Dear Hillary: Your BS ad made me donate to Obama

I've been a Barack Obama supporter since the fall of '06, when I was privileged enough to join with the good folks running DraftObama.org. But I've never been "against" the other candidates.  I like Edwards, and was even fortunate enough to work with him on his first podcast (and of course, like everyone, I love Elizabeth).

And I've never been a Hillary hater at all.  I think she's sharp as hell, and I think she's gotten way too much grief from Republicans -- and many Democrats.

Well, that changed today.  The Clinton campaign just released an ad in South Carolina that is frankly such a heaving pile of bull, such an obvious falsehood, that I'm responding the only way I can:

I am donating more money to Obama today, and I am urging everyone else who supports him to do the same

I've set up an "Obama Hope Chest"page on ActBlue.  If you want to make a statement with me, and be part of this "bull fighting" effort, donate there.  But frankly, wherever you do it, just do it.

FYI, here's the text of the ad, via Hotline

Hillary Clinton attacks Barack Obama in a new radio ad in S.C. for his remark that the GOP was the party of ideas for several years. Echoes attacks made by HRC and her husband over the last week, most prominently by HRC during Monday's contentious debate in Myrtle Beach.

A Clinton spokesman has not responded to an email about the ad, which was forwarded to reporters by Obama's campaign.

Script:
VO: "Listen to Barack Obama last week talking about Republicans.
BO: "The Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years."
VO: "Really? Aren’t those the ideas that got us into the economic mess we’re in today? Ideas like special tax breaks for Wall Street. Running up a $9 trillion debt. Refusing to raise the minimum wage or deal with the housing crisis. Are those the ideas Barack Obama’s talking about?"
BO: "The Republicans were the party of ideas."
VO: Hillary Clinton thinks this election is about replacing disastrous Republican ideas with new ones, like jumpstarting the economy. Putting an immediate freeze on foreclosures and mortgages. Cutting taxes for the middle class. and creating millions of new jobs. With the economy in crisis, we need a president with the ideas, the solutions that get our economy working for all of us. Hillary Clinton. Solutions for America.

Look, I'm not naive.  I understand politics is politics, and ads can get nasty.

But you know what?  This is such a heaving pile of crap that I just don't care to explain it away as "politics as usual."

So, Senator Obama -- this donation is for you.  

Oh, and if you want to send a thank-you note, don't send it to me, send it to Senator Clinton and her ad team.

•  Tips

  Tips gratefully accepted -- but please send the real $$$ to Senator Obama

  by Hlinko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:58:02 PM PDT

  •  It's been an hour, and I'm still pissed off

    Gees, every time I read this I get ticked off.

    by Hlinko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:02:51 PM PDT

    •  :(

      by DrMicro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:07:55 PM PDT

      •  omg...I hadn't listened until now.

        How repulsive.

        by Elise on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:44:13 PM PDT

  •  It's not just nasty, it's petty.

    I don't think the ad will work.  What Democrat would be offended by someone saying the Republicans were the party of ideas for the last decade?  Most of us would agree they were.

    Did he say good ideas?  No.  His point was that ideas are important in winning over the electorate.

    by Cream Puff on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM PDT

    •  but they are insinuating

      that he was saying good ideas, and i bet a lot of people will hear it that way without even realizing it.  that is the problem with this kind of politics.  and that is what makes me so depressed.

      by ejpoeta on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:51:21 PM PDT

      •  Yeah, you're completely right.

        There is no room for nuance or thoughtful, objective analysis.  One criticism I have of Obama is that he tends to speak in generalities, albeit uplifting ones.

        I'm starting to realize why he does, and it's not because he lacks substance.  How much time and energy has he had to spend explaining the Reagan quote?  When you speak in abstractions and refuse to answer questions directly, it may infuriate voters looking for answers, but the media can't manufacture a story and your opponents can't lift and distort quotes.

        Look for even more bland statements from all the leading candidates from now on.

        by Cream Puff on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:57:45 AM PDT

  •  Thank you, Mr. Hlinko

    for setting up the hopechest. I plan on donating when I am on a secure connection. (Incidentally, we are studying your organization, Grassroots Enterprise, in a class that I am taking this semester on competitive intelligence - I'm looking forward to finding out more about it.)

    Best,
    lirtydies

    by lirtydies on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:33:53 PM PDT

    •  Thanks, but call me John :)

      Thanks much for the nice note.   And wow, how cool to hear that we're actually "study-worthy!"   :)

      by Hlinko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:42:18 PM PDT

      •  Thanks, John :)

        I liked your John Edward diary, btw - that was too funny. :)

        by lirtydies on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:56:25 PM PDT

•  Why do we do this kind of crap?

  We all know the Republicans love to take quotations out of context.  We all remember how much fun they had with Gore's statements that he invented the internet and he discovered Love Canal and he was the model for the male character in Love Story.

  So, it is very, very disappointing to see a Democrat doing this.

  OK, this two.  Voter suppression in Nevada and now taking one sentence out of context.

  Shame, shame, shame.

  (Note: As a strong Obama supporter, I am not going to ever write that I will note vote for Clinton, but this certainly diminishes my respect for her.)

  by MoDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:02:35 PM PDT

  •  I agree, I thought Hillary was better than this

    It's such an obvious bold faced lie

    by Hlinko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:04:47 PM PDT

•  As I posted

  elsewhere, the Clinton ad uses Obama's own words and his own voice.  It then puts a reasonable interpretation on those words, and takes Obama to task on the basis of that interpretation.

  Why is this such a horrible thing, much less a "heaving pile of crap"?  If Hillary made a statement as ill-advised as Obama did, he'd be jumping all over it and you'd be cheering.  What's the difference?  Other than two-faced hypocrisy, that is?

  by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:06:51 PM PDT

  •  Come on, context matters

    They've clearly wrapped it in language that completely gives the wrong impression of what he said.  

    by Hlinko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:08:47 PM PDT

    •  Come on

      be serious.  Can you admit that Obama's statement was an ill-advised one?  That it was a general election comment while the primaries were still going on?

      Look, I don't think that Obama is a Republican in disguise, and I don't think he worships Reagan.  But he did a stupid, stupid thing by praising Ronald Reagan in any way, shape or form DURING THE PRIMARIES.  If he had made the same statement in August, it would have been fine.  Now, it's a horrific mistake.

      He was trying to be clever, appealing to independent and Republican voters in some of the open primary and caucus states and trying to set himself up for the general.  But he hasn't won yet, and there are a series of closed primaries/caucuses coming up, and the Democratic voters in those states don't want to hear "I love Reagan" in any conceivable fashion.

      Hillary pounced on it, AS SHE SHOULD HAVE.  It was a mistake, and he left himself open to this kind of attack.  If he hadn't opened his yap, he wouldn't be getting hit over the head with this.  If Clinton made a statement as stupid as this, Obama would be pounding her with it.  AND RIGHTLY SO.

      Part of the primary process is to give the ultimate winner some seasoning so that stupid shit like this doesn't happen in October.  It's a valid criticism, and he should learn from it.

      by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:15:00 PM PDT

      •  There You Go Again!

        Why don't you Clintonites think you win an election without lying through your teeth?

        We'd rather have some sincerity in government this time. The era for your methods is.

        Give it up and be straight-up and forthright for a change.

        by GW Chimpzilla on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:20:18 PM PDT

        •  If you're as

          right as you think you are, no voter will respond positively to the Clinton ad, and she will lose.  The vehemence of your post suggests, however, that you know that Obama's comment was a mistake, however well intentioned, and it will hurt him.

          Be angry with him for making the comment, not his opponent for capitalizing on it.  That's politics.

          by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:23:29 PM PDT

          •  the problem is

            most voters are very susceptible to lies, even if corrections are issued later.

            Though I guess you probably think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth "had a point."

            by Stroszek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:30:27 PM PDT

            •  Never

              ever look down on voters.  They may not be rocket scientists like us bloggers, but there's a hell of a lot more of them than there are of us.  And their votes count just as much, regardless of how "susceptible" they may be.

              by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:41:29 PM PDT

        •  There ya go again.

          What lies? There are no lies in the ad. This is politics as usual. Why is it when Clinton attacks Obama it's a travesty of injustice bred of lies and when Obama attacks Clinton it's some moral justification of his character over hers. I'm so sick of this argument and it's just beginning to really turn me away from Obama as a candidate.

          They're the same, Clinton and Obama, playing politics as usual.

          by xobehtedistuo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:41:30 PM PDT

      •  demonstrably false

        he wasn't trying to "appeal to Republicans and independents." If it weren't for the Clinton camp's oppo team, no more than a few dozen people would have ever seen it.

        What's more, he was talking with an editorial board with a record of endorsing Democrats for governor and president. Hardly a hardline conservative audience.

        Furthermore, it's not a reasonable interpretation, it's a lie. At no point did Obama endorse Reagan's policies. In fact, in that same interview, he said those very Republican ideas "didn't work" and "are played out."

        With this sort of garbage, Clinton supporters are quickly demonstrating that they are just as amoral as their candidate.

        Clinton is going to have to work very hard to win back Obama supporters after this garbage.

        by Stroszek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:29:16 PM PDT

        •  Well then

          the Clinton ad won't work, and this conversation will be academic.  But we all know that it will work, not because Obama is a secret Republican but because it was an ill-advised, stupid statement that a shrewd opponent is now capitalizing upon.

          by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:32:41 PM PDT

          •  How very Clintonian

            if it is unethical it won't work so it is OK. Implies if it does work then is ethical. Reminds me of Salem witch trials (if she survives dunking then she isn't a witch).
            I am so frequently amazed at the very different (from me) worldview of many Clinton supporters as to what is correct, ethical, and acceptable.

            Hillary Clinton 2008 - Because the ends justifies the means.

            by crankyinNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:54:45 PM PDT

            •  Apparently

              in response to the new politics that is embodied by Barack Obama, criticizing Senator Obama is unethical, because he is by definition a good and moral and ethical man who is seeking to change politics and usher us into a new promised land of I'm not quite sure what.

              Blech.  You realize that Republicans are not going to buy into this lovefest, don't you?

              by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:58:21 PM PDT

              •  Criticism is all right

                Lies not alright. She adds words to his statement about Reagan. Also, completely not acceptable given Hillary's praise for Reagan in several different forums, notably Tom Brokaw's recently published book about the 1960s.

                by crankyinNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:15:20 PM PDT

        •  Right and his criticizing and marginalizing the

          Democratic party of the 60s and 90s isn't a direct appeal to the NeoCon mindset of Republicans.

          C'mon, at least admit the political tactics he uses to court Independents and unsatisfied Repugs. It's one thing to support a politician and quite another to make him out to be some sort of moral messiah amidst the same old crap.

          by xobehtedistuo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:47:18 PM PDT

      •  And besides,

        what was he doing out that late at night wearing that short skirt?  My opinion, he was just asking for it.

        by sagra on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:49:37 PM PDT

    •  Not the wrong impression at all.

      That's the problem.

      by BoringDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:47:42 PM PDT

  •  obama would not ....

    If this were untrue, he'd be doing it along time ago....

    She is a fairly easy target for this type of behavior, imho.

    by DrMicro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:10:06 PM PDT

  •  Your version of a

    "reasonable interpretation" is different than mine, so there is where we disagree. This ad is false in that it seeks to misrepresent Obama's policies and intentions. It is misleading, end of story.

    by dagnabbit on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:10:31 PM PDT

    •  See

      here.

      by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:18:01 PM PDT

      •  here's the thing

        you can defend this from the neutral view of a political scientist as a "mistake" or "good tactics by the Clintons."

        But that's not the context of this discussion.

        This is very much a moral debate, and on those terms, the Clintons are very much in the wrong.

        It doesn't matter if it was "a general election comment." In fact, most of us find it refreshing to have a candidate who doesn't play the "primary game" and then tack right after everyone's been suckered.

        by Stroszek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:33:36 PM PDT

        •  You've hit upon

          one of the reasons I moved away from Obama to Clinton.

          No disrespect intended, but the high-mindedness of your comment is a concern for me.  Politics is not moral.  It's brutal, ugly, nasty and violent.  People claim that they don't like negative advertising, but oh my good Lord, they respond to it.

          It's not refreshing to me to see Obama make statements like that.  It's dumb.  Above all else, I WANT TO WIN.  I hate losing.  All of this Obama rhetoric is pretty and beautiful and lovely and all that -- and not worth  a shit against the Republican onslaught that you can bet your ass is coming.

          I said after Iowa that the one thing I didn't want is a coronation, because Obama wasn't ready.  He wasn't.  If he wins now, he will be, as a result of rookie mistakes like this one.  And I'll support him.

          I'm sorry if my view of the political world isn't morally based (the rest of my life is very moral, I can assure you), but at the end of the day, a Democrat in the White House is what we want, and like Charles Colson, I will run over my grandmother if necessary to accomplish that goal.  Hillary Clinton gives Democrats the best chance of that goal, and that, among other reasons, is why I'm for her.

          by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:40:19 PM PDT

          •  I am curious where you draw the line.

            Breaking and entering political office of opposition ?
            (Watergate)
            Disenfranchising AA voters by improperly purging voter rolls (Florida 2000)
            Multiple votes by dead people (Chicago since the dawn of time)

            These tactic were undertaken by people who, gee,
            really, really wanted to WIN! A whole bunch!

            by crankyinNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:00:03 PM PDT

            •  No, no and no

              Of course there are limits.  But criticizing your opponent for making ill-advised, stupid statements during a primary campaign is really, really far from the line.  Not even a gray area.  Not even if Obama does it to Clinton.  If she makes a stupid statement like Obama did, I fully expect him to jump all over it and pound her silly.  The difference is that I won't write outraged diaries complaining about it.

              And the other difference is that she is a more disciplined candidate who is less likely to make bone-headed mistakes like Obama did.  At least as I see it.

              by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:03:04 PM PDT

              •  It isn't the criticism

                it's the lying. New campaign slogan-
                "It's the mendacity, stupid".

                by crankyinNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:16:58 PM PDT

  •  Are you really a lawyer?

    Are you kidding?  I don't mean to sound like I'm being a smartass but it is clear to me that Obama is not praising Reagan in any way shape or form.

    Hitler and Marx both had new ideas.  Because I say that, doesn't mean I agree with them.

    In fact, saying that the Republicans became the party of ideas isn't even an original Obama idea. This has been said over and over again.  This period in our history and in the history of our parties will be written about as the Republicans being the party of ideas during the Reagan era.  They sucked.  I supposed, unless Obama vomits when he says the name "Reagan", some people will continue to distort the truth just because they hope they can get away with it.

    by nolalily on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:13:03 PM PDT

    •  See

      here.   It's not that Obama invented the "party of ideas," it's that he said it at all.  It was a mistake, a big one, and he should not have said it.

      by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:18:52 PM PDT

      •  Why not?

        If you want to stick your head in the sand, go ahead. Obama's point was obvious to anyone honestly trying to understand him.

        I would much rather have the candidates speaking frankly and talking honestly than vetting every dependent clause for the possibility that someone might put it into an unflattering context. And I would much rather not have Democrats doing that to fellow Democrats. There's no reason to do the Right's work for them.

        by oldjohnbrown on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:23:25 PM PDT

        •  If his point

          was so "obvious" and therefore innocuous, then no one will respond positively to the Clinton ad, and it will backfire.

          You don't think that will really happen, do you?  If you did, you'd be pleased with the ad, not outraged by it.

          by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:29:12 PM PDT

          •  unless, of course...

            the ad excludes necessary context... which it does.

            by Kimball on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:37:00 PM PDT

            •  Lee Atwater

              Is smiling at Clinton and jmsdlawyer from his pit in hell.

              by clonecone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:45:40 PM PDT

              •  Oh please

                if you can't see the difference between Willie Horton and this situation, which was entirely of Obama's own making, you have blinders on.  Be serious.

                All together now:  he made a mistake.  Repeat as necessary.

                by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:00:18 PM PDT

                •  He didn't make a mistake.

                  You're just not smart enough to understand what he said.  How sad for you.  Maybe he should dumb it down.

                  by clonecone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:12:50 PM PDT

      •  It's a fact.

        What are we, the communist party now?  We censor history?

        by nolalily on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:16:49 PM PDT

  •  For example, with your words...

    ANNOUNCER:  "Why does Hillary Clinton eat puppies?"

    JSMDLAWYER:  "Why is this such a horrible thing?"

    ANNOUNCER:  "How can Jsmdlawyer defend this? And what would he do if he saw Hillary eating the puppies first hand?"

    JSMDLAWYER:  "he'd be jumping all over it and you'd be cheering"

    ANNOUNCER:  "No, we wouldn't be cheering. Shame on you"

    by Hlinko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM PDT

    •  This is

      absurd, and not worthy of response.

      by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM PDT

      •  New Radio ad:

        ANNOUNCER:  "Would Jsmdlawyer be willing to donate 1 penny to keep Hillary from eating the puppies?"

        JSMDLAWYER:  "This is absurd, and not worthy of response"

        ANNOUNCER:  "Not even one penny to save puppies? Shame on you"

        by Hlinko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:25:19 PM PDT

        •  absolutely brilliant

          an excellent tactic, jsmdlawyer should have known better than to leave himself open to these attacks.

          by Stroszek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:35:06 PM PDT

          •  If you

            think that's brilliant, you're one of those "susceptible voters" you cast such scorn on in this very thread.

            by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:44:04 PM PDT

  •  ends vs means

    Because, as any good lawyer knows, context is everything. Obama was not praising the content of Republican ideas, he was talking about political momentum and periods of sea-change in the body politic.  

    Clinton knows this, you know it, it is cynical swiftboating at its worst. Clinton has plenty of baggage, and eight years of quotes to take out of context. Neither the Obama nor the Edwards campaign (nor any of the other Dem candidates this cycle) chose to cherry-pick selected words out of a sophisticated argument and spin them to appear to say the opposite of their intended meaning.

    This goes to the essence of changing the cockroach culture in the US - the culture where everyone pulls everyone down to their level, like cockroaches in a jar.

    Clinton started out, like Obama and Edwards, taking the high road and contrasting the Democratic debate over ideas with the Republican debate over nonsense.

    Her recent actions, and those of her campaign, give the lie to her rhetoric of "we Democrats are all in this together". She is hurting the party, and hurting our future, regardless of who wins.

    If her philosophy is, "the ends justify the means" in the electoral cycle, why should we believe her philosophy will be any different in the governing one?

    by RandomActsOfReason on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:14:34 PM PDT

    •  It is not

      "swiftboating," which has become as meaningless a term as "Rovian."  It's Obama's voice in the ad, not an interpretation.  Listeners can judge for themselves.  Those who agree with you can vote accordingly.  Those who agree with Clinton can do likewise.

      If you want to be angry, be angry with your candidate for a clearly dumb statement.  No upside, all down.  Bad mistake.

      by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:21:35 PM PDT

      •  Only because it opened it up

        for jackasses to lie about what he said.  

        Keep lying for her if it makes you happy.  Just be honest about what you're doing to the party in the process.

        by clonecone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:44:27 PM PDT

        •  Y'know what

          be frustrated with your candidate for a stupid statement?  What was the benefit of that statement to him?  Pretty much nothing.  What was the downside?  This.

          If he can't handle the "lying, inept" Hillary Clinton campaign, how the fuck's he going to handle the Republicans?  Or are they going to get with the "new politics" of Barack Obama and be all nice and touchy feely?

          One last time:  it's not lying when you use the candidate's OWN WORDS.  Maybe he should choose those words more carefully next time.

          by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:47:12 PM PDT

          •  It wasn't a stupid statement

            unless you aren't smart enough to understand what he was saying.  That says a lot about you, doesn't it?

            "it's not lying when you use the candidate's OWN WORDS."  If that's true, the youtube I linked below isn't a lie.  Those are all her words.

            by clonecone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:48:45 PM PDT

            •  Repeating the same

              line over and over and over again, when you full well know the difference, is boring and tendentious.

              If you really think that You Tube ad will play, go sell it to the Obama campaign.  I'm pretty sure they won't use it.  How 'bout you?

              I know what he was saying, and I've mentioned it several times.  He was playing for moderates and independents and cross-over Republicans, and he made an ill-advised statement.  He's not Reagan, he doesn't love Reagan, he doesn't love Reagan's policies, he was campaigning.  It was just badly done.  And it is appropriate when a candidate makes a bad statement for his or her opponent to capitalize on it.

              Like Obama did with "fairy tale" and "shuck and jive" and all the other stuff.  The difference this time is that the candidate himself made the bad comment.  Not good.

              by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:07:32 PM PDT

          •  "Own words" - context is everything

            Here are your own words, from the final paragraph of the comment I am replying to:

            One..lying...candidate...choose..carefully.

            by RandomActsOfReason on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 08:51:20 PM PDT

  •  TR abuse

    I disagree with your post in substance, but there was nothing in it troll-worthy.  Uprated.  

    by Guy Fawkes on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:14:49 PM PDT

  •  Uprated

    because disagreement is not trolling.

    by oldjohnbrown on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:24:36 PM PDT

  •  This is not troll worthy

    I disagree, and am even being a pain/noodge to Jsmdlawyer downthread, but... this is not a troll comment.  

    I disagree, but am recommending it.

    by Hlinko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:26:22 PM PDT

  •  Geez!

    Are we now troll rating just because someone posts a comment you don't agree with?

    by xobehtedistuo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:32:10 PM PDT

  •  So you're ok with an ad

    that edits and twists a candidate's words into something they didn't say?  

    If so, I bet you'll love this one.

    by clonecone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:39:47 PM PDT

    •  Oh my God, that's hysterical

      by Hlinko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:47:31 PM PDT

      •  It's not a lie

        when you use the candidate's own words.  I learned that  in this thread.

        by clonecone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:49:40 PM PDT

    •  Pretty funny

      the problem for Obama is that his comments were his own.  No sound editing required.

      by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:49:47 PM PDT

      •  These were all her words.

        That means it's not a lie according to you.  Maybe should have chosen her words more carefully.

        by clonecone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:50:50 PM PDT

        •  If you want to

          have a serious conversation, let's do it.  This was funny, and it bears no relationship to the Obama comment.  If Hillary Clinton had done what the clever YouTuber did, there'd be a comparison.  But she didn't, and there's not.

          Can't any Obama supporter just agree with the basic point that his comment was ill-advised and a mistake?  Regardless of the evil intentions of the harlot queen Hillary Clinton, can't anyone just say "Boy, he really screwed the pooch on that one."?

          Anyone?  Buehler?  Buehler?

          by jsmdlawyer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:53:00 PM PDT

          •  I don't think it was a dumb statement.

            Saying a world leader has no soul, that's a dumb statement.

            by clonecone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:14:23 PM PDT

          •  Why?

            I don't split the baby to cover for lies, smears and distortions.  Recognizing that Reagan used a popular mandate to transform the country, that the GOP successfully marketed itself as the party of ideas is the truth.  People who have a problem with the truth on such a high-information site get zero concessions from me.

            by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:39:21 PM PDT

  •  It doesn't put a "reasonable interpretation"

    on anything. It's a flat out lie. She knows it's a goddamned lie and she's paying to put it out there on purpose. You know who campaigns like this? Republicans.

    by Elise on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:45:41 PM PDT

•  I give $100 every quarter

  (sometimes a little more).

  Today, I heeded the call and donated my $100 in order to make it count going into Super Tuesday.  If any of you have some extra cash or were going to give in the next couple months, I hope you can do it now.  It will go a long way today.

  by nolalily on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:08:11 PM PDT

  •  Same here ... 25$ a month.

    Keep doing what you are doing, put your money where your mouth is!

    Fired up!

    by DrMicro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:11:56 PM PDT

•  Even if She wins the nom

  She has created such bitterness folks will be rethinking any support.

  by ParaHammer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:10:48 PM PDT

  •  They are doing so much damage

    I'll say it again and again.  The Clinton campaign is the WORST thing to happen to the party in years.

    Check this out, courtesy of commenter fonsia:

    Trying to Heal a Rift in New Hampshire
    By Alec MacGillis

    Three New Hampshire Democratic leaders who signed a letter two days before the state's primary at the request of Hillary Clinton's campaign, attacking Barack Obama as soft in his support for abortion rights, are asking Obama supporters in the state to put the rifts of the primary campaign behind them and praising Obama for being "strongly pro-choice."

    [snip]

    Katie Wheeler, a former state senator, said the Clinton campaign had not given her background information about Obama's record on abortion rights when it asked her to sign the letter calling him weak on the issue, and said that, as a result, she did not understand the context of the votes that the letter was attacking him over.

    "It should never have gotten to the point where anyone thought Obama was not pro-choice," said Wheeler, a founder of the New Hampshire chapter of NARAL Pro-Choice America. "I don't think the Clinton campaign should have done that. It was divisive and unnecessary...I think it was a mistake and I've spoken to the national [Clinton campaign] and told them it caused problems in New Hampshire, and am hoping they won't do it again."

    If you follow fonsia's link and read the comments underneath the article, they are articulating the same disgust and vows to never support Clinton that are beginning to litter this site as well.

    In this context, commenters are making the valid point that those taking a stand against antichoicers should not have their issue and credibility misappropriated for one cynical cut-throat political campaign.

    This is not about some mere sour grapes in a contest that isn't even over.  It's about taking a stand and demanding that leaders act like leaders.  The Clintons are proving themselves unacceptable to a growing number of people.

    by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:17:35 PM PDT

•  Hey, who troll rated

  the lawyer.  Get ridda dat donut.

  by nolalily on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:16:31 PM PDT

•  I'm doing $250 Sunday Morning

  That will be one of the biggest fund raising days of all time.

  by ParaHammer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:17:03 PM PDT

  •  What's going on Sunday with fundraising?

    That will be one of the biggest fund raising days of all time.

    by smartdemmg on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:20:39 PM PDT

•  She pissed me off so much...

  ...in the debate that I immediately donated to Obama.

  I'm sure I will continue to do that as she pisses me off even more.

  On MSNBC they said she might start airing television attack ads.

  Chris Matthews is reading something straight out of the AP wires. It's a statement from Bill Clinton injecting race again. Claiming Obama is doing it. He's literally just randomly bringing it up again and acting angry about it.

  Time to make another donation...

  by LizzyPop on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:18:07 PM PDT

  •  The Clintons are just getting started

    remember, this is "fun."  B. Clinton enjoys watching H. Clinton fight another Democrat.

    They have just gotten started with it.

    by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:19:53 PM PDT

•  Law of diminishing returns campaign

  The only way that Hillary can win is to go negative like this, so much so that you end up not only hating her (unless you are truly enthralled with her), you also hate the process so much that you just turn away.

  It's bad for the Democratic party, it's bad for the country and it lays the groundwork for 75 percent of the country looking at her unfavorably from the moment she might take any office this tactic might earn her.

  by QuestionableSanity on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:21:45 PM PDT

  •  When I first read about the ad today

    for a split second I thought "is it worth 4 years of McCain to get 8 years of Obama".
    Bill and Hill are burning bridges big time.

    by ParaHammer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:23:44 PM PDT

•  What in that add was wrong?

  He said those things- he needs to own them just like everything that Hillary is made to own by the media, by Obama and his supports.

  Give me a break.

  He should never have said such things.  They piss me off and I really like the guy.  It was a stumble and in politics, stumbles make you lose elections.  I don't want this guy telling independents that Republicans have all the good ideas.

  I don't want him passively taking down the Democratic Party.  I am a proud Democrat and I know that we have had and do have good ideas.

  by linc on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:23:08 PM PDT

  •  Any quote can

    be taken out of context and spun negatively.

    by ParaHammer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:24:40 PM PDT

    •  And he needs to know that

      especially if he wins the nomination.  You think that ad was bad?  Wait until the GOP gets a hold of him and all of his wonder sound bites.

      by linc on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:25:49 PM PDT

      •  this such a ridiculous argument

        what are you suggesting? That when the GOP release ads, he shouldn't respond to those either?

        I hear this all the time from the Clinton supporters.

        The Clintons issue a dishonest attack, Obama responds, and Clinton supporters whine about him "whining" and then say "if you think that's bad, just wait until the GOP gets to you."

        No duh, that's why it's important that he responds to this disinformation.

        Hell, if anything, going by your logic, he should be hitting back harder. In fact, I'm getting kind of frustrated that he isn't using stronger language.

        by Stroszek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:41:26 PM PDT

        •  of course, he did

          the Clintons would go into martyrdom mode and cry about "sexism."

          And that's somehow supposed to give us confidence that she's better suited to withstand Republican attacks? If I remember correctly, the last time she and her husband were the target of the GOP, a highly profitable right-wing media empire was born and the Democrats lost control of Congress for over a decade. Good job, guys!

          by Stroszek on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:44:44 PM PDT

      •  Yay! Let's promote intellectual dishonesty!!!

        What a great idea! Way to promote the discourse!

        by Elise on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM PDT

  •  he said

    something that was completely true and it has been taken out of context. There were not good ideas and he was the one in the trenches fighting against these bad ideas for his whole life. But unless u r an idiot or dont pay attention at all, the republicans in the eighties and even nineties were the ones coming up with big ideas for ameicas future. Just finished reading Bill Bradleys excellent excellent book where he states the same exact thing. No one agreed with those ideas but it is improtant for democrats to have bold, innovative plans to change this country.

    by Pennypacker on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:30:20 PM PDT

    •  Well, Bill Bradley didn't win either n/t

      by linc on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:34:51 PM PDT

      •  mature

        response...no shit he didnt win. Bill Clinton has praised Reagen many times....and not only did he like the GOP ideas, he coopted them and put them into action harming real people.

        by Pennypacker on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:54:20 PM PDT

  •  Did you read kos's comment?

    Huh. I didn't see the part where Obama said the GOP's ideas were "all the good" ones.

    In fact, Obama isn't saying anything that couldn't come straight out of Crashing the Gate -- that the GOP build a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that used its think tanks to create ideas, a media machine to sell those ideas, and a modernized campaign operation to win elections on those ideas. Yes, the GOP was the party of ideas. They were crappy ideas. But they were "ideas".

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by FoundingFatherDAR on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:02:51 PM PDT

•  She has pissed me off so much

  it even makes it hard to defend her from sophomoric attacks by sleazebag Roger Stone.

  by DelRPCV on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:33:21 PM PDT

•  $20.08 more from me today

  by poblano on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:35:57 PM PDT

•  Another Donation to Obama

  I was going to wait a bit, but now I'm adopting the "Every Time Clintons Lie" tactic - Obama gets another chunk of change.  

  by Empower Ink on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:37:31 PM PDT

  •  if i could afford to....

    unfortunately we are stretched so thin right now, we have nothing until next friday when bob gets paid.  if the economy is doing well, as some have said on the tv, then i would hate to see it when it's not doing well!!

    by ejpoeta on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:42:07 PM PDT

    •  I'll Add Extra $$$ For You

      Please consider that you did donate to Obama today.

      by Empower Ink on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:36:09 PM PDT

      •  thank you

        and i will be donating when bob gets paid, i think.  because i abhor the politics the clintons are employing.

        by ejpoeta on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:38:47 PM PDT

•  That was a brilliant ad!!

  I am so tickled by all the new ads coming from Hillary.
  Her team is cooking with gas now!

  by BoringDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:46:28 PM PDT

  •  Well

    gas seems to be involved but there doesn't seem to be any cooking.

    by crankyinNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:04:24 PM PDT

    •  Then what's roasting Obama? LOL

      by BoringDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:05:29 PM PDT

      •  Probably what is roasting me.

        Utter, spleen bursting contempt for your diseased, degenerate, lying, scum-bag candidate. Are we clear yet?

        by crankyinNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:09:02 PM PDT

        •  This is a game to some

          Don't let BoringDem take you there.  Despicable people enjoy despicable tactics.  For them, "now the fun begins."

          by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:23:10 PM PDT

          •  Thanks.

            I was sitting here mulling over an apology for going over the top. The best I could come up with is retracting everything but the lying part because I believe it to be true. Which then sounds snarky. So I am leaving it as part of the roadkill of the primary season. But hope to be less pissed as a matter of health and one of civility to the other posters.

            by crankyinNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:27:07 PM PDT

            •  BoringDem has been over the top for

              months and has not been called to account for repeating lies and smears.  He teases and baits others, and grows more emboldened because he's gotten away with it for a long time.

              Definitely not worth even a tenth of your energy, cranky.  And I think the Clinton campaign vomiting up a new lie and distortion every other minute is bringing out the worst in everyone.

              by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:31:25 PM PDT

•  Can no longer stomach

  Evita Clinton and her trailer park Juan. So just gave some bucks.And I just gave after the debate I was so pissed off. It is going to be in expensive couple of weeks. But always satisfying to contribute to Obama.
  Fired up! Ready to go!

  by crankyinNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:46:31 PM PDT

•  Two (erroneous) words

  The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote.

   
   When Hillary inserted those two words (into Obama's "quote") in her comment during the debate, she infuriated me.  It was a deliberate twisting of Obama's statement.  Whether one agrees or disagrees with Obama is not the point.  The point is that Hillary (following on Bill's previous claim) clearly wanted to distort the issue.

  by FoundingFatherDAR on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:58:08 PM PDT

  •  FWIW

    I believe Obama said for 10-15 years. Meaning, say 1985-1995/2000 maybe?

    He was referring to Reagan (1980-1988) after all.

    So that makes another bit of a twist and why this ad is so disingenuous. That means a lie....

    by zozie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:45:23 PM PDT

•  The diarist is full of shit

  From a diary by  the author yesterday:

  Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 05:07:20 PM PST

  Yes, I have come to the conclusion that I like John Edward.  I really do.  And I'm going to support him.

  Not the ex Senator -- the other guy.  John Edward, the guy who speaks with dead people. (sans the "S" at the end)

  He's kinda bugged me in the past, but now that I've seen him parodied on South Park, I actually can smile when I see him.  And that's pretty cool.

  So please, join me in supporting John Edward.  

  And please rec this diary.  At least we can have one diary on the list that is slightly different.

  by stevej on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:08:46 PM PDT

  •  My mistake

    missed thehumor
    Apologies to the diarist

    by stevej on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:10:38 PM PDT

    •  Happens to everyone

      You had me worried about the diarist for a minute.  :-)

      by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:24:14 PM PDT

•  I guess all is fair in love and politics. n/t

  by Ynilp on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 12:16:44 AM PDT