Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Hillary has the TRUE claim to bipartisanship
Hillary has endorsed McCain over Obama. Obama has not endorsed a single Republican candidate for President. Not one.
Hillary had the endorsement of Rush Limbaugh, who tried to get Republicans to "cross over" and vote for her. Obama has not been endorsed by any right-wing talkshow blowhards. Not one.
Hillary has Charlie Crist, the Republican governor of Florida, arguing in favor of changing the rules so that the Florida delegates will count in her favor. Obama does not have a single Republican governor trying to break the rules to help him out. Not one.
Hillary can reach out to neo-cons. She voted for Bush's war in Iraq. She voted for Kyl-Lieberman, paving the way for war with Iran, a vote on which she was joined by every single Republican senator. She knows the power of fearmongering, as her 3AM ad shows. In August of last year she had the guts to say that the Surge is "working", boldly adopting Bush's re-re-re-definition of "working". On point after point she speaks the language of the neo-cons and she backs that up with votes.
Obama doesn't have that kind of connection with neo-cons. Not on even one single point. Not one.
And Hillary's Republican-friendly roots run deep. According to Wikipedia she "volunteered for Republican candidate Barry Goldwater" in 1964, and was President of the Young Republicans organization in college. She left the Republican party in 1968. Obama hasn't had a leadership position in any Republican organizations. Not one.
So when Obama talks about his ability to reach across the aisle, it's nothing compared to the neo-con cred that Hillary brings to the table.
Something to think about.
Comments (23)
What I like to think about is how she kicks his ass in the big states every time the voters see that they have to do something or Obama is going to be the nominee. If you're in this much anguish about Texas and Ohio, they'd better tie you down when the Pennsylvania returns start coming in. The you can really flip out over the way she rolls over old John McCain. You're going to have a rough year.
March 5, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow.
Your lucidity is breathtaking.
Or is it your disconnect from the point of the blog post?
Part of me wants to rebut the various ahem points of your comment, but then my brain kicks in and I figure why waste the time.
March 6, 2008 12:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Senator Clinton lost Texas.
March 6, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big States Myth (from the great orange satan)
--2 voted but there was no campaign: MI and FL
--3 haven't voted yet: PA, IN, and NC
--5 have voted for Obama: IL, WA, MO, VA, and GA
--6 have voted for Clinton: OH, CA, NY, NJ, MA, and TN
--TX is still unclear, but go ahead and give it her for the purpose of the argument if you want.
"Big state" is defined as the 17 states with more than 10 EVs.
make it above 11, take out WA (Obama), IN (tbd), and Tennessee (Clinton), so it's unchanged. Make the cutoff above 12, then you lose MA (Clinton), so they're even. Make it above 13, and Virginia is out (Obama), so he's down one. "More than 10" is as good a cutoff as any.
But if NY, CA, and OH are truly the only states that "matter", then I guess that's another story.
March 6, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you.
March 6, 2008 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the spread sheet predicting how he was going to perform in the primaries you will note that Sen Obama's campaign predicted losses in OH, TX and PA back in January. They will loose PA and win the nomination anyawy. No need to panic. These prediction have been right about who would win in all the contests so far except ME. They have over estimated Hillary's margins and under estimated Obama's. So things are going better than he thought they would.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Obamas_projections.html
March 6, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Billy, Billy, Billy. She gained about 8 delegates with Ohio and Texas. That's not enough to make the sort of difference you seem to think it makes.
But it's not about the delegates, it's about Hillary's scorched earth approach that is about her getting the nomination no matter who or what she has to destroy to do it.
And it's about the way her supporters, like you, really just don't care how much damage she does, or how Rovian her attacks become. You don't think she has any real chance of winning, not in any legitimate way, you just want to see her destroy Obama and if necessary take the party down with her.
If she gets the nomination, she won't roll over McCain, McCain will roll over her. She's already endorsed him on the basis of his experience, and compared to him she has almost no experience. Unless you count being First Lady, and giving a speech in China. And I guess you could count destroying prospects for health care reform fifteen years ago if you want, but you probably don't. The 3AM ad would be a better ad for McCain than for her. Live by the fearmongering, die by the fearmongering.
March 6, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought McCain did use the 3am ad...
March 6, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup.
McClintain at 3 AM posted Jan 2008
March 6, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary is giving Obama a taste of his own medicine. I like Chicago like politics.
March 6, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 3am phone call ad was on its face ridiculous. Obama needs to do just that: ridicule her and her campaign when it does ridiculous things.
March 6, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it just hilarious how Obama supporters have been throwing this Kyl-Lieberman thing around for months as if it's somehow damning, and now it turns out that Obama sponsored a bill that pushed a similar designation on Iran?
S.970 Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/110-s970/show
Then, he didn't even show up to vote for the whole Kyl-Lieberman bill??? Hill-ar-ious! I guess it doesn't matter, though, as we all know one good speech is ample proof of your good judgment. Right?
March 6, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you mean it's:
Hillary-ious?
Say, who voted against telecom immunity again?
Oh, right, it was Obama. Where was Clinton?
March 6, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try, but you can't spin that one as authorizing war. It's about applying financial pressure, i.e., about doing things OTHER THAN WAR to try to resolve the problem.
Just the opposite of the point of Kyl-Lieberman. Just look at the names of the sponsors of the bill and you have a pretty good idea of it's neo-con pedigree. If you want an even stronger indication, EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN SENATOR joined Hillary in voting for it.
March 6, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice try spinning the Kyl Lieberman bill as a vote to war. It actually says this:
"the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization...and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists."
Similar to the language in the Obama bill.
Now if Obama had just shown up to vote on that one, we would know where he stands. Too bad he didn't.
March 6, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. Just like one good speech in Beijing is proof of your foreign policy experience.
March 6, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
meh. The bill you are referring to has 70 co-sponsors, including Clinton, McCain and Obama. The bill went to the Finance committee where it promptly met its end.
March 6, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
don't forget her flag-burning law! that was my personal favorite.
March 6, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
They forget the republicans that have been voting for Obama since IOWA giving him the victories in the Red-states.
March 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey poster, you are so right!!! i was watching the news yesterday and every single republican was wishing that she became the nominee. They were all saying that she is an incredible motivator. They claim that she will motivate millions of republicans to go out and vote. Wow, i wish Obama had every republican wishing that he became the nominee...oh well, i guess he's just not as good at getting republicans to go out and vote...wait a minute...hold on, i'm a democrat, there's something wrong here...
March 6, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a neo-con. Always has been. Nobody ever labeled her a progressive until THIS campaign. Disgusting that Democrats fall for it.
March 6, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
When can we finally give up the charade about Hillary endorsing McCain? We all know it is a phony claim. Can we let it rest along with the phony racism charges, the phony accusations of releasing photos, and the phony image-darkening? Or do we have to use the republican/goebbels tactics of repeating lies until they are considered true? (Roosevelt let the japanese bomb pearl harbor! Muskie cried! Hillary killed Vince Foster!) Get a grip.
If you can't find anything real to bitch about, then stop bitching. If you are really believe the spin about the impossible delegate math situation, then just sit back and revel in your candidate's high-minded, non-mudslinging, frontrunner campaign and enjoy his positive speeches and rallies.
(What? He is mudslinging already? Doesn't he know she can't beat him because of the math?)
March 6, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her claim that Sen McCain is more qualified to be president that Sen Obama is now a part of her satandard stump speach. Calling that an endorsement is a small exageration. It is not a lie like claiming she killed Vince Foster, or like claiming she has more experience than Obama.
March 6, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment