Irresponsible Primary Moves

by: Matt Stoller

Mon Mar 03, 2008 at 18:43


( - promoted by Chris Bowers)

This looks bad.

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. "I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Senator Clinton has no reason to care about what I have to say, obviously, since I voted for Obama.  And she voted against the Moveon censureship (one of them anyway) resolution in the Senate, while Obama didn't, and then Moveon endorsed him anyway.

Still, I find stuff like this quote repugnant, and it strikes me as a bad strategic move regardless of who wins the primary.  McCain is very dangerous and building him up as experienced, with the implication that he's ready to lead our military, is, shall we say, a bad thing.

Matt Stoller :: Irresponsible Primary Moves

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Irresponsible Primary Moves | 189 comments
Is it now time to talk about her plan B? (4.00 / 9)
That if she can't win the nomination, she would prefer a Republican president so she still has a shot in 2012?

Is she that Machiavellian? I don't know, was Machiavelli that Machiavellian?

That's what they said about 2004 (4.00 / 3)
That the Clintons wanted Kerry to lose so that Hillary could take it in 2008.  But I don't remember the Clintons really doing anything to undermine Kerry in the last election.

This quote, however, is horrible. She is actually praising the nominee from the other party, and putting down our own nominee.  These are words that I could easily imagine coming from the mouth of Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller.

Disgusting.

[ Parent ]
Carville (0.00 / 0)
There was a statement that Carville was working for Kerry's campaign and leaked details of it to his wife, to undermine Kerry.
[ Parent ]
well (4.00 / 2)
For the only time this primary season (as an Obama guy), I'll link to Taylor Marsh...

Did Carville and McCurry Sell Kerry Out?

I don't know what difference Carville's call really made.  I've never seen where Kerry could have made up the difference in Ohio.



New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
Carville (0.00 / 0)
It was a betrayal.  I don't know that it mattered, though I will not read an argument based on Taylor Marsh, but it still was a betrayal.
[ Parent ]
that's not plan B (4.00 / 2)
No, plan B is for her to go Lieberman and run as the standard bearer for the America for Clinton party.
[ Parent ]
No way (0.00 / 0)
She isn't that stupid.  Too much to lose.
[ Parent ]
Actually, Plan B would be to keep this thing going until the convention (0.00 / 0)
And her praise of McCain is of a piece with that Plan.  Which brings us to the bizzaro reality we now occupy in which Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, Charlie Crist, the conservative Canadian government and John McCain are all lined up with Hillary to ensure either that (1) she is the nominee or that (2) at the very least, the dems continue the blood-letting through the convention.

Hillary 2012 is Plan C.

[ Parent ]
That would answer (4.00 / 8)
the question Chris Bowers asked earlier about whether we want this primary to last for two more months until PA.
She said WHAT? (4.00 / 2)
   I let the silly 60 minutes controversy go - because it was silly.  This is exactly what I didn't want to see in the primary.  There is no need to co-opt Republican attacks on your primary opponent.  This just motivates me more here in Pennsylvania to actively campaign for Obama.  You don't have my state in the bag, Hillary.
 If she loves McCain so much she should ask for the VP spot (marry him).

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
Yup (4.00 / 1)
I saw that 60 Minutes clip today and she pretty clearly thought (correctly) that Kroft's question was absurd. This is different. This is stupid. This is scorched earth. This is unforgivable.  
[ Parent ]
Wake up and smell the scorched earth (0.00 / 0)
I think Clinton is losing lots of folks with this crack.  Much  worse than when Kennedy stayed aloof from Carter.  That was just a churlish lack of bonhomie.  This is an outright attack on a colleague.  Coupled with her smirky, open-ended responses to the Muslim rumour, it's just disgusting.

Does she think she's entitled to this kind of behavior because of the public trials and injustice she's suffered?  What is going on here?  Is this supposed to be good practice for 'the tough stuff' the Republicans will bring out?  But why associate yourself with that kind of slime?

Major turn off.  I predict total destruction of her campaign and, simultaneuosly, a mainstreaming of the 'discussion' about whether Obama is 'American-enough' to be Commander-in-Chief.

McCain will get a pass because, after all, he is a war hero.  

"McCain is good at war.  Obama just wants to quit."

It could be a tough election.  America is a mean old cuss.


USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
Village mutual backscratching (4.00 / 4)
  Hillary Clinton has much more in common with John McCain than she does with Barack Obama. Her attacks on Obama's "inexperience" are just an indication that he's not a fully-made member of the DC elite culture. Which is what this primary -- and this election -- are really about.

 Notice how Hillary never -- literally never -- says anything bad about McCain? I honestly don't think she'll try too hard to beat him -- keeping Obama and his icky outsiders out of the process is FAR more important to her and her DLC cohorts.

 Hillary's debates against McCain will make the Lieberman-Cheney matchup look like a pit-bull fight. Get ready for endless iterations of "I agree with Senator McCain..."

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

Now you bring it up (0.00 / 0)
Thinking about it, I can't remember anything she has ever said bad about McCain.  She makes arguments about how she can beat him but she's never said any details about it.

Maybe she has and I just can't remember.  But...

[ Parent ]
Maybe her Plan B (4.00 / 1)
is McCain's VP!

USA: 1950 to 2010
[ Parent ]
Not one penny! maybe not even my vote... (0.00 / 0)
If Clinton wins via fear and divide and conquer tatics-
I will not forgive her-
I just can not take anymore of this kind of approach!

It is only us - who deny our power to do harm -
do harm so much and so many!

Can we finally dispense with the idea... (4.00 / 2)

 ...that Hillary Clinton is a good and loyal Democrat?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
Over the last couple of months... (0.00 / 0)
... it has been gospel at this site, and MyDd, and Daily Kos -- all of which have different slants -- that anyone who doesn't pledge to support the Democratic nominee no matter who winds up winning is a bad and naive person.

But what are we to think now that one of the Democratic nominees has broken with the gospel? All the hectoring from Clintonites that Obama supporters are not loyal Dems unless they commit to Hillary if she nabs the nomination -- just posturing?

Looks like it from here, now.

"Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they’ve stolen." -- Mort Sahl

[ Parent ]
Over the last couple of months... (0.00 / 0)
... it has been gospel at this site, and MyDd, and Daily Kos -- all of which have different slants -- that anyone who doesn't pledge to support the Democratic nominee no matter who winds up winning is a bad and naive person.

But what are we to think now that one of the Democratic nominees has broken with the gospel? All the hectoring from Clintonites that Obama supporters are not loyal Dems unless they commit to Hillary if she nabs the nomination -- just posturing?

Looks like it from here, now.

"Liberals feel unworthy of their possessions. Conservatives feel they deserve everything they’ve stolen." -- Mort Sahl

[ Parent ]
McCain is experienced (4.00 / 1)
Hillary Clinton's statement won't come as news to anybody.  
McCain experienced? (0.00 / 0)
McCain is going to claim experience, yes.  What is he experienced at?  We can attack him on bad judgment and all sorts of stuff, unless we start endorsing it first.
[ Parent ]
He can be attacked ... (4.00 / 1)
... on his judgement calls, philosophy of governing, ethics, his votes in the senate, etc.

However to deny that St. John McCain will be able to play the experience card isn't plausible.

[ Parent ]
That's not the question. (4.00 / 2)
The question is whether Clinton should play McCain's cards for him --- essentially slam Obama in his name.

And there will be footage of Clinton saying it on endless repeat over at the RNC.

One Million Strong --- Join up!

[ Parent ]
If she... (4.00 / 1)
...thinks it is necessary to draw an important distinction between herself and Obama she should absolutely play that card. McCain is the Republican nominee. He can't be ignored.
[ Parent ]
So when.... (4.00 / 2)
  ...is she going to draw a distinction between herself and McCain?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
During the General Election Campaign (n/t) (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I'll believe it when I see it (4.00 / 1)
  She'll make Joe Lieberman look like Russ Feingold.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
This is hardly the opposite of ignoring him (4.00 / 8)
Surely you can see that there's no need to be talking about McCain's strengths. That's certainly not necessary to draw a distinction between Hillary and Obama.

It's amazingly poor judgment to talk up any McCain attribute as a strength.

Karl in Drexel Hill, PA

[ Parent ]
I disagree that it is poor judgement (0.00 / 0)
She is saying that she is more competitive against McCain on the experience attribute than Obama is. It is fair for her to make that point in the way she did since we now know who the Republican candidate is. There is no need to discuss the issue as if we didn't know who the Republican nominee would be in the fall.
[ Parent ]
She said (0.00 / 0)
1- she has experience.
2- McCain has experience.
3- Barak has a speech in 2002.  {um actually 2004}

How in the world is that acceptable?  

[ Parent ]
Of course it is acceptable (0.00 / 0)
It is simply part of the case she is making about why she is the best candidate to take on McCain.  
[ Parent ]
Enough is enough (0.00 / 0)
I've had enough of the Clinton antics. If she somehow manages to become the nominee, I am leaning heavily towards not voting in the general election for a president. She's a bad Democrat, and she has no regard for what is good for the party.

Hard to believe that it was only a week and a half ago how everyone was praising her for being magnanimous in the Austin debate.

Get used to it (0.00 / 0)
  Tomorrow's going to be a bloodbath for Obama -- I still can't believe how badly his campaign screwed up the Canada/NAFTA thing, effectively punting away what should have been a huge wedge with which to slice off Hillary supporters. The rest of it -- the 24/7 pro-Hillary media cycle over the last week -- isn't his fault, really, but Obama's going to have to start going hard negative on Hillary if he wants to win this thing.  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn
[ Parent ]
I'm hopefully optimistic (4.00 / 1)
Despite today's polls, there has been a deconstruction of the flaws in them (yes, even SUSA) over at The Field that makes me feel that Obama will outperform the poll numbers that came out today.

If he wins Texas, he's still in the driver's seat for the nomination. And should Hillary Clinton decide that she wants to campaign until April 22nd, I'll be volunteering my ass off here in Philly to make sure that it marks the graveyard for her presidential ambitions once and for all.

[ Parent ]
More bad polls today, though (4.00 / 1)
  TPM just put out a new batch of polls, the best of which shows that Texas is a dead heat.

 I'm at the point of just hoping he can cut through the "Massive Hillary Comeback" hype and point out that the delegates still favor him.

 I was always uncomfortable with everyone handing the nomination to Obama after Wisconsin. People underestimated just how sleazy and dirty the Clintons could get. Well, distasteful as it may be, that crap works...  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Weekend polls are worthless... (0.00 / 0)
...if they meant something, we'd be talking about how to re-elect president John Kerry...  He was leading quite well after the weekend polls...

In 2006, the weekend polls showed that republicans would retain most of their seats in congress...

I don't buy the weekend polls, they always tighten near the end...

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Clinton (0.00 / 0)
has experience three days of underdog advantage in a very short media cycle, which is probably too little too late.  Obama on the other hand has beaten the candidate that the party elite have pitched for four years as the presumptive nominee. He has come from way back by being compared to JFK.  I hope that he doesn't change tactics at this point.  In fact I hope, as has been suggested, that his dignity is deeper than just being a tactic.    
[ Parent ]
"Bloodbath?" (0.00 / 0)
You live in an interesting alternate reality.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss
[ Parent ]
Check the trendlines (0.00 / 0)
   They're horrible for Obama, across the board.

  It's not all or mostly his fault (just the NAFTA thing, which he grossly mishandled), but the trendlines are unmistakeable.

  It's going to be a long, depressing night tomorrow.

   

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Horrible? (4.00 / 1)
Horrible would be a 65-35 blow out. Other than that she can't do anything and that ain't gonna happen. He made up 20 points in a couple of weeks. Nothing horrible about that.  
[ Parent ]
NAFTA's not in play in Ohio... (0.00 / 0)
...it simply isn't.  If it was, Hillary wouldn't even have a chance...  Ohioans know she's full of it, they just seem not to care.  They mistakenly think she's one of them, when she's had a silver spoon shoved down her throat so far that it's coming out her behind, yet the "downscale" voters eat it up... whatever...  If she wins the nomination, she better find some way to get those republican "downscale" voters to vote for her, too, or her "birthright" to the presidency will be over real quick!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
NAFTA is in play (0.00 / 0)
Look Hillary has way better positions, economic advisers, some of which work with EPI, she's pulled in some stuff from the Horizon project, she cosponsored S.355 which is a major piece to put a ceiling limit on the trade deficit which will kick in automatically new action and change of trade strategy, she is the one with the better positions and voting record.  It is not ideal but to try to claim Obama is better than Hillary, well, you need to study the facts here.  He is not.

Obama has never been to revamp, restructure trade policy and in fact they are planning to add more to worker mobility  Do you know what that means?  It means guest worker Visas, WTO, GATS mode 4, the F-4.....
that was put forth in place of what we consider worker rights.  That is not worker , labor protections that is corporate control over the labor supply, which is a heavily lobbied for agenda item.  

Now I know you know the AFL-CIO heavily lobbies against this and rightly so since it will decimate the US labor force.  

I'm not kidding you and please wake up and read the real positions.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Actually (4.00 / 1)
S.355 is a bill sponsored by Pete Domenici to study entitlement subsidies.  Hillary's proposal on the trade deficit is pretty much what we got on Iraq withdrawal - it requires the Administration to prepare a "report" on potential action and submit it to Congress.  If, as you say, she's so deeply concerned about our trade deficit, why didn't she, you know, put together an actual plan herself instead of this lame bill you're talking about?
[ Parent ]
I repeat: "Bloodbath?" (4.00 / 1)
There are no "trendlines" that indicate that it will be a "bloodbath" for either candidate. Period.

Clinton may win one or both. But there is no evidence that it will be anything but close.

How that translates into "Obama's going to have to start going hard negative on Hillary if he wants to win this thing" is completely beyond me. Even if Clinton wins both, she still has an uphill battle.

The truth about Saxby Chambliss

[ Parent ]
Should I be surprised? (4.00 / 2)
I don't see this as terribly surprising.  If you look at mydd which seems to be an official clinton mouthpiece they repeatedly have asserted that mccain is better than Obama

The liberal wiki
Send an email to terra@liberalwiki.com
Unbelievable (4.00 / 1)
Yes, the psychotic war-monger is eminently preferable to a solid Democrat.  I like Chris' rule of deeming pro-McCain smears against Democrats on progressive blogs as ban-worthy.
[ Parent ]
Experience (0.00 / 0)
Don't want to get piled on here - but with Obama once again on the trail stating that his best foreign policy experience is his very early youth in Indonesia - maybe that is what we should be concerned about.  Someone suggesting what John McCain and the Republicans will make out of that once the campaign starts in earnest is not a bad idea - maybe, just maybe.
This doesn't worry me too much (0.00 / 0)
  It's easier to win a one-front war than a two-front war. If McCain's all Obama's got to worry about, I expect him to parry well enough to defuse these things. The problem now is that Hillary's serving as a McCain echo chamber, and it's a lot harder to convincingly defend yourself when the attacks are coming from (on paper, anyway) a member of your own party.

 It's basically all a theoretical exercise anyway. Hillary Clinton's going to be the nominee. We're going to have to suck it up.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[ Parent ]
Your certainty is impressive (0.00 / 0)
But I think Hill's neg tactics hurt her worse than him.

I predict an ugly draw and convention theatrics that alienate  both the Dem-left (go to abstain and/or Nader) and the center-independents (go to McCain). Media will support 'moderate' 'underdog' 'patriotic' McCain/Lieberman against 'liberal' 'idealistic' 'dreamers' that support Obama/(& Webb).  Thanks to Bush/Cheney something weird is going to happen in September/October that will scare a lot of people (men especially) toward a 'tough guy' policy of some sort.  

I think we are looking at a 50%-60% chance of a McCain presidency.



USA: 1950 to 2010

[ Parent ]
I have to laugh, can anyone take her seriously? (0.00 / 0)
... and she says this just at the time she is supposedly reinvigorating her campaign, as with everything Clinton, this will only hurt her.
Here's hoping you're right (0.00 / 0)
this will only hurt her.  

I hope you're right.  There are a lot of idiots out there that are eligible to vote Tuesday.
[ Parent ]
My head is about to explode. (0.00 / 0)
    In 2004, I heard over and over again that Bush had the experience in foreign policy to run the country.  I heard that  we shouldn't change horses midstream.  And frankly, I expected those arguments because we were fighting Republicans.  Now I am crestfallen that those arguments have entered the Democratic primary, courtesy of Hillary.  
   I hate to say it, but these are Bush tactics: experience is preferable even if your experience shows a record of bad decisions.  When will we be able to analyze the QUALITY of the experience?!  McCain and Hillary are experienced at BEING WRONG.  They were wrong.  I am not the only one who thinks this; 60% of the country agrees with me.  But here we are, four years later, fighting Kerry's battles in the Democratic primary.  Thanks Hillary, you truly have learned nothing from the Iraq War.  Nothing at all.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
REPUGNANT! (1.33 / 3)
You bet your butt!
If she stays in , tommorrow, begins the REAL vetting of the Clintons.
John Aravosis will begin the work and start giving us all the information about the Clintons that are floating around DC. There is plenty, and since the Clintons have no integrity and are willing to damage our chances for a victory in Nov just because she wants power, it is time to give her a dose of her own medicine!
And it is ugly.......but this time, as the Clintons  throws us over the cliff, they are going with us this time.
As Mae West said;
Look out fellas, move over it is about to get bumpy as hell!
Take your meds (0.00 / 0)
and wipe the spittle off the keyboard.
[ Parent ]
Is it the Wisdom of Experience (4.00 / 4)
That informed her decision to attack her own party?
eh (0.00 / 0)
Sounds like she's just trying to frame the idea that she is experienced and thus can beat McCain, who will run on experience.  It is certainly foot in mouth, but I think it will be just more bits in the machine.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
That is a stupid argument... (4.00 / 8)
...since McCain can easily flip it back on her and say he has more experience than her.

It's a stupid argument by a candidate who's grasping for any attack line that might stick.

[ Parent ]
Please. You can't dismiss this with a Canadian grunt (0.00 / 0)
just because you don't think Obama's the second coming and you're miffed that other people do.

This is evil.

This is the kind of statement that McCain can use against Obama in the general.

This is giving ammunition to the people who say the Clintons are selfish, ruthless, greedy, and destructive to the party as a whole.

This is divisive and unnecessary. She's making more enemies and she's not going to gain enthusiasts.

Maybe I gave her too much credit. Mabe she's not as smart as I thought. Maybe she did think Bush was being honest in 2002. Maybe she wasn't making a cold, political triangulation.

[ Parent ]
that's my opinion (4.00 / 1)
I just don't think this one is that damaging in the general and you all are overblown on it.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
Well (0.00 / 0)
it's certainly damaging to Obama if he's the nominee, and needlessly so. It's a perfect opportunity for John McCain to say "Even prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton think I'm more experienced than Barack Obama." She didn't need to do this, at all.
[ Parent ]
OK. (4.00 / 2)
   Here's what I want as an anti-war activist.  I want Hillary to be embarrassed by her 2002 authorization vote.  But she is not.  She still hasn't taken it off her resume.  Deal-breaker for me.  

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
she's a fucking idiot (1.33 / 3)
It isn't just that she is selfishly trying to win in spite of the voters, it is that she is so tone-deaf in going about it. I really don't think she understands anything.

I can't wait to see her lose and not just because of the humor of watching her consolation speech that will completely lack any recognition of why she lost.

I'm tired of the "two good candidates" crap, we have one good candidate and one waste of a good senate seat.  

On twitter: @BobBrigham

Welcome to one of the first McCain ad's (0.00 / 0)
Directed against Obama (assuming he is the Democratic candidate).

This ad will show this clip by HC, and then follow it up with others.  

Thanks HC, for making McCain's admeister's job easier for them.

Silver lining (4.00 / 2)
  Obama's got a bit of a margin to play with, so after he gets waxed tomorrow he should still have a reasonable delegate advantage. Which gives him time, before Pennsylvania, to toughen his campaign, deflect the gratuitous Clinton/GOP attacks on him, and maybe launch a few missiles of his own. It'll be a good test to see if he really does have what it takes to stand up to the Republican smear machine.

 That said, I have a question for the Hillary supporters: If the Republicans really prefer to face Obama instead of Clinton, why aren't they holding their smears until AFTER he clinches the nomination? You'd think that they'd do their best to not prevent the "weaker" candidate from getting the nomination, no?  

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

with friends like that...... (0.00 / 0)
who needs republicans?!

once again, hillary using republican talking points in a last ditch effort to stay in the race.

i thought she was a democrat.....?

Clinton at her best. (0.00 / 0)


John McCain doesn't care about Vets.


Ach, der Liebercrat! (4.00 / 1)
So here's the real question -- why did Sen. Clinton's campaign  think that  "McCain & I are more experienced than Obama" is more effective than "I am more experienced than Obama"?

Is it:

A. Remind the electorate that "older is wiser", and you can't get much older than McCain.

B. It's a Mark Penn - Charlie Black thing.

C. Clinton asked herself, WWJLD?  (What would Joe Lieberman do?)

D. You need three to triangulate.

E. Hey, it worked for Hubert Humphrey!

Lots of Hillary voters like McCain (4.00 / 1)
There's a new Pew Research survey that indicates that a comment like this is actually playing to a substantial portion of her base (H/T: Salon War Room):
"a quarter of Hillary Clinton's primary supporters would defect and vote for John McCain in November"
Here's the link:
http://www.salon.com/politics/...
So Matt: "Senator Clinton has no reason to care about what I have to say."
Ya got that right. She doesn't much care about what I say either, but it remains to be seen if it's a "bad strategic move." Given this situation though, what are Democrats going to do if she scores a "comeback" in the media tomorrow?

Save Our Schools! March & National Call to Action, July 28-31, 2011 in Washington, DC: http://www.saveourschoolsmarch...
If the commenters here (2.00 / 2)
an indication of the unity Sen. Obama inspires in his supporters, we're in deeper doo than I thought.

You all think that since Sen. Clinton knew she would be attacked, that she should just keep quiet about the disgusting media bias? Just "take it like a man?" Cripes.

It's Not About "Toughness." It's About "Fairness."

Sargent at TPM

...Meanwhile, Digby, in an email to Greenwald, writes: "It's a fact that Clinton has received much harsher treatment than Obama." She suggests that media people will reach exactly the wrong conclusion about their own failings: "Instead of reevaluating their bias against Clinton and examining their sexism in general, they are now going to rectify matters by going after Obama on a bunch of irrelevant, superficial stuff to `make up' for their transgressions."

Exactly right. The key question here isn't, or shouldn't be, whether the press has been "equally tough" on both candidates. Rather, the question is whether the press has been equally fair to them. The question is whether both candidates have been treated with similar measures of professionalism, judiciousness, even sanity.

...

And the simple truth is that they haven't. . . . No other candidate has had to endure the amount of media smut that's been hurled her way. No matter who you support, the quality of the coverage of Hillary is not a state of affairs anyone should be happy about.

. . . [A]s Greenwald and Digby both note, it's not hard to imagine that should Obama become the nominee, he may find himself subjected to the same sort of media treatment, if not quite in degree, that Obama supporters defended when it was directed at Hillary. If and when Obama supporters start griping about this, as they should, then the complaints directed at those insisting on fair treatment of Hillary will in retrospect look shortsighted indeed.

 
Curious. What does that have to do with (4.00 / 3)
her helping McCain?
[ Parent ]
Media Manipulation (4.00 / 1)
"You're all so mean to me, here's a bunch of dirt to throw at my opponent to show how fair you are."  It's a well-coordinated smear campaign, designed to play into the media's hotbuttons and get them to pass on hit pieces without critical review.  And times for the 5 day period before the critical vote, so they media doesn't have time to compare notes and figure out they're being taken for a ride.

It's a well-played negative campaign, but ultimately without substance.  However, playing "scorched earth" and telling her supporters that believe "Experience" is the number one qualification for the presidency that McCain is a better choice than Obama? That is pure poison pill, threatening to burn the party to the ground if she doesn't get what she wants.

[ Parent ]
The right-wing long ago learned to manipulate (0.00 / 0)
the press by insulting it.  Accusations of media bias are a tool.  It's amazing that the press is so compliant.  

One Million Strong --- Join up!
[ Parent ]
Much Ado About Nothing (4.00 / 3)
I really don't see what the issue is here.  McCain has a ton of foreign policy experience and is viewed that way by the public.  Clinton is not saying anything new.  She's just contrasting herself with Obama and making an argument for why she'll better match up with McCain.  To accuse her of stabbing Democrats in the back is just grandstanding.  Find a real issue to complain about.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."
Comedy. A loyal Democrat (4.00 / 1)
would have said something to the effect that her experience in the WH is more than JM or BO have. JM has no executive experience either and hasn't had to answer that 3am call. That's what a loyal Democrat would have said. A practiced and polished politician like HRC knows exactly what to say and what not to say.

[ Parent ]
??? (4.00 / 1)
Obviously JM has no experience in the White House.  Just as obviously, he is perceived as having a great deal of experience in general with foreign policy, whereas Obama is widely (and rightly) perceived as being relatively inexperienced.

How is it being disloyal to point out basic, widely-acknowledged realities?

Some of you guys have become incredibly blinded by this primary campaign.  So much of what goes on with the bickering between sides is just bullshit and people need to reassert their abilities to call a spade a spade and rise above the nonsense.

John McCain: Health insurance for low income children represents an "unfunded liability."

[ Parent ]
so you believe that painting the GOP candidate in a positive light (0.00 / 0)
and a fellow Democratic candidate in a negative light in the same statement is an appropriate thing to do?

Interesting.  

[ Parent ]
She could contrast her and Obama's experience (0.00 / 0)
without giving a nod to McCain.  Its that simple.  Including McCain on the positive side of the "experience equation" was uncalled for - it was not necessary.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
Are you really surprised? (4.00 / 1)
If this were coming from Lieberman at least it could be discounted as crap.  What you have here is a candidate whom has No path to the nomination mathematically.  So instead of going out the classy dignified way, she resorts to the type of campaign tactics used by Rove and his gestapo.  She is not a democrat...if she were, she would not give McCain this sound bite to play over and over again in the fall if he is the  nominee.  It is petty, vindictive, and will not advance her cause one bit.  After the storm hits Ohio tomorrow and all the over 50 are iced in, Obama will take Texas and Ohio.  Then hopefully people like Dean, Richardson, and Gore will tell to get out.
I'm an Obamabot (4.00 / 2)
and I think she's making a legitimate electability argument (which I most certainly do not agree with but that is somewhat beside the point.)

This one's silly. If we get to make arguments about her alleged unlikability than she gets to make arguments about Obama's alleged inexperience.

But her argument can be trumped by McCain (0.00 / 0)
Basically she's sounding like his VP.  She's making an argument that McCain can make better.
[ Parent ]
her unlikability is not alleged (0.00 / 0)
Dec 16, 2007 (2.5 months ago):

"Clinton had an unfavorable rating of 50% in a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll this month, compared with mid-30s for Obama and former North Carolina senator John Edwards. She was rated least friendly of the three in a recent Pew Research Center poll."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/p...

I doubt she's improved those numbers much since then.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (0.00 / 0)
I added the word in at the last minute for the sake of fairness.  
[ Parent ]
Not the same at all (4.00 / 1)
Has Obama praised McCain as more likable than Clinton? (Has Obama made any argument about her likability at all, for that matter?)
[ Parent ]
New rule for the primaries (4.00 / 4)
Don't give unnecessary praise to psychotic Republican nominees so they can quote it unceasingly in attack ads against your primary competitors.

Wordy, I know. But worth following anyway.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

she's an idiot (4.00 / 3)
really. I thought the "campaign of hope" was dumb, but it has been well trumped by "35 years of experience". if the universe somehow folds in on itself and we pop out the other side with Hillary the nominee she will simply get slaughtered by McCain. This statement lays out perfectly clearly what her strategy for the general is - out experience and out tough-guy McCain. Good F'n luck!

its going to be a blood bath. What's Hillary going to say? she going to hold up 8 years as interior decorator at the White House to McCain being in congress for decades and having spent 5 years in a POW prison? She has yet to cite a single accomplishment during those "8 years of experience" in the White House. Mostly she runs from the stupid policies her Husband put in place. So what's HRC going to do, talk about how she totally f'd up health care, but she's going to get it right this time? she going to talk about voting for Iraq war and Kyl-Lieberman, but that she was mislead? not such a good judge of people then. is she going to call Iran a terrorist nation again? is she going to say she'll nuclearize Hamas? how far will she go? because McCain is ready to re-fight the whole stupid Vietnam war. he's ready to blast every Arab in the middle east up the Mekong River. McCain's not going to equivocate, he's not going to talk about "right decisions at the time" or any mumbo jumbo crap. He's going to say he'll kill ever last one of them, and he'll "carpet bomb them into the stone age" if he has to. Hillary to me has got to be one of the stupidest people on the planet to think she can win with her "experience" campaign. She can't win on experience without taking the tough-girl position, and the moment she does that, the anti-war Dems who are still willing to swallow their vomit and vote for her will abandon her in droves. But if she doesn't talk tough McCain kills her. She thought she had the money and insider deal, now its gone and she actually has to come up with something. But she's got nothing, she's pinched between needing anti-war Dems and two stupid prowar votes. She's going to fry on her Iraq vote one way or another.

I think Obama is a huge risk in general election too; white America may still not be willing to elect a black man. But he's got a hell of a better chance than this idiot.

Like another commenter above I will relish her concession speech. She'll be posing smugly, like she does at every debate, like she won, and then she'll flash us her weird joker grin. Good gracious I hope its over tomorrow. It's so hard not writing rants about her like this, which I vowed not to do on this site. But it's getting soooo damn hard.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Hm, yes, irresponsible... (0.00 / 0)
...like running Harry and Louise ads, repeating GOP propaganda from the 90s, to undermine what should be a key objective of the next Democratic administration.

But there is a difference: Clinton starts with I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say...  She is predicting what McCain will say in the fall elections.  It is absurd to claim that speculaton about what McCain might say against Obama are off-limits until the GE.  There is also a qualitative difference between this and much more irresponsible actions by the Obama campaign, which really do reinforce GOP rhetoric, by endorsing it rather than just speculating about its content.

asdf (0.00 / 0)
On rereading, I grant that one can argue that Clinton is also endorsing what she speculates McCain will say.  Fair enough.  But my basic point remains, that the Obama people have done it before and IMO done more damage for progressive policies in the general and beyond with the Harry & Louise ads.

As far as the experience meme goes, the truth is that both Obama and Clinton are roadkill if McCain successfully defines national security as the key issue in the general.  That is why I could not believe Chris' list of VP picks for Obama, all of them bereft of national security cred (except perhaps Richardson, who has other issues that disqualify him).

[ Parent ]
Which is something else she did... (4.00 / 1)
As far as the experience meme goes, the truth is that both Obama and Clinton are roadkill if McCain successfully defines national security as the key issue in the general

...with the 'ringing phone' ad. Dumbing down the foreign policy debate hurts the country, hurts the party, and helps McCain.

[ Parent ]
No reason to mention McCain in a positive (0.00 / 0)
light at all.

But since you want to talk about BS. We can go with the shucking and jiving drug dealing drug user who can't do hard work and is a muslim too boot.  

[ Parent ]
who is really just jessy jackson in a new suit (0.00 / 0)
and is uppity

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare
[ Parent ]
an uppity terrorist from the 1960s in fact (4.00 / 1)

[ Parent ]
Don't let us, his supporters (0.00 / 0)
off the hook.

We're all crackheads!

[ Parent ]
Delusional Cultist Crack-heads (0.00 / 0)
with bad breath.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
What a relief! (0.00 / 0)
I thought it was just me!
[ Parent ]
No one is alone in a cult (0.00 / 0)
And the kool-aid is sweet and tasty.

Now, I forgot - are we talking about Obama, or Clinton?


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Yes, stupid, but then so are our two choices right (4.00 / 2)
now. They are both acting like they don't get it. Buyers remorse setting in more fully?
seriously (4.00 / 2)
Rather than re-doing Florida and Michigan, how about we just re-do the whole primary campaign with different candidates?
[ Parent ]
It wouldn't change the outcome (4.00 / 2)
The problem isn't the candidates. It's the electorate. One of my professor used to say candidates reflect the voters. It's not the GOP base that's faith based. It's Americans in general.  
[ Parent ]
Indeed! (0.00 / 0)
[ Parent ]
Is Hillary Still A Democrat? (2.00 / 2)
Her latest statement really raises the question: Is she a Democrat or is she joining the Republicans or the Connecticut for Lieberman party? I will remember this one. She has crossed the line.  Is there anything she won't do to become President?  Is there any shame left in Hillaryland?  She loves power more than the loves the country.  
Let's go Texas, let's end it tomorrow (4.00 / 1)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Hillary - McCain (0.00 / 0)
I'd like to see Howard Dean speak up tomorrow morning and very loudly remind Hillary Clinton that we're all Democrats, and that comparing McCain favorably to Obama is not helping our Party one bit.

And besides, there is no evidence that the "experience" that she and McCain think they possess has resulted in more judicious decision-making.  In fact, their judgement has been horrendous.

It could happen (0.00 / 0)
I don't think there's a lot of love lost between the Clintons and the Deans, especially after that bizarre (and, happily, failed) Harold Ford power-play at the DNC.
[ Parent ]
Hillary hate fest anyone? (2.00 / 2)
Seems this entire thread turned into a Hillary hate fest.

I'm always shocked at how nobody seems to remember Hillary is a Democrat while the hate spews forth.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

did Hillary act like a Democrat? (4.00 / 3)
It seems more like she acted like Joe Lieberman who we all know is not a Democrat
[ Parent ]
Maybe Hillary needs to remember... (0.00 / 0)
...that she's a democrat, too.

I'm pretty sure she has forgotten.

It's not all about her...  I'm sure after tomorrow, Texas will be completely forgotten... especially if she wins the nomination.  Never mind that democrats could retake the statehouse, redraw the districts, and put another 5-10 democrats in congress...

That won't be important to her.  It's a red state.  Red states don't matter.  Even if, in the end, it helps her presidency... building the party would take away from her ego.

We're friends, Robert... we fight for the same things, but she should have saved her republican-style attacks on republicans, where they would actually be welcomed!

She's bringing down the party, and she doesn't care one bit...  That's the sad part about it...  I always had a strong admiration for the Clintons, but, looking at it objectively, they've been bad for the party... They let it rot in the 90's and are prepared to do it again...  That's my number one complaint with Hillary... She'll stifle the growth of the party significantly.

That's why I support Obama over her... She could have won this thing outright if she did 10% of what Obama did in terms of caring about voters and votes... And that odious Mark Penn running her campaign...

She's tearing the party apart, and she'll tear the country apart with her blind ambition!  The presidency is NOT her birthright... she isn't owed it... and she's showing that she doesn't deserve it!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
Obama is tearing the party apart (0.00 / 0)
I'm sorry but you are really being oblivious to Obama's real positions and I know you care.  I'm sorry but he is bad news on our front and it's not a matter of birthright, it's least objectionable candidate in terms of actual policy. Jumping into the Obama camp like he is doing to not be worse (he will be worse, believe me I researched this out) is nuts.

As far as this goes, here come the Obamamaniacs double commenting with the usual venom.

I could spew back as much vemon as I feel for this incredible betrayal by Obama on trade, economics, labor (did you see his global migration agenda  of Obama's economic adviser?  I sure did).  but I will refrain.  That does not excuse the vemon for Hillary because in terms of real positions you are stepping on the wrong bug.

You think you got the spider and the scorpion just walked right by you and btw, stung you to boot.

(I'm talking about H-1B, F-4, outsourcing, more bad trade deals).  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
This one mystifies me (4.00 / 1)
How the hell did the Hillary campaign manage to sell the narrative that Obama was the one who would compromise more with the Republicans?  This is Hillary of the DLC vs. a 100% liberal rating senator, but somehow she's managed to position herself to the left of him in the view of so many?

Just strange, and a troubling sign that the netroots is as much a sucker for a good narrative as the MSM, it just has to be packaged properly and astroturfed hard.

[ Parent ]
Lord MIke (4.00 / 1)
is an activist in some areas the same as me and on trade, economics, labor Obama is most assuredly to the right on positions, votes, policy than Hillar.  It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of doing your homework.

Hillary has been our enemy for a long time so naturally people assumed Obama would be better.  Well, I went and did my homework on these global labor issues, which are WTO, GATS mode 4, guest worker Visas, labor arbitrage, offshore outsourcing and Obama is in fact worse.  There are other economists, activists and groups who are coming up with the same assessment and unfortunately no one looked at this until way too late in the game.  He is especially worse by the WTO, GATS mode 4 and an additional F-4.

BTW:  Bill Gates gets another private "hearing" in Congress , this time courtesy of AILA lobby representative Lofgren (supposedly she is a Congress woman) to present his lobbyist agenda which contradicts the GAO and pretty much any objective statistical agency, including BLS,  in statistics.  Unreal, obviously money can buy you anything, even hearings in front of congress to announce your spin with no basis in fact, including the facts from our own Government accountability office.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
I can respect that (0.00 / 0)
However, there's more to look at than just announced platforms.  Hillary is in fact a former board member of WalMart, and given the time frame had to be a participant in some of the strategic decisions and tactical choices made to prevent that workforce from unionizing.

In the end, we come back (for me) to the fact that she can't claim 8 years in the White House as part of her experience, and not share the blame for the anti-labor actions of that administration.  Especially not when her actual votes were perfectly in keeping with the DLC "More Republican than the Republicans" positions.  Some say Obama supporters are suckers for a fairy tale of hope.  I say Hillary's supporters are suckers for a "mother figure" who says you can trust her.

What has Hillary, directly or by extension, actually done for labor?

[ Parent ]
multiple votes (0.00 / 0)
She introduced legislation to block Dubai Ports World, she has better amendment votes on trade and she introduced S.355, which is a significant key piece to new trade strategy.  It introduces a deficit cap upon which a series of other legislation pieces and action can then kick in.

But the key is Obama has little track record simply because he has not been in the Senate long enough, but note his voting record and lack of legislation thereof, does imply worse than Hillary on this issue in many cases.

He has one good one, he co-sponsored the Patriot Employer Act of 2007.  (and if you can believe this that teeny, tiny 1% tax rebate is being fought tooth and nail by corporate lobbyists) but that's really Sherrod Brown's bill.

I happen to monitor insourcing extensively as well as trade and on this issue what I am seeing coming from Obama bodes very badly for Professional workers in the US.   The F-4 in particular.   I'm not saying Hillary is Pro Professional worker, truth is there are so many sell outs in the Democratic party on this issue it's plain sad (as well as GOP too!).

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
"Introduced"? (0.00 / 0)
She's submitted a lot of bills in the Senate, very few of which have made it out of committee.  Most of those that have, Obama was a co-sponsor of (until he announced for president they were close allies).

I saw an exhaustive analysis over on dKos that showed that although Hillary has shoveled a veritable blizzard of paper into the congressional record, she has actually gotten fewer of the bills and amendments she authored passed all the way into law than Obama, and most of those were very limited in scope.  It did not detail out enough for me to know what portion of either's had to do with labor.

When I look to how both tend to approach "bipartisanship" (and they both do), Hillary's is "You vote for mine, I vote for yours", she gets a centrist bill or amendment through by conceding a right-wing victory on something else.  The DLC defined the modern definition of "bipartisanship" as "Republican Appeasement", and she works straight from the playbook.  Obama pursues the old definition of bipartisanship, eliminate provisions from both extremes until the resulting bill is acceptable but inadequate for both sides.  Neither is going to get a progressive's heart going flutter-flutter, but Hillary's is exactly the kind of thing the current Republican obstructionism was designed to exploit. A big part of where the center and extremes of Obama's process will be set is on how many Democratic Senators we can seat.

This is why the "50 State Strategy" is important.  Governorships and Senate Seats have been abandoned by the DLC, and it has cost us dearly the last 11 years.  A 50-state offensive, challenging everything, is already paying dividends as House Republicans who would normally be kicking money back to the RNC to be used in swing districts hold their money dear to protect their own seats.  We can't beat the GOP on a swing state strategy, they simply play that game better.  We can seat more Senators and Congressmen from blue zones inside red states, if we don't abandon them to the wolves.

Democratic Senators, and Democratic Governors to appoint replacement Senators when neccessary, are the real battleground of this election.  Hillary despises the 50-states strategy, and ignores the grass-roots in general.  She'll have no coat-tails, Hillary-hate would probably cost us control of the Senate and possibly the House, even if she won.  Imagine a Huckabee independant race, sure Hillary would win, but would anyone downticket outside of a deep blue constituency be safe?

Get a strongly stacked Congress and a President willing to kick the lobbyists away from the bargaining table on labor legislation, and I think you'll like the results much better than if Hillary is installed by lobbyist cash and faces an oppositional Congress.

[ Parent ]
jesus (0.00 / 0)
That is really naive.  Obama has tons of corporate money.  He walked out of Google with his "technology plan".  

It's amazing how naive you all are on the realities of how Obama and "centrist" policy actually is the corporate lobbyist agenda as evidenced by many of Obama's "positions".  

This is especially true on global economic/trade/labor issues, which is something I track.  

She is not getting a "centrist" bill through, if anyone is doing that in position's it is Obama.  I think you people are just so beyond hope, have no ability to be objective in examaning the record, the money, the economic advisers, the bills, the votes it's really useless to discuss it.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
I'm naive? (0.00 / 0)
I've been over Obama's platform rather thoroughly, and I think there are worse places for Obama to get his technology plan than Google.  They haven't had money long enough to be corrupted by it.

You're a one-issue voter, on an issue no candidate cares about.  Must suck.  Calling people "naive" and "beyond hope" isn't the best way to get enough of them to agree with you to make the candidates care, though.

[ Parent ]
globlaization, economics (0.00 / 0)
Have you dug deep into trade, higher education, fiscal, budget (Bonddad went through that one and showed Obama cannot pay for his plans), education?  I have gone through trade extensively, global labor (one of my main areas), some fiscal (mortgage, financial sector) and then I did one on higher education, which is actually critical.  Right now we have our university system using taxpayer funds to open up campuses abroad versus increase the stipends, scholarships, salaries here in the United States and this particular topic is a black hole in most press.  NoSlaves.com blog.  Since you implied I was reactionary something straight out of soc. 101 to imply you think I am some old fuddie duddie, I hate to tell you this but some of those now long dead fuddie duddies were pretty aware of economics, you might consider learning from history since all elders must be reactionary and the phrase, there for the Grace of God Go I.  

I would think the idea of being able to attend graduate school (or not) would be something most of interest to you, especially if you are a non-traditional student.  Hillary has so many plans in this area, although I like Obama's universal tax credit better but everything else, Hillary's is far more reaching.  

Yes, Google is in a corporate consortium that includes global labor arbitrage as an agenda.  They already have a few age discrimination lawsuits against them as well.  Moreover, their R&D, investment requests are not in the national interest, which is typical of multinational corporations and having these companies write policy is not in the best interests of the United States, both from a macroeconomic level and working America level.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Where did I say you were old? (0.00 / 0)
Reactionary crusades to bring back the New Deal and Great Society don't require that the participants have been alumni of those events.  The Religious Right wants to restore a fictional version of the 1800's and 1950's, doesn't make them less reactionaries.

You're a reactionary because you think the way things used to be is the way they ought to be.  You lack a positive, affirmative, progressive basis for your desires, and you're closed to the idea that to the extent the Golden Age you pine for existed, it passed away because it was flawed, collapsing under its own weight.

60's era trade protectionism was a bad idea, a failed policy, that took down the very industries and unions it was enacted to protect.  Going back to it won't fix anything, we need to accept the globalization dynamic as a fact and figure out how to deal with it without getting trapped into a race to the bottom, where every American worker has to compete on price with someone in India, or Malaysia, or where-ever.

[ Parent ]
Robert... (4.00 / 1)
...I understand what you are saying, but I'm really not convinced that Hillary is our messiah regarding the issues we talk about often.  There's a reason why Obama called her Senator Punjab.  She voted for the immigration bill that had the odious H1B and other visa provisions and did nothing to stop them...  I know that Obama's advisers are considered to be very pro free market, but the clintons have ALWAYS been neoliberal free market folk...  She's used to be a goldwater republican!  I don't really see much difference between the two, only that since Obama's candidacy is funded by individuals, many of them IT folk like you and I, he is very friendly to IT policies that you and I endorse (like net neutrality) that the industry hates.  In the end, (I thought at least, that) he is much more likely to be friendly to our specific cause...  I have really believed that Hillary will sell us down the river, masking the death of our industry with some platitudes towards manufacturing.  Her record is not good in this arena, and her Indian contacts are worse.  

I trust your expertise on this, though... you are probably right, and my analysis is probably way off!  I always assumed that a vote against Hillary would be a vote for the protection of IT labor.  That's why I was shocked when I found out you were pro-hillary.  You've studied this extensively.  I didn't do enough homework.  I fully admit that I may have hitched my ride to the wrong horse...  I like the guy... I like how he got here... I like that he is making more democrats around the country... The problem is, the nominee is chosen... Mathematically, she has been all but eliminated... yet she continues to tear the party apart by her ambition...  She should have competed earlier!  She's lost.. she needs to support the party now and our goals... not attack it....

After all, we can both agree that McCain would be much, much worse!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!

[ Parent ]
It's easy enough to see Robert's point... (4.00 / 1)
.....quickly by going to Progressive Punch and checking both candidates 'Chips are Down' Ratings:

Obama: 76.87 ranked 41st

Clinton: 86.90 ranked 27th

The following Senators ranked ahead of Obama:

Webb, Salazar, Feinstein, and, yes, Nelson.

I'm a die hard Edwards fan and really, really hope he doesn't use his 21 to put Obama over the top. That said, Obama is not the guy. He and his campaign have been caught in more than  few lies. The Resko affair ain't a good thing. His habit, yes habit, of voting present has continued into the U.S. Senate. His total abdication of his job as Chairman of the subcommittee on oversight of Afghanistan is a killer on 'security'. His implied misogyny is stirring up a hornet cloud of really pissed off women progressives. Emily's list?

I could go on but not much point to it. Those who 'believe' will never admit that they've been taken for a ride by Senator 'SnakeOil'.

On to 'More and Better Democrats'....

It's the only avenue left for progressives to build the national movement.

The Democratic Party has once again snatched defeat for the citizenry of the United States from the jaws of victory as no electable candidate will truly be for the people.

Tough beans as my younger pals say....

But I say, 'To the barricades!' never, never, ever forget what Steve Guilliard asserted. We are here to:

Fight Back!

And I intend to keep on doing so. No matter what happens in this rapidly deteriorating primary.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
thank you (0.00 / 0)
the issue is Hillary has been Professional labor's target for so long because she has enabled offshore outsourcing and insourcing of Professionals (particularly STEM) careers.  (Although the truth of it is Maria Cantwell(D-WA)  is much more the Senator from Microsoft/NASSCOM than Hillary is in legislation and behind the scenes arm twisting to ensure more professionals lose their careers).   So it is very difficult for people to wrap their heads around the concept that the other guy is actually worse.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
you are dead wrong (4.00 / 1)
Hillary                              Obama
H-1b unlimited               H-1B unlimited
F-4, limited                 F-4 unlimited
L-1, unlimited               L-1 unlimited
H-2C, limited                H-2C, unlimited

              WTO GATS MODE 4
reforms                      expand (see this!!!!!!)
China PNTR - reform          no plans
NAFTA reforms                worker mobility

will consider VAT            will not consider VAT

            Globalization of Higher Education
US student incentives         global student incentives
US R&D incentives             R&D not dep. on US domestic

this list goes on and on.  I am telling you that Obama out Punjabed Hillary and if you read the Indian press you would know this.  They are all rooting for Obama because of it!

Obama is the new Senator from Punjab he sold us out more than her to get that title!

Take irrational exuberance out of your brain and let some facts in it.  I'm sorry, but you are now posting misinformation and you plain need to face reality if you claim to care about Professional labor issues.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Obama is tearing the party apart???? (0.00 / 0)
Give us all a break!  Obama is infusing life in a party that was so ossified it could barely move.  The post was not about trade, but since trade is all you want to talk about you bring us back to your corner of the world.  I'd rather talk about how she gave aid and comfort to a warmonger. A warmonger!!!!  Yeah, McCains got lots of experience.  As a warmonger.  I'd rather talk about how her campaign has tried to turn a thoughtful man with a decent record into a jive muslim black only one speech lightweight.  I'd like to talk about how John Aravosis at Americablog is talking about taking the gloves off if Clinton doesn't get out of the race Wednesday.  He's suggesting she has a lot of skeletons in the closet. She claims she's been vetted.  John doesn't seem to think so.  John seems to think she's toxic for down ticket democrats and that people have been keeping quiet about the things they know about her and Bill so far for the good of the party.  He thinks that might change.  This could get really ugly. But then, it's all Obama's fault.  
[ Parent ]
Anybody here that doesn't realize that Mr. Aravois... (1.33 / 3)
...is a Republican shill is a stone idiot. Your intemperate language and lack of knowledge moves me to urge you, to urge you sir to take heed of Mark Twain's most excellent advice:

It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than to open it and remove all doubt.

Who are you sir?

Who are you to rage and threaten?

You're ignorant, we get that but what gives you the gall to assert that a woman who's done more for the Democratic Party than you ever will should you live to be a thousand should have her character assassinated by a ReThug shill.

Go away.

Peace, Health and Prosperity for Everyone.

[ Parent ]
Your erudition (0.00 / 0)
and knowldege of Mark Twain are simply astounding.  You are truly one of a kind.  No, really.  And you add so much.  Good for you, ACitizen.
[ Parent ]
rhetorical (0.00 / 0)
and we are really arguing about labor, economics and trade issues, almost offline.

He said Hillary is tearing the party apart and I turned it around because this just is not so.

If anything Hillary is being forced to publicly adopt more and more Progressive positions because she is trying to win and that's a very good thing in my view.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
"Adopt" (0.00 / 0)
Will she keep them?  Never mind once she's in office, will she repudiate them in her race to the center for the general?  She was forced to the left by Obama's dominance of the Independant and Crossover vote, but she won't hold those positions more than 5 minutes after she becomes the presumptive nominee, IMO.  She's certainly not going to be likely to expend capital pushing them through a hostile Congress.

Here, I have to point to the differences in their approaches to lawmaking.  Obama surrounds himself with independant experts and brings the people affected to the table.  Hillary surrounds herself with Washington insiders and sits down to the table with lobbyists.

I simply don't trust Hillary to keep any promise, never mind ones she has made in desperation on the campaign trail.  Which just brings me back to where I started, "Anybody but Hillary", out of visceral, gut-reaction repulsion.

I find both candidates flawed.  But I have a wider definition of what is important, where how they govern is more important than the details of their policies (which differ mostly in the fine print).  Obama might be open to the honest grievances of labor groups on matters of principle.  Hillary will be engaged in a complex calculus of what they can give her vs. what they will cost her.  What if she decides you're not significant, since she can count on your votes and support as the lesser of two evils?

[ Parent ]
uh no (0.00 / 0)
That's my point.  I happen to know that Obama is not "open" to US labor grievances as evidenced by existing record and behavior, especially Professionals.  

He, on principle thinks globalization is "good" and that's one of the reasons I am so adamant he is bad news.

Obama is not "left".  He is not a Progressive and he is not a Populist.  I can't believe this insanity.  He is at best a corporate liberal, which is often confused with "left".

Free trade without dramatic modifications is not Progressive.

Offering up a $500 tax rebate to the millions of people being foreclosed on is not Progressive.  Not putting US workers first is most assuredly not Populist and also not Progressive.

There is some sort of delusion going on here when many other economist bloggers have shown that Obama is simply not a reformer on labor, economic and trade policy and since we are heading towards an economic tsunami this is very bad news.  

At this point I must say something.  The insanity of these arguments, the lack of even awareness of actual positions, policy, people behind the candidates.....it pretty much actually reinforces to me that Obama is bad news.  I'm sorry but this constant misinformation posting by Obama people, the misogyny, the hatred, the constant comment spam, really is a turn off and keeps reinforcing my "hair standing on end" that it will be a disaster if he is the nominee.  

A "gut reaction revulsion" as you put it is more evidence people are not using their rational brain here and operating out of some deep seating prejudice that just does not match the actual record and that causes "revulsion" in me that so many people are not rational or working to obtain true Progressive positions adopted onto the Democratic platform and just doing this cheer leading rah rah expedition instead.  

If you bothered to parse the Obama words he's not even making promises so....it cannot be said that he broke them when he enacts the policy actually presented versus what you want to believe it is.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
Ahh, there's your confusion (4.00 / 1)
See, I'm not yet ready to call myself a "progressive", mostly because that word doesn't mean anything yet.  It has an archaic meaning, but to the extent it has a current platform it's a reactionary one, wanting to restore the Great Society and New Deal and pretend everything since Nixon never happened.  Not going to work, if you don't address the underlying cause of the collapse, the reasons you deserved to fail.  About the only thing I'm certain I share with most of you is a sense of outrage that this shit has happened to my country.

But in part, I blame you.  Not you in particular, but you in general.  If the Democratic party hadn't rested on its laurels, abandoned any sense of principle, completely lost it's spine and allowed itself to become junior partner to the GOP in the business of selling off our political system bit by bit to the highest bidder, the "center" of American politics wouldn't have moved so damned far to the right as to put me on the left.

You want a real progressive wave?  Then build one, from the ground up, at the "hearts and minds" level.  There's no Progressive Superman, no stealth socialist, that's going to get elected president and drag all of us into a bright new worker's paradise.  For now, I'll settle for being that most impossible of all things, a "radical moderate".

[ Parent ]
uh (0.00 / 0)
I'd say that's not in economic reality actually and you do not probably know the work of many economists and issues I track on.

Now you are saying that those who want economic reforms are reactionary which is very amusing to say the least.  Sounds like a special interest talking point or something from sociology 101 when you have not yet taken econ 101 yet.  

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist

[ Parent ]
You've got my number. (0.00 / 0)
    When Hillary hurts our chances to win the presidency she's on my shit list.

John McCain lets lobbyists shape his economic policy
[ Parent ]
Tired... So very tired... (0.00 / 0)
This is getting annoying. And really, really unnecessary, considering that Hillary Clinton cannot possibly win the nomination. That's been close to a statistical fact for two weeks now. And yet it goes on.

I wonder how many voters would go for Obama if it were explained to them that Hillary Clinton cannot possibly win the pledged delegates.

Too bad people ignore facts and go by a lie from a blogger (4.00 / 1)
Now, all you folks were so quick to believe a blogger posting quotations from a CBS blog...did any of you bother to even look that it was a question on who would be able to match up against McCain's foreign policy experience? Nooooooo

March 1 Dallas,

""I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say," she said. "He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience.Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."

Gee, much different than a blogger claiming Hillary was endorsing **MC CAIN**, huh?

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2...

thank you (0.00 / 0)
God, they are quoting a blogger, not Hillary yet assigning it to her and going on a hate fest.  Very good reality check, thank you.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
[ Parent ]
No, not different at all (0.00 / 0)
Where's the lie? Your quote is the same one we've all been criticizing, and it's just as odious as ever. What point are you trying to make?
[ Parent ]
Answered the phone and armed the enemy ... (0.00 / 0)
It's 3:00 am and Hillary's phone rings.  It's John McCain on the other end.  He's going to need some help in his campaign against Barack Obama.

Only someone with Hillary's political experience could support a Republican versus a fellow Democrat.  

Ah, and there you have it.  In Hillaryland, it is okay to say or do anything that helps you realize your selfish political ambition.  The people that have supported you and hundreds of other Democrats over are stepping stones.

It is now very clear to me that Hillary Clinton will make the politically expedient choice  before weighing the needs of real people. That's not the kind of judgement we need in the White House (or anywhere else in good government).

Please help nominate Barack Obama.  After this, I cannot vote for Hillary and I don't want to sit out the general election.  

McCain/Clinton 08 (4.00 / 1)
In terms of the attacks usesd against Obama, Hillary's campiagn is coming close to being indistinguishable from McCain's.

I never want to hear "If you elect [X democrat], Republicans will use [Y ridiculous, untrue smear] against him in the general!" ever again.

So far, Y=
Obama's a Muslim
Tony Rezko
Inexperience
Drugs

am I missing any?

[ Parent ]
Jack McMillion (4.00 / 1)
It appears to busy troll rating anyone who disagrees with him on this thread.  How charming.

NoSlaves.com  


The Economic Populist
a mixed bag (0.00 / 0)
Much of this has been said in different words elsewhere on this thread, but I figured I'd offer my take, for what it's worth.

#1 - You have to throw out the first sentence of the block quote, which is an editorial comment, not a news lede. It's the writer's CW/Village interpretation of Hillary's statement, and I don't think Matt should have included it, because it puts an idea in our heads that affects the way we read her ACTUAL quote, which is much less sinister without the writer's interpretation.

#2 - I think it's very reasonable to read this as an electability/tactics argument, not the "fit for office" argument that the writer wants us to think it is, as in "I (Clinton) can stand up to the expected McCain experience argument, and Obama can't." Whether she's right to believe that is another matter entirely.

#3 - The fact that we're arguing about it suggests that she should have been more careful, especially considering how many people are desperate for her to disappear and will pounce on the slightest misstatement or offense, real or imagined.

#4 - If Obama ends up the nominee, and McCain tries to use Clinton's words against him, she will presumably step up and slam him, neutralizing the attack.

#5 - I'm not saying there's nothing at all here - I would have phrased it differently - but the reaction strikes me as massively disproportionate to the foul, and is probably indicative of primary fatigue, if anything.

People are on edge (4.00 / 1)
Myself included. The prospect that this primary could turn very ugly after tomorrow is on everyone's mind. Every attack is being scrutinized because it could be the one that starts the scorched earth trek to Pennsylvania.  

"Don't hate the media, become the media" -Jello Biafra
[ Parent ]
doomsday machine (0.00 / 0)
I just worry that a lot of supporters, frustrated with the stalemate, are looking for any excuse to go nuclear. This Clinton comment wasn't a shining moment, but I don't see it as something for which to crucify her. If this thread is any indication, the scorched earth will come from the bottom up, not the top down.  
[ Parent ]
Scorched Earth is right! (4.00 / 1)
The Obama campaign doesn't have to lift a finger. There is plenty in the public record to crucify and vilify Hillary and Bill. Many of the people who  stood by and defended them in the 90s are ready to run them out of town now. The road to Pennsylvania now looks like a bloody pathway for Democrats. And the internet world makes all of that internecine warfare possible. I think that Hillary just loosed the dogs of war.  
[ Parent ]
Clinton's Declaration of War (0.00 / 0)
With this repulsive statement Hillary made a campaign Ad for McCain. This basically says there is a state of war with Obama and everything goes, including her own endorsement of McCain over Obama. I don't see how she could possibly turn around and endorse Obama with any credibility after this statement. And she has lost possible hope of loyalty from Obama supporters with this. It's an utter act of betrayal. A number of people I know, good Democrats have come to hate, I mean hate, the Clintons over their conduct during the primaries and will not support or vote for them under any circumstances. So just keep praising Mr. "Bomb, Bomb Iran," Ms. Clinton and see what kind of havoc you can create.
Moveon vote (0.00 / 0)
And she voted against the Moveon censureship (one of them anyway) resolution in the Senate, while Obama didn't, and then Moveon endorsed him anyway.

Obama didn't vote for it either - he skipped that one.
Whar Obama has, except 2002 speech? (0.00 / 0)
Do you want to add to his list Rezko? NAFTA lies? Cult of Personality? non-mandatory Health Care? OKs for Reagan, Rumsfeld & Lugar and other conservatives and public enemies? List go on but don't forget to add empty hopes and changes we  cannot believe-in.
I meant to ask "What Obama has, except 2002 speech? " (0.00 / 0)
his supporters were asked multiple times and nobody seems to know what his achievements are. He even dysfunctioned as the chairman of senate subcommittee - OR SHOULD I SAY THAT OBAMA MISSING IN ACTION?
[ Parent ]
The Clinton Dynamics Evident on this List (4.00 / 1)
The cute rhetorical questions, digs, and innuendos don't really accomplish much here except give evidence of where we are in this campaign which is a growing mutual hatred and distrust of the other side, where everything becomes potential ammunition to destroy the opponent. I think we are at a point of internecine warfare which will benefit the McCain cause hurt the progressives all along the line on the Dem. ticket. Frankly I don't see a way to avoid it. And it is likely that on Wed. the Obama campaign will announce they have $60 plus million from Feb.  A lot of resources to dust off all the skeletons in the Clinton closet, now convinced that an honest debate is not possible about the future of the party and the country, when anything goes, including darkening the skin of Obama in campaign Ads, endorsements of the Republican opponent on national security, playing up the Muslim Louis Farakhan innuendos, coordinating attacks with the Conservative Govt. of Canada (it's now clear that Steven Harper's chief of staff secretly leaked that phony NAFTA memo.) So anything goes, folks! Isn't it lovely!
[ Parent ]
Actually it is Obama Dynamics and misbehavoir of his supporters. (0.00 / 0)
they keep saying: our way or highway.
It is clear sign of weakness and desperation on Obama part. You (Obama supporters) afraid that you can NOT close the deal, so you want Hillary to give you what you wish on golden plate. Guess what: you do not deserve it, mostly because Obama supporters (best example is dailykos gang-like behavior) misbehave so badly, that they divided party to the level that there is no point to reunite and it may be even making sense to create new, 3rd party. I doubt Hillary is ready for that yet, but you pushing her supporters very hard in this direction.
[ Parent ]
We'll see . . . (0.00 / 0)
Like with over-exposing Bill in SC, I think this will backfire for Hillary.  (though it may help McCain.)
Has Obama gone to the K Rove playbook yet?  I don't think I've seen it.  He has a different kind of jujitsu and it seems to be working. (so far).

USA: 1950 to 2010
[ Parent ]
Bill did and said right thing in SC (0.00 / 0)
it is media who overblown it. And Hillary is wrong whe she is hiding and holding Bill, he is the real weapon, who can destroy her enemies at will. Gore did big mistake in 2000 by limiting Bill's involvement almost to 0.
[ Parent ]
"But did Obama and his folks come clean? Hell no. (0.00 / 0)
So you Obama disciples, go blow your smoke about this new and different candidate up someone else's pant leg (I hear Chris Matthew's could still use a tingle). Barack and his team are playing an old game. And Barack and his team of foreign policy amateurs were exposed as inept. They may run a terrific campaign. But governing and managing foreign policy is not the same as campaigning. Hopefully they will learn something about dealing with Canada from this dust up. If not, just imagine the mayhem they can create with Iran or the Chinese." - Larry Johnson
Too much for me (0.00 / 0)
This statement, that McCain would be preferable to Obama, is beyond the pale. I will not vote for Hillary in a general election.
Irresponsible Primary Moves | 189 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox