Hillary Gets It Backwards
The Reuters headline says "Clinton Says Obama Can't Stand The Heat". Obama's speech in Raleigh the day after the debate does not look like man who has lost his cool. Hillary, McCain, ABC and the cable news networks are all playing the Swift Boat Game while Obama continues to try to talk about Iraq, jobs, health care and education.
Every day on TPM, we try to wrestle with the real problems of our age--and there are many of them. If some idiot is not going to vote for Barack, because he stopped wearing an American Flag Pin--because he thought it was an empty symbol dressing the jackets of reckless leaders like George Bush and Dick Cheney--then they are probably voting for McCain anyway in the General Election. If they're voting in the Democratic Party primaries, they are probably part of Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos
More Super-delegates including Sam Nunn and David Boren have come out for Obama. Infact the AP says, "Obama appears on track to finish the primary campaign fewer than 100 delegates shy of the 2,025 needed to win."
If Barack keeps his cool this should all be over by the first week of June.
Comments (63)
That video was Pretty Cool, but I like this one better -- Barack Gets that Dirt off His Shoulders
April 19, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I LOVE LOVE LOVE that video!!
They now have t-shirts...and I am ordering one TOCAY!
April 19, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If some idiot is not going to vote for Clinton , because Obama told this idiot that “as far as I know” were racist comments then this idiot is probably voting for Nader anyway in the General Election.
April 19, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
E
Here is the today sample:
He Said, She Said
Obama: So Cool He Makes JFK Look Like LBJ (Watch This) and Channels Jay Z
Obama is a Weatherman!!!! His Mommy Was a Commie!! Plus Rick Horowitz on Charlie Gibson's Night
April 19, 2008 2:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dear heart, the problem is that Obama lost his cool DURING the debate. That's why his minions are trying to say that the debate was unfair. He looked bad. He didn't handle it well. His performance was poor. Who cares what he looks like the day after? If he loses a debate with McCain, will you be trumpeting how good he looks the next day after he regains his composure?
April 19, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ignore this comment. Otto is so in bed with McCain.
April 19, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't matter: point is that it is true that Obama did badly in the debate -- he tried to weasel around questions instead of answering them.
He was asked when did you become aware of what Rev. Wright was saying? And he gives a rambling answer well let me say that I wasn't in the pews for the remarks that are currently controversial and then he was challenged as to why he had not had Pastor Wright give the invocation and that turned out to be in response to some remarks that Rolling Stone was citing -- so the final impression left was either that Obama in twenty years had failed to learn what Pastor Wright was about or that he wouldn't have rescinded the invitation to give the invocation if Rolling Stone had not caught Pastor Wright.
So I still want to know when did Obama learn about Pastor Wright's inflamatory rhetoric and positions and what, if anything, did Obama do to combat it.
To suppport a church where the Pastor foments hatred by charging that AIDS was deliberately spread is not acceptable -- this is what Obama appears to have done.
Same thing on Ayers -- Obama calls him a neighbor, someone associated with me, an English Professor, a bad actor when I was 8 -- ignoring Ayers current support for Hamas and lack of regret for the bombings and the fact that Ayers was a prominent support of Obama in his early races.
My problem is not with accepting Ayer's support -- my problem is with Obama lying about it.
April 19, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM asks:
So I still want to know when did Obama learn about Pastor Wright's inflamatory rhetoric and positions and what, if anything, did Obama do to combat it.
To suppport a church where the Pastor foments hatred by charging that AIDS was deliberately spread is not acceptable -- this is what Obama appears to have done.
---------
AJM
Obama stated clearly that the specific remarks that Wright made that have been played in an endlessly loop he did not hear. Obama also stated when interviewed by Anderson Cooper, that the controversial remarks he DID hear from Wright were about infidelity and that he was pretty graphic from the pew. In addition, Obama stated that the remarks in Rolling Stone were the reason he rescind the invitation for invocation when he announced in Springfield. Those answers should be sufficient for you. The fact is that most folks belong to a church because it is a COMMUNITY of faith. Not just for the pastor, who can change, retire or leave that church. So, you need to grasp that fact. And deal with it.
Furthermore, as regards AIDS, being a virus that was deliberately spread..there is ample SCIENTIFIC evidence to support those facts which were only disproved 5 years ago. There was a huge controversy within the medical community about the origin of AIDS and whether it was contaminated vaccine. SO, if YOU are unaware of that then it is your ignorance not Rev Wright's that needs to be questioned. In addition, it is a well known fact in the black community that the government DID deliberately spread syphillis by not treating males that were infected. Once there was antibiotic therapy available to cure syphillis the US GOVERNMENT allowed those men to go untreated with a HIGHLY COMMUNICABLE INFECTIOUS DISEASE which they DID SPREAD within in the black community...all so scientist could STUDY the pathogenesis of the disease.
Now that you know these facts along with the fact that Rev Wright was a US medic and served honorable as a US Marine at the bedside of President LBJ perhaps you will apologize for demonizing a man due to your own ignorance. Wright had good reason to believe what he said was true due to the TUSKEGEE experiment.
He also had good reason to call America the USKKKAmerica..just as Jewish folks call it NAZI Germany.
Learn history, learn the facts and more importantly learn to judge people for their own deeds and words and not those of others!!
Geez. You could easily google this stuff if you wanted to but you just want to spew slanderous hate.
April 19, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
AJM says:
Same thing on Ayers -- Obama calls him a neighbor, someone associated with me, an English Professor, a bad actor when I was 8 -- ignoring Ayers current support for Hamas and lack of regret for the bombings and the fact that Ayers was a prominent support of Obama in his early races. My problem is not with accepting Ayer's support -- my problem is with Obama lying about it.
----
What specifically did Obama lie about. If your neighbor is a sexual predator, murderer or wife beater is that somehow your responsiblity and should we all think that you support incest if your neighbor does that too? WTF are you saying. If your neighbor refuses to apologize for being a serial killer like Jeffrey Dahmler are we to believe that you are one also, because you worked at the same place he did and went to meetings with him? What the hell is your problem? Should we consider you a liar when you say that yes DAHMLER is my neighbor but I am not a serial killer even though we both served on our condo board which met monthly and he supported me when I ran for the school board?
GIVE. ME. A. BREAK.
April 19, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intelligent people do not care about Ayers or Wright and all the other BS. The people that do will vote for Clinton or McCain.
April 20, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
the idea of anybody being in bed with McCain makes me feel slightly nauseous. Okay, more than slightly.
April 19, 2008 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now I have to jab an ice pick into my brain to remove the image of McCain in be with anybody.
April 20, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
As Sheriff Dick Cheney's puerile propaganda catapult, Deputy Dubya Bush, likes to say: "You can fool some of the people all of the time -- and those are the ones you have to concentrate on." Anyone who could conceivably vote Republican -- after those rabid reactionaries have so disgraced themselves and dishonored our country -- certainly falls into the category of those that Senator John "senior moment" McBomb would like to concentrate on fooling: because the single worst "president" in American history accomplished the feat twice.
The Repugnant Ones had no primary of their own because the bizarro Keystone-Cops farce they staged to their own embarassment offered little to choose from and only the least-worst of a bad lot survived through comic attrition to become their sacrificial scapegoat this November. So, many of the bored and dispirited corporate crypto-fascists (and a great many celebrity "journalists") try to join in the Democratic Party's still interesting campaign as minor mischief makers. Few, if any, of Senator Obama's supporters will have any difficulty spotting the soiled semantic spots they leave behind wherever they've crawled in their dirty dialectical diapers.
Senator Obama looks more fit and ready to lead every day that his desperate and flailing sparring partners, You-Know-Her and John McBomb, keep swinging wildly, only to punch their own selves in the face below their belts.
April 19, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, Michael.
I would like to propose a slight change - to "Cheney's purveyor of puerile propaganda" since you started on the alliteration.
I have always thought that Hillary was an extremely capable person and could personally accomplish any job she took on, but that isn't the job of the President. The President's job, as Obama recently pointed out, is to set the goals.
That means the President has to know where to take the country, and the one thing the campaign has most clearly shown me is that Hillary doesn't really know where America has to go. She accepts too much of the status quo. She's bought into too much of the DLC/Republican/conservative crap. She depends on the status quo because she is quite competent there. But she either lacks large-scale vision, or she can't communicate it. She thinks in terms of accomplishing a job or program, not in term of where to take America in the future.
She has also not been able to run a coherent campaign that lays out who she is and why she should be President. Blame it on Mark Penn if you want, but blame her for choosing Mark Penn. That kind of choice is what being President is all about.
April 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with you, Richard. One of the things that bothers me about Hillary (and there are quite a few) is that she seems to have no soul - to put it nicely, the woman seems to lack vision. She comes across like the only reason she is in this race is for her own ends.
Obama, on the other hand, speaks clearly about what he wishes to accomplish FOR THIS COUNTRY.
Stark difference between the two.
April 19, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
What?
April 19, 2008 2:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the "Vision" thing.
Hillary doesn't have it or can't transmit it to others.
Or as John McCain would say, She is a manager, not a leader.
(McCain stole that line from Benning School for Boys, also known as the Infantry Officers Course at Fort Benning. Unfortunately for him, he doesn't have the "vision" thing either.)
A manager assigns a task to someone, allocates resources to that person, then gets updates and holds that party responsible for the success or failure of the task.
A leader sets a goal and motivated his/her subordinates to achieve that goal, and then conducts the management functions.
Hillary's a manager and a damned good one, but she's not a leader.
Obama's a leader. The operation of his campaign indicates that he is either an excellent manager or has been able to delegate that to someone, and his flexibility has shown that he does not simply let his subordinates handle it all.
McCain is neither. He is a guy who came out of Vietnam as a war hero and married a rich woman who bought him a Senate seat. His defining moment in the Senate remains his effort to use his Senate power to get the banking authorities to back off investigating the gutterslime Keating during the S&L crisis. When he nearly lost his Senate seat over that, he countered the bad publicity with his efforts to push campaign financing through the Senate. But there are good reasons why he was sixth from the bottom in his class at Annapolis.
Either Obama or Clinton would be far superior as President to McCain, but Obama will be the best. His skills are more suited to the job than hers. And Obama will have coattails for Democratic candidates that Hillary could never touch.
April 19, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taplin misses the point. The questions were not disguised charges against Obama, You read that into it. It is a pure fabrication: a straw man.
The purpose of the question is to see if Obama AT THAT MOMENT is able to give a plausible answer to those admittedly provocative questions. Taplin himself and the rest of Obama supporters all come up with good answers to these questions that Obama could have used if he was using his head.
Taplin is foolish in his absurd claim that just because we don't think Obama handled the questions in a competent manner that we (e.g.) think he is unpatriotic because he does not wear an American flag pin. That’s a personal attack on us.
This is what Obama should have said "those who wear an American flag on their lapel because our men and women are dying fighting an illegal and immoral war are scoundrels who are unwilling to send their sons to war thinking they can stay in the good graces of the American people by wearing a pin. Americans are not that stupid."
It would have been effective. Even the “rubes” (as the elitist call them) would get that point given that it is from their ranks that the soldiers are mostly drawn.
These are elementary points that you are not getting.
Obama fresh from a day after an all night strategy session with his people trying to figure out how to counterattack, is not going to fix his problem of not being able to keep his cool under pressure. Day- after cool does not cut it. On the spot cool is what we need as President.
April 19, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
After this many debates and long hours, how cool would you be? I don't want some snotty candidate who actually dismisses a large part of the democrats i.e., Move On and base activists. I don't care how good a debater she is, and what is more, I am sure Senator Obama spent every stupid question thinking "How is this relevant to the election and problems people care about"?
Regarding a lapel pin, who wants to stick a hole is an expensive suit, I never would. Just stupid, right up there with the bumper sticker ribbons.
April 19, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, poor Obama why don't we get him a pillow?
Your partiality is so extreme that it interferes with common sense. If Obama is to be excused because the poor dear has been working too hard, what about Hillary? Hillary has had to work twice as hard and is still sharp as a tack.
Before you post, give it some thought, is my advice.
April 19, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
So after Obama bombs while trying unsuccessfully to deal with the "negative" questions thrown at him by ABC in the debate, now he and his supporters want no more focus on all those distracting non-issues and negativity. Obama has promised a new kind of politics, and we are going to demand it! Ok, he hasn't himself always engaged in this so-called "new kind of politics" up until now, but let's just blame all that on "Annie Oakley" Clinton the "hypocrite". Obama has been a saint, except when Hillary's negativism forced him, ever so reluctantly, to respond in kind with a few dozen attack ads of his own. But that's all behind us now. Now we're going to be our better selves.
So now that we've put all that behind us and the Democrats have moved into Obama's new age of enlightened politics where candidates treat each other with respect and only debate the issues that really matter to the voters, everything is going to be wonderful! Uh, well, except for McCain. Maybe we should have gotten him to agree to sign on to this new kind of politics too. I mean, he's pretty old school. But never mind. We'll just enlighten him. And if he's stubborn and tries to run an old-fashioned mud-slinging campaign that concentrates on going after your opponent's weaknesses, we'll shame him by holding our heads high and refusing to respond to his negative attacks against us. We'll just show him that what we have to offer is more noble. His negativity will only make him look bad.
Of course, we may also have a problem with that disgusting GOP hit machine. I mean it is the party of Carl Rove and Dick Cheney, after all, and those people have no shame. But it's been four years since they swift boated Kerry, so they're probably as tired and fed up with the old negative politics as we are. They wouldn't dare go negative. And besides, even if they did, the American people would never fall for it. The American people are wise and know a superior candidate when they see one. Just look at.... well... ok, don't look at Bush. Never mind.
Just keep your eyes in the clouds and only good things will happen. And whatever you do, don't vote for Hillary Clinton! She's been toughened by all those years of brawling with all those negative types. She thinks politics is all about struggle. Well, why can't we all just get along?? She keeps talking about fighting for us. All she talks about is fighting, fighting, fighting. Well, we don't want a fighter.!! We want a noble, head held high, brush it off your shoulder kind of guy that doesn't lower himself to brawling with political thugs. We don't want any more nasty debates. We want change! WE WANT SOMEONE WHO IS ABOVE IT ALL!!! O - BA - MA! O - BA - MA!
April 19, 2008 4:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, go find Joe and John, they need you on the bus.
April 19, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's pure ad hominem trolling. It is totally empty of content and it disrespects a poster who makes good sound arguments. This is the level that TPM has sunk to with these Obama trolls.
I would like to hear from those Obama supporters who actually have cogent arguments for why Obama should be the nominee and not have to wade through this infantile garbage.
April 19, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe you do want to hear cogent arguments. There have been many, and you're still argumentative and looking for any negative you can to emphasize.
That's not a recipe for a discussion. That's the definition of a troll.
April 19, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are plenty of Obama supporters who have procured plenty of 'cogent arguments' as to why he should be the nominee and why he should be president. It's not our fault you remain deaf to them ...
Regarding the issues, such reasons fall within three broad categories: universal health care, job creation, and an end to the Iraq war. If you want me to embellish, say the word.
However, insofar as Obama and Clinton by and large share policy views, it becomes a matter of sound judgment and wise leadership. For me, Clinton has betrayed the complete opposite; the wild soap opera that is her campaign has conveyed nothing less but weak judgment, shoddy leadership, and downright dirty politics. And the best example of Clintonian divisiveness and deadlocked government was the failed attempt at health care reform in the '90s: a failure attributed NOT necessarily to the Republicans, but to the pitiful exclusiveness - the 'meetings behind closed doors' - that shut out both Democrat and Republican alike.
Obama, on the other hand, has shown throughout the campaign a spirited innovativeness and keen intelligence that is necessary for effective leadership and sound decision-making. He has demonstrated this capacity throughout his career; it is evidenced by the new people he has taken in as advisors (i.e. Samantha power); and it is displayed by his unique and creative capacity for attracting thousands into the political process.
At the end of the day, a president does not CREATE policy (just like a military commander - i.e., Petraeus - does not enact strategy) - for he or she would technically embody some kind of despot or dictator. Instead, a president rallies people behind policies (normally crafted in Congress) favourable to the country and ensures, in turn, that government as a whole is effective. All great presidents, in the end, have been great communicators; and Obama, as opposed to Clinton, has demonstrated that ability with rigour, style, and intelligence.
April 20, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that's right Otto..you see only Hillary gets to decide that questions are irrelevant.
Only Hillary gets to crow about her dad teaching her to shoot as a girl and then tell a reporter who asks when is the last time she shot a gun..that it is irrelevant.
Hillary really handles 'tough' questions well doesn't she?
Only Hillary gets to tell the American public that if apologizing for her war vote is important to voters, then they need to vote for someone else.
Hillary knows how to handle tough questions.
Only Hillary gets to say 'ifIhadknownthenwhatweknownow' in response to why she authorized this President to go to war.
That Hillary is one tough cookie, her 35 years of experience has taught her well.
Hillary told us it was a vastrightwingconspiracy when asked about Lewinsky.
That Hillary sure knows how to handle the GOP ...she is tough ...she will fight for us...just like she opposed NAFTA and burning the flag.
Please.
April 19, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right now the conflict is between Obama and Clinton. One thing that this loooong primary season has done is forced both of them to build strong political machines, much of it Internet-based.
In the meantime, the Republicans can't even get their donors to fund Freedom's Watch, and if McCain has any machine at all it is not obvious above ground. He's out of money legally and the stuff above the fed campaign limits is just trickling in. He's working the media for all the freebies he can get, and that has been enough to remind us he's not of vacation.
Democrats are drawing a lot more money than the Republicans, too. Thats' the first time I've ever seen that.
The polls for general election results this far out are useless. They are reacting to what's in the media currently, and that's Obama and Clinton beating each other up, the media beating up the frontrunner and no one touching McCain. When McCain becomes the focus of the Democratic election machines that have developed this Spring McCain will blow away like a scarecrow in a tornado.
And the media? They aren't going to make the mistake that ABC just did. They're whining and complaining about the dirty disrespectful bloggers, but when I posted my email to ABC there were already over 14,000 ahead of me and the rest of the media themselves have covered the disaster. No one who gets paid by advertisers wants that kind of public reaction. They are going to be a lot more careful than Gibson and Stephanopolous were, although their boss who hired and trained them, Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert hasn't learned yet. I think that Russert, like McCain, is too old to learn much new.
Meanwhile, the Bush/Greenspan-created Recession is getting worse, and McCain will be running against that also.
Lapel Flag-pins? Their importance was to display for everyone to see just how out of touch with reality - how irrelevant - and how untrustworthy the TV media is to this election, and what kind of shit the next media mogul who pulls this garbage can expect.
April 19, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Otto, Obama did a fine job in answering to all of the swiftboating questions that comprised almost a full 1/2 of the "debate". His responses were completely reasonable, which may be why you thought he failed. He even went beyond by pointing out that Hillary had had to deal with the "baking cookies" nontroversy which was ridiculous and just a distraction; that all of these silly "controversies" ginned up by the media and the Republicans simply keep people from focusing on the real problems that affect their daily lives and that real problems can never be solved if we waste our time with meaningless distractions. It was a very common sense point - even "bitter" small town people know that if the refrigerator breaks down, complaining about the music that the Mexicans next door are playing isn't going to fix it.
Which, I suspect, is exactly why you're unable to grasp it.
You can make all the claims you like about some invisible inside information you have about the man's unfitness to lead. I'm not a psychic; I can't tell you whether his performance as president would be stellar or merely competent. But I can tell you that it would be at the minimum the latter, because he has demonstrated over and over again the ability to remain focused, he has demonstrated in his career the ability to get groups of disparate and for the most part disempowered people to work together towards common goals, and he's obviously an intelligent and thoughtful person.
You continue to claim that the Republicans are going to knock Obama out with these things that have already bounced off of him, if we are to believe the polls. Which I think are probably a more reality-based measure of things than your bias.
April 19, 2008 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jenn says below: "...real problems can never be solved if we waste our time with meaningless distractions."
The ultra-rich and their media servants keep us busy with these distractions so we won't notice they're robbing us and destroying millions of lives all over the world.
Otto says, sarcastically: "Just keep your eyes in the clouds and only good things will happen." Otto, you have it backwards. Barack's eyes are on real events on the ground. He is asking the American people to demand rational, practical, accountable government.
If skill in answering stupid phony questions is the criterion for Presidential character, then we will continue to have a stupid phony government.
April 19, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
The current meme seems to be that the purpose of the debates is to find out how the candidates will react when the GOP noise machine starting hurling pointless and irritating accusations. If this is true, why don't we just cut to the chase and make each candidate deliver a major policy address while a cartload of chimpanzees fling poop at them? Wouldn't that tell us everything we need to know?
April 19, 2008 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, I so want a debate run by the League of Chimpanzee Poop-Flingers.
April 19, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait...I thought that's who was running the debates already...
April 19, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I don't see much here is discussion of the implications of the outcomes of this primary for the DLC and its influence in the Democratic Party. It seems clear to me that Obama's rise is a threat to the DLC's dominance since Bill was in the White House. No doubt they're not happy at the prospect of the people overruling their candidate of choice - HRC.
April 19, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
CarolBG- You asked the right question. Of course the DLC wing of the Democratic party, funded by the corporations that got Bill Clinton to deregulate telecom, prescription drug advertising and and banking (killing Glass-Steagal)would be freaked out at the prospect of Obama in the White House.
April 19, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Deregulate Telcom?
This kind of idiocy is why I can't take you seriously as a scholar, or and "intelectshul.:
Bill Clinton worked hard NOT to deregulate Telcom.
Don't believe me? Ask Reed Hundt, I'm sure Josh or Andrew will pass along his e-mail, but in the meantime, here's what HE said about it:
You perpetuate myths like any non-thinking partisan BOOB.
April 19, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Salon may give Clinton an excuse, but he still let it pass without a veto.
April 19, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. Sure.
Salon is full of psuedo-intellectuals, too.
April 20, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
WB, I saw that you got into an exchange in the HouseBrew thread that Josh posted about personal attacks with CDeVille and you insisted that you would not be engaging in that sort of stuff, but now I've seen you slight our guest blogger's intellect twice.
Maybe you should lighten up on that and just address the issues.
April 20, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
D'ya mean Jan? The poster I once gave 45 minutes of my time to, patiently uprating 3 weeks worth of her comments, so she'd get her TU status back?
Oh. Somehow you got it backwards, and I doubt she'd appreciate your pandering.
Look, this ain't DailyKos. There is a standard here. When people that bill themselves as "scholars" or "intellectuals" post comments are intellectually sloppy, and they try to get away with nonsense, I call them on it. They "insult" MY intelligence.
If either of these people showed the smallest inclination to engage politely, I'd certainly follow suit. As it stands I see no reason to encourage them, or deviate from the disdain they subject their readers to.
April 20, 2008 7:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody seriously believes HRC has any real chance to win the nomination. Not even her own supporters think she has much of a chance when they they're being honest.
Thus, by the process of elimination, we arrive at the only plausible purpose for HRC's Quixote crusade--to diminish Obama's influence and protect the Clinton (and the special interest groups they represent) de facto control of the Democratic party.
Barak surprised everyone with his campaign effectiveness and yes, toughness. It's a new day coming, and it can't come soon enough.
April 19, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you hit the nail on the head CarolBig
The truth is that WJC has promised a ton of favors, patronage and political backroom deals to folks all over the globe, multinational imperialists and just sold America to whatever interest he chose to make a buck off....all contingent upon his return to power.
That is why Bill is making more campaign stops than Hillary everywhere she competes, he has more stops 7 alone in one day in PA and NC while she spends time in only PA with 2 stops and they also have Chelsea PIMPED OUT as well, just as Schuster said on MSNBC.
Billbob Clinton owes a ton of deals and that is whay they are throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. The Clintons intend on taking the Dem party down if they do not return to the WH..the worse case scenario for them is Obama being elected and winning 2 terms vs. the old geezer McCain lasting perhaps one term. They are betting on McCain over Obama.
This should be clear to the Democratic leadership but Bill has them all in his hip pocket they owe him for being a superdelegate. Afterall, he appointed all of them in the past 8 years.
This whole thing is rigged and Obama has upset the apple cart.
They will gladly kill Obama to live off the government trough and American treasury.
We are being PIMPED by the Clintons.
April 19, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
A "new kind of politics" indeed! When it suits Obama. Obama and his supporters constantly decry the "negativity" of the Clinton campaign, and promise a new kind of politics. After wilting under fire in the most recent debate, Obama has worked feverishly to shift the focus to the tone of the debate, which he blames on ABC news and Hillary Clinton. Here's something from Hillary's website for Obama supporters to think about.
Who said Hillary Clinton will "literally do anything to win? the Obama campaign.
Who said she is "attempting to deceive the American people"? The Obama campaign.
Who said she has a secret 20-year plan to become president? Barack Obama.
Who called Hillary a "calculating, poll-tested, divisive figure"? Barack Obama.
Who called Hillary "one of the most secretive politicians in America"? Barack Obama's campaign manager.
Who said Hillary Clinton's campaign is "playing politics with war"? The Obama campaign.
Who said John McCain is seen as more honest and trustworthy than Hillary Clinton? Barack Obama's campaign spokesman.
Who called Hillary Clinton "dishonest"? Barack Obama.
Who referred to Hillary Clinton as "a monster"? Obama's top adviser.
Who said Hillary Clinton "stands for nothing"? Barack Obama.
Who said of Hillary Clinton, "The American people are not going to elect a president they do not trust"? Obama's campaign manager.
Who claimed Hillary Clinton "consistently" and "deliberately" misleads the American people? Obama's campaign spokesman.
Who called Hillary Clinton "Annie Oakley"? Barack Obama.
Who said, "We've been very measured in terms of how we talk about Senator Clinton"? Barack Obama.
April 19, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary can't take the heat, she should get out of the kitchen.
Glass jaw, looks like to me. Maybe got it while dodging sniper bullets in Bosnia.
April 19, 2008 2:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
With the possible exception of the "Monster" comment, which of the above statements was not accurate?
She is extremely driven to be elected President this time, and like all DLCers, she's have Republican in attitude. Those are the tools she brings to the table.
She probably more driven that Obama because she is age 60 and if Obama gets elected she can't run again until she is age 68. Time is against her. This is her shot. Barack, at age 48, has three, maybe four more eight year presidencies to have a shot at.(Hey - McCain at 72 already? I'm age 65. He's too damned old. But that will not be true in 32 years for the wealthy elites and Senators.)
April 19, 2008 7:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Speaking of getting it backwards, Hillary has reversed Obama's lead in the daily Gallup poll. Just four days ago Obama was ahead by 11 points. He is now behind by 1. Lets hear more about how Obama's weak performance under fire in the debate had no effect.
April 19, 2008
Gallup Daily: Clinton 46%, Obama 45%
General election races remain tight
PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup Poll Daily tracking shows that Hillary Clinton now receives 46% of the support of Democrats nationally, compared to 45% for Barack Obama, marking the first time Obama has not led in Gallup's daily tracking since March 18-20.
These results are based on interviewing conducted April 16-18, including two days of interviewing after the contentious Wednesday night debate in Philadelphia and the media focus that followed. Support for Hillary Clinton has been significantly higher in both of these post-debate nights of interviewing than in recent weeks. The two Democratic candidates are now engaged in intensive campaigning leading up to Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary and are under a continual and hot media spotlight, increasing the chances for change in the views of Democrats in the days ahead. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)
There has been no change in the general election trial heats, with Obama's margin over Republican John McCain at 45% to 44% among registered voters nationally, and Clinton's margin at 46% to 44%. -- Frank Newport
April 19, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has a lot of supporters like you Otto. Folks who think that it is PRESIDENTIAL to engage in bickering sniping and petty backbiting.
Hillary is a PROVEN liar..yet you continue to tout her as presidential material?
Guess you have such a low regard for the Presidency it doesn't matter what she says or does.
Those Gallup polls are going down and that is America's loss.
We gain nothing when Billary rises in the polls.
How she wins is how she will govern. Lies, deceit and nasty smears.
April 19, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has a lot of supporters like you vicissitudes. Folks who think that it is PRESIDENTIAL to engage in bickering sniping and petty backbiting.
Obama is a PROVEN liar..yet you continue to tout him as presidential material?
Guess you have such a low regard for the Presidency it doesn't matter what he says or does.
Those Gallup polls are going up and that is America's win.
We gain a lot when Clinton rises in the polls.
How she wins is how she will govern. Honestly, decency withstanding lies, deceit and nasty smears from Obama and his cultists.
April 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
So?
Pennsylvania and North Carolina are going to break pretty close to even, just as the earlier states have. That means Obama is headed into the convention about 100 delegates shy of the 2025. There is NO WAY Hillary can overcome that lead. The remaining superdelegates will not overturn that lead if they have any consideration for the Party, and their function is to put the consideration of the Party topmost.
The definition of "liar" as used by one's political opponents is something that isn't even close to what normal people mean with that term. Now when applied to conservatives, it is simply a description of their normal practice, but it doesn't fit either Obama or Clinton.
April 19, 2008 7:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
this new Newsweek poll finding that Obama is pulling away and now leads Hillary nationally by 19 points among registered Dems.
April 19, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately for you Otto, and even moreso for Hillary, the Democratic Party doesn't select its nominee based on the latest Gallup poll.
Hillary lost this thing a month ago. Get over it already.
April 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has no way of making up the number of delegates she is behind by June. Only a winner-takes-all system would allow her to get the nomination.
The superdelegates are not going to go against the wisdom of the primaries and caucuses that have already occurred. That would destroy the Democratic Party for this election.
April 19, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also speaking of "backwards", three Zogby polls in the last three days show Hillery widening her lead in Pennsylvania. Perhaps it is Obama who is moving backwards.
April 19, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your optimism is inspiring, Otto. Keep the hope alive.
As far as I'm concerned, every day that HRC stays in this race is another day for Obama to shine.
3 more days to PA!
April 19, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well Jon you must be omniscient because there is no indication that Obama would undo any of the Clinton legislation. Show me where Obama says specifically that he will deviate from centrism. You can't
All he ever did say was that he is going to change POLITICS in America. A laughable statement in itself but hey, that's politics in America. He says he will get together with Republicans. He hints that he will follow in the tradition of Ronald Reagan of all people.
Where you get your idea that Obama is going to be a radical president is beyond me.
April 19, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
He doesn't say it but he gives you very subtle hints that he going to be a radical president. He has very radical friends and mentors. His wife is very radical. Jonathan Taplin understand this. This is the reason why he is so crazy about Obama. This is not about improving lives of ordinary Americans. It’s not about their health care. They have nothing but disdain of ordinary folks who cling to guns or religion. It’s about their wet dreams of the revolution in style of Che Guevara.
April 19, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nathan:
What you say is a given. I understand the subtext of this campaign. My point is that examining the guy (Obama) leaves me with the impression that he will not be able to accomplish much no matter what his real agenda turns out to be. Why do I say that? Because he is not tough enough. He bends too easily under pressure. It is a simple as that.
I might be wrong. But his performance thus far does not give any indication that he is up to the job.
April 19, 2008 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is their last best hope.
April 19, 2008 7:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very funny:
Take the Pop-Quiz to see who's using the Republican attack playbook:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/quiz
April 19, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
OttoF and other rational beings,
why do we keep trying to convince the kool-aid drinkers that Barack Obama is not the second coming of Christ? they don't listen.
oh well: there's none so blind as those who will not see.
he's a flawed candidate. and recently he's become absolutely tone-deaf to the "bitter" Americans who (unfortunately for the Democrats) make up most of this country.
I don't understand why the Democrats don't get this. they must enjoy losing presidential elections. I read on a blog here a comment that Bill Clinton had "taken the party so far to the right" that it had to find its way back. well, with Obama as the nominee, the party will move so far left it'll fall into the Pacific. and we can all say hello to President McCain.
April 19, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama isn't the second coming. Doesn't matter.
He is head and shoulders above Hillary who is mired in her half-conservative DLC past, and he is so superior to McCain that there is no way they belong in the same universe. And like FDR, Obama is educable. Neither of the other two are.
April 19, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob Herbert writes today, the Democrats seem to always have a Road Map to Defeat Defeat looks only too likely at this point for either of the damaged Democratic contenders, American voters may not yet be ready for either a woman or a black as president.
A good thing about a McCain presidency is that he will be POTUS for year 7,8,9,10 of the war, and will be responsible for our inevitable and inglorious exit. There will be no 'defining moments' and no victory in store for this, Bush's war, the unnecessary war.
April 19, 2008 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well 2 out of 3 critical elements are working in our favor, we have built a new political coalition, we have a candidate with a compelling message...now if only the party would unify behind him. We just might win back the white house.
April 19, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is going to be informed by the party elders that the race is over. She is going to congratulate Obama for a great race and urge her supporters to vote for him. She is then going to campaign for him, if she wants any national politics future at all.
Should there be a surprise reversal between now and the convention, Obama will do exactly the same.
In either case, the supporters of the loser will inform the press - shrilly - of their displeasure and then sink into oblivion. The Press will respond with ponderous questions of how badly the Democratic nominee has been hurt, and it will have disappeared within two weeks.
The Republicans are the enemy of every Democrat living. That very obvious fact is being concealed behind the obsessive media coverage of the only game in town, the Democratic nomination race.
The fact that the Republicans are also the enemies of every American who is not super wealthy is going to quickly become apparent to the independents. Recession, Iraq, and health-care are the drivers of this election.
April 19, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink