kid. Oh, and Prince Harry. Precious Chelsea works for a hedge fund. Hillary is Bush III. Same sense of dynastic entitlement without the accountablity or responsibility that goes with it. War is for other people's children.
Hillary better pray for global warming because I will vote for her when hell freezes over.
March 8, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought you said "attack". I didn't read carefully enough.
However, Hillary's spin is that Michelle Obama was asked if she'd vote for Hillary. I remember she was asked if she would work for Hillary, and on that she waffled. She NEVER said she wouldn't vote for her.
So we have our versions of Al Gore inventing the Internet. When I see the media spread the distortions as truth, then I know we're in trouble. The campaign better get its act together ASAP.
If you Hillary Lovers think she'll be this vicious to John McCain, well I think the writing's on the wall with that. She's more and more Joe Lieberman every passing day. She thinks she'll win it on economic issues, and that might be true. She will not be able to insult her way with the Republicans to get her precious mandates. The first thing to be jettisoned will be mandates. And the Republicans thrive on her insults. She only works across the aisle when she caves, which is often. The M.O. in the Clinton administration was to give them what they wanted with the amorphous promise that they'd be nice to him. Hillary seems to be playing out of the same playbook. And when she doesn't get her way, she'll stomp her foot and cry victim and all the women will come to her defense to protect her. Again. But maybe not forever. They're expecting policies out of her and substantive changes and superior judgment. She's shown an uncanny ability to channel Bush in her ability to add slime to everything out of her mouth: "He's a Christian, as far as I know."
She could teach Karl Rove a trick or two. I'm marveling at her abilities these days.
March 8, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And Michelle Obama, back in early February, said she would have to think about whether she would vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee. Does anyone know if the Obama campaign ever disavowed that?"
They didn't...because your characterization is patently false. Michelle was asked whether she'd "work for Hillary", she hesitated and then proceeded immediately to make clear that both sides would support the other in the event of the final nomination. There was NEVER an implication that she wouldn't vote for AND support Hillary's candidacy. Michelle was asked whether she'd work for Hillary's election - and, frankly, her hesitation might have been impolitic but it was more than justified as we now see.
March 8, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do not disagree with your point here that Obama used some GOP-talking points against mandates to fight off Clinton's attack on his plan for not covering everyone. (and in putting this order on things I am not necessarily saying she committed the original unfair attack). I think Obama's point on mandates was...not everyone can afford them and many therefore won't be covered as well...the situation we see with mandated but ignored auto insurance. If so, that is how he should have framed it...not mandates take money from poor people. But I do not recall him saying that McCain or Romney or Huckabee have credibility on health care, Hillary has her failed attempts in the early nineties. That would have been egregious, don't you think?
March 8, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes VLazlo, I agree with you. I really don't want to be in the position of defending what Hillary said, because I think it was wrong and I don't condone it. I just don't think it's that egregious to the point where it has become something of historical significance.
It's not like HRC endorsed McCain's foreign policy, as some seem to be suggesting. What she did do is acknowledge his credentials and there's no Democrat in the country that is going to take that away from John McCain. That's not to say that he has good policy positions, and again you and I have heard HRC regularly challenge McCain for saying he's prepared to keep troops in Iraq for 50 to 100 years.
But the Democrats will not win this year if they are going to spend time trying to question John McCain's resume credentials to serve as commander in chief. That dog won't hunt; it's a non-starter. Instead, we need to jab away on issues relating to foreign policy, but we always have to come back to where we need to be, and that is to fix the economy for the 21st century. That's what the American people are focusing on this year.
March 8, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hello John:
I'm trying to figure out the new format around here and yearning for yesterdays. For what it's worth, I agree with you on Obama, like I agree with you on most things. And, having heard him live twice, I think I can testify to two things. First...he could thrill audiences by reading the label on a can of soup. Second, he's too bright and thoughtful to have to resort to that. I've been up close to some powerful speakers, including Hubert Humphrey who was Mayor of Minneapolis and then Senator. Obama can match rhetorical swords with any of them.
Mike
March 8, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Michael
I'm trying to think historically if there has ever been a candidate that has called the other in no uncertain terms: racists, tax cheats, disengenious, polarizing, deceptive, secretive, wage garnishers, and has been characterized by every media outlet as "taking the high road".
Good times.
March 8, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary believes her own rhetoric and brags, and has as an insatiable appetite for extra-legal power (ala Bush) and is ambitious to the point of it obscuring her judgeme