ABC: Obama's testy exchange with NYT reporter

With video from ABC. Found this over at the Huffington Post:

Bill Gets in Barack's Head?
Sen. Obama has a testy exchange with a reporter about President Clinton

Is Barrack cracking under pressure?

Just want to see how quickly this "anti"- Obama diary gets ignored.

Been posting here on and off for atleast a few years, and thought there were a great many fair-minded individuals frequenting this place.

However, I've found it absolutely repulsive how quickly many here at Daily Kos have turned a blind eye towards anything that's not glowingly positive about Barack Obama.

Incidentally, was anybody here (or anywhere else for that matter) going to mention Barack Obama was practically screaming at the former first lady of the United States last night?

Obama did it more than once too.

Didn't think so...

You know, it's the Clintons. When it comes to them, you can say anything, do anything... it doesn't matter.

It's not like they saved the American Dream or anything....
(while power-thirsty republicans tried every way imaginable  to put them in jail).

Because this country'd be in wonderful shape even without those 8 years of fiscal sanity, sandwiched between Obama-fave Ronald Reagan and the Bushes.

•  It's Jeff Zeleny we're talking about, an HRC hack

  Obama must know who Jeff Zeleny is and anyone reading this article should also know who the reporter is and what his biases are in this race. His recent piece in the NYT has already been criticized on several blogs for the way it described the SC debate and its selective and deliberate uses of adjectives in describing Senator Obama. This is as much a story as Krugman writing another hit piece on Obama would be. Has NYT not made its endorsement yet? I wish they would, so their credibility in this fight would diminish.

  by bmozaffari on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:55:25 PM PDT

  •  y'know what I think about this diarist?

    I think Barack Obama is getting in his head.

    by scardanelli on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:07:45 AM PDT

    •  I wasn't even gonna go there

      I thought that was obvious. I just wanted to make clear who the "journalist" was and why Barack reacted the way he did. Furthermore, if you watch the video, you'll see that it's really a non-story.

      by bmozaffari on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:10:58 AM PDT

      •  True enough.

        It was obvious. Your comment was really much too smart and informative for this diary: Reporters and biases and facts and... well, it's all really out of place here. I thought it needed a little something stupid for balance. :)

        by scardanelli on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:19:10 AM PDT

        •  "something stupid for balance"

          What do you think this is, a major metropolitan newspaper?

          by MarkInSanFran on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:40:54 AM PDT

  •  Whatever

    If this is Obama being testy, then I think he could handle a nuclear crisis just fine.

    by JedReport on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:39:57 AM PDT

    •  nice fear mongering.

      by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:07:33 AM PDT

      •  Do you understand what I wrote?

        If this is Obama being testy, then I think he could handle a nuclear crisis just fine.

        Do you think that is an insult or a compliment?

        by JedReport on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:12:56 AM PDT

        •  well,

          I couldn't watch the video (it didn't work for me for some reason). So, I was under the influence of the spin of the diary and the ABC news post when I saw your comment.

          Therefore, it wasn't clear what you meant because there was the possibility that you were being sarcastic with the "I think he could handle a nuclear crisis just fine" portion.

          However, after reading the comments downthread, I realized that you were poking fun at the diarist. Hence I retract my snappy response. Fair enough?

          by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:20:13 AM PDT

          •  Fair enough.

            It was a stupid diary, and although ABC characterized his attitude as "testy" and "angry," ABC is lying through it's teeth.

            He had a smile on his face, and was in total control of his emotions.

            At the very worst, you could say that he appeared frustrated that there were TV cameras around, making it impossible for him to go off the record with Zeleny.

            However, that would be (in my opinion), a reasonable (and empathetic) display of emotion.

            by JedReport on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:39:01 AM PDT

            •  thanks.

              sorry that I was "testy" but pleased that Barack wasn't :)

              by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:46:36 AM PDT

              •  He was a little irritated, but who wouldn't be?

                He was smiling most of the time and signing autographs.  The only mistake he made was returning to talk to the reporter again.  But it was no big deal--certainly not worth a story in the NYT.

                by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:48:47 AM PDT

            •  Yeah,

              he likely wanted to tell the reporter to fold it four ways and put it where the sun don't shine. LOL.

              by kpardue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:11:55 AM PDT

            •  Amazing how many "liars"

              ...seem to be besieging Obama, on all sides.

              by jmknapp on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:42:09 AM PDT

              •  Well, to be fair...

                ...some of them are telling the truth.

                http://www.factcheck.org/...

                by JedReport on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:09:01 AM PDT

                •  Nice to see Obama attacked from the right N/T

                  by bmozaffari on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:26:36 AM PDT

                  •  The issue is that he lied... nt

                    by JedReport on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:42:31 PM PDT

              •  Actually, it's not amazing at all.

                He's running for the highest office in this country and he is going to have to deal with plenty of lies and criticism before he's done.  How he responds to all of this will have a lot to do with whether he gets the nomination and gets elected to the presidency.  That's politics.  So far Obama has been a media darling, but with more successes will come more scrutiny as well as more "unfair" attacks.

                by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:52:12 AM PDT

          •  Fooled Me.

            I thought is was the best SNARC I've read in days,

            by koNko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:46:51 AM PDT

        •  An obvious SNARC

          Chill-out, that was really funny.

          Rec you both.

          by koNko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:45:41 AM PDT

    •  I agree.

      It seems like the reporter is just trying to stir things up.

      by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:47:03 AM PDT

  •  If that is what that this reporter calls testy

    then he is the one with a thin skin.  I think Obama handled him beautiful and would not bite. He had him on his own terms and obviously got the best of the reporter. Maybe Bill is in the reporter's head.

    by ronnied on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:33:59 AM PDT

  •  There are none so blind as those who will not see

    by hestal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:03:55 AM PDT

  •  reply you go . tell it like it is.

    don't care who bests clintons as long as it happens.  Tired of both of their lies.

    by annlewis on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:40:25 AM PDT

  •  Do you have a link to the story?

    Was it in yesterday's times?  Obama didn't seem that angry to me in the video.  He would have done better to just end the exchange after his first reply, though.

    by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:38:14 AM PDT

    •  Assuming you mean Zeleny's piece on the debate

      Yes, here is the link.

      He seems to be following the Clinton campaign's instructions in portraying Obama as "another angry black man":

      And Mr. Obama, who appeared on the verge of losing his temper at times...

      At times, he appeared angry and close to expressing it at Mrs. Clinton...

      Of course it's not limited to this one piece. Just search for Zeleny and read any article he's written in the past couple of wees and you'll see. It's the NYT and not the Drudge Report, so biases are subtle, but those are often the ones that sting most.

      by bmozaffari on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:36:14 AM PDT

    •  Oops, where did my link go?

      Sorry about there, here it is again

      by bmozaffari on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:14:36 PM PDT

      •  Thanks.

        by Boston Boomer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:38:05 PM PDT

  •  Tip Jar?

    Just want to see how quickly this "anti"- Obama diary gets ignored.

    Been posting here on and off for atleast a few years, and thought there were a great many fair-minded individuals frequenting this place.

    However, I've found it absolutely repulsive how quickly many here at Daily Kos have turned a blind eye towards anything that's not glowingly positive about Barack Obama.

    Incidentally, was anybody here (or anywhere else for that matter) going to mention Barack Obama was practically screaming at the former first lady of the United States last night?

    Obama did it more than once too.

    Didn't think so...

    You know, it's the Clintons. When it comes to them, you can say anything, do anything... it doesn't matter.

    It's not like they saved the American Dream or anything....
    (while power-thirsty republicans tried every way imaginable  to put them in jail).

    Because this country'd be in wonderful shape even without those 8 years of fiscal sanity, sandwiched between Obama-fave Ronald Reagan and the Bushes.

    With all due respect, you're sounding a bit testy yourself.

    by koNko on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:41:28 AM PDT

•  As opposed...

  to your perfectly Fair-and-Balanced diary?

  Fair-minded, indeed.

  by rashomon on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:56:03 PM PDT

•  Ooh, a midnight hit diary!

  by haruki on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:56:34 PM PDT

•  The reporter's article doesn't mention

  a testy exchange.  The video doesn't show a testy exchange.  But thanks for posting it.  BTW, is she the "former first lady" or candidate for President in a debate?

  by PrometheusSpeaks on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:57:53 PM PDT

•  well there is one thing I agree with

  It's not like they saved the American Dream

  Yes. They did not save the American dream.

  

  by tiggers thotful spot on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:58:05 PM PDT

  •  well there is one thing I agree with

    that chart looks like the crime rate during the Clinton years.

    Or the rate-of-abortions chart.

    or the deficit chart.

    Shall I keep going?

    can run this string out a loooooong time.

    then there's the things that went up - like, let's choose one people can understand - oh yeah,

    INCOMES!

    BTW, that was ABC's Header & SubHeader, not mine.
    Night.

    by Blue Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:03:25 AM PDT

    •  Incomes for the

      rich, yes. For everyone else, not so much.

      Inequality went up.
      People in prison per capita went up.
      People without health insurance went up.
      Gas mileage went down.

      was the best Republican President since Gerald R Ford.

      p.s. I think people can understand the concept that the whole bing and bubble was done with money borrowed from China and elsewhere. It's not rocket science.

      by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:06:04 AM PDT

      •  Some of us pine for a president who cared nt

        by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:23:53 AM PDT

        •  I don't really know what

          that means, it's a poofy airy cloudy pablum sentiment.

          I know what the man did in office was about what a good Republican like Gerald R Ford would have done. And I'd rather have had a liberal.

          Heck, Bill Clinton called himself an Eisenhower Republican.

          by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:25:41 AM PDT

          •  I was faily young for Ford

            A man who pardoned Nixon and tore the Nation apart. I remember Carter and I was proud of his stances on human rights, but economically the late 70's were difficult. America is a consumer driven economy, Clinton inspired confidence unlike either Bush, Carter, Nixon, or Ford.

            by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:30:09 AM PDT

          •  I know that what you say you know is wrong.

            by hestal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:06:42 AM PDT

        •  oh, not the "i feel your pain" bullshit

          the clintons care about themselves.  that's about it.

          by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:36:16 AM PDT

          •  There is no need to simply be rude. Please

            comment something construstive or leave the diary.

            by macmcd on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:19:58 AM PDT

          •  That is absolutely ratings abuse

            A) It was not a troll-worthy comment by any stretch of the imagination

            and

            B) Who made you the "constructive comment" diary doorman?

            by bustacap on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:22:20 AM PDT

        •  THIS is your reason for supporting Hillary?!

          Jesus, I can't believe how similar to the Republicans some of our people are.

          OK, so if Hillary "really cared" about the American people, why isn't she promising to put her hands around corporate America's throat and squeeze until their overstuffed wallets open and they start returning what they've stolen from the American people?

          Funny, but I don't think Hillary's up for that.  In fact, her version of "caring" will be to give more tax cuts, keep selling off our debt to foreign countries, and giving big business the same free ride they've gotten since Reagan.  Haven't you wondered why so many of them like her and are supporting her candidacy?

          Grow the fuck up.

          by The Crusader on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:00:06 AM PDT

          •  Which candidate is doing this.

            why isn't she promising to put her hands around corporate America's throat and squeeze until their overstuffed wallets open and they start returning what they've stolen from the American people?

            I like the sentiment, and I would gladly support another candidate that I thought would be better than Hillary at actually limiting the power of corporations in America.

            I had a very good childhood - unfortunately Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II came along (and like many who are abused) I was forced to GTFU very quickly. Like any good parent I am hopeful that my children will not have to experience the same.

            by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:42:24 AM PDT

      •  'Inequality went up"- WRONG, unless you use Rethu

        g frames.  Did the rich get richer? Sure.  But the reality is, as shown in a econ diary here some weeks ago, under Reagan the top 5th took over 60% of the income, under Clinton that was reversed (and under BushCo its re-reversed).  That despite a Rethug Congress- which, of course, along with the tenor of the times explains why he wasn't more liberal. Its not like he didn't say exactly what he was going to do before being elected.  GHWB nearly won re-elction- if the econ numbers showing the recession was over before the 3rd quarter had come out before the election, he might well have pulled it out.  Politics is the art of possible.  Don't fault Clinton because he was likely as liberal as the times allowed.

        OTOH, BushCo has made the 'squishy middle' of voters more open to liberal ideas.  We can thus realistically exepct our candidate this go round to be more liberal than Bill was.  (But, don't confuse that with the US electorate being liberal.  They're not.  But they might be guided that way if we paly it right.  Which is one reason the Rethugs are scared to death of this election.  So let's not screw it up.  I support Barak, but will work for whoever our nominee is.)

        by chrismorgan on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:51:33 AM PDT

      •  It is clear that you were not able to feel

        the difference during the Clinton years compared to the Reagan/Bush/Bush years.  I was there and I adore Bill Clinton.  I have never been under the impression that he was perfect but he is the best Democratic president in my adult lifetime and I am over 65.  Reagan/Bush policies destroyed my family's decidedly median-level financial situation.  Bill Clinton's change in the tax structure was a godsend.  I recall Bob Dole saying that the Repugs would not allow Clinton to pass a single thing so he would be a single-term president so the Repugs would be back shortly.  Dole kept the country from making progress toward a better health care program and not a single Republican voted for Clinton's first budget.  I do remember and I will support Bill Clinton against this barrage of negativity from Democrats who must either be very young, have dementia, or be blinded by the stars in their eyes over BO.  History will see Bill Clinton as one of the great presidents of our country.  I do not support everything that he did but I know what the political situation was and how difficult it was to accomplish anything at all.  

        by macmcd on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:17:21 AM PDT

      •  Everyone's income went up

        These trends were reversed, however, for a period in the latter 1990s, as uniquely low unemployment, strong job creation, and faster productivity growth enabled more workers to claim a larger share of the growing economy.

        Median household income, for example, rose less than 1% between 1967 (earliest available data) and 1995, before speeding up to an annual rate of 1.9% (1995-2000).  For minority households, median income growth in the latter 1990s was especially strong, as was poverty reduction, with the median income up 3.4% for African Americans and 5.3% for Hispanics.  Poverty for African American children fell an unprecedented 10.7 percentage points, compared to 2.1 points for white children.

        The recession starting in 2001 halted these gains, and—as is virtually always the case in a widespread downturn—poverty began to rise and household incomes fell across the income scale, particularly for working-age households (though high-income households were hit hard by large capital losses in the early 2000s).

        http://www.epi.org/...

        by skohayes on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:25:04 AM PDT

    •  Hit and run hit diary.

      So you're gonna run away now?

      Stay classy BD.

      by MTmofo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:30:49 AM PDT

    •  Also

      Democrats in Congress

      by joejoejoe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:53:46 AM PDT

    •  Well, who's

      running, Bill or Hillary?

      by kpardue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:13:31 AM PDT

      •  Billary

        Sorry, couldn't help myself :-)

        by MarkInSanFran on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:44:39 AM PDT

  •  My dreams are not measured in dollars nt

    by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:22:28 AM PDT

    •  Yeah

      if you're lucky they're measured in Euros, a currency worth holding.

      </snark>

      by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:23:40 AM PDT

      •  I thought of putting that in the comment

        section. Truthfully I was in a very bad place in 1992 and Bill Clinton helped restore my faith in this Nation. It really breaks my heart to see him denigrated like this.

        by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:26:06 AM PDT

        •  What's "denigrated"?

          I can look at the guy through clear lenses instead of rose colored ones.

          Measured against Bush's rather large stack of corpses, international law breaking, and disaster inducing crony capitalism, Bill Clinton looks okay. But so what? That's like being the best chef at Taco Bell.

          We could have done better, the 1990s was opportunity squandered for the most part, from the explosion of SUVs to the offshoring of good jobs. He broke most of his campaign promises, from coddling the butchers of Tiananmen to punting on the carbon tax. His biggest "achievement" was a bubble in the stock market that was due to people believing that sock puppets selling dog food to be delivered in 75 pound bags via Fed Ex was something worth investing millions of dollars in.

          by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:30:54 AM PDT

          •  I wouldn't put Clinton in with FDR

            I would put him in with Truman and Johnson.
            Ahead of Carter and all the Republicans since TR.

            "I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you
            find out who's hitting you? It's about time that the people of America
            realized what the Republicans have been doing to them." - Harry Truman

            Very few American soldiers died in his 8 years.
            22.5 million new jobs
            4.0% unemployment
            Gasoline at $1 per gallon
            He didn't punt the carbon tax (LA Senator Breaux killed it)
            AA poverty rate among children went from 44.2% to 30.4%
            The Republicans like to blame all their mistakes on the last Democrat - I can remember GHWB moaning about how awful it was to clean up after Carter. It wasn't true then either. Bush failed us on 9/11, he destroyed consumer confidence, and he has diminished our standing in the world. In all of these areas WJC was far, far superior. I even remember GWB and Gore debating who was closest to Clinton's FEMA director (I don't see anyone lining up for photo-ops w/Brownie.). Raising taxes and getting the deficit under control allowed interest rates to fall (a big boost for middle class homeowners), expanding EITC, creating AmeriCorp. He didn't do nearly enough but he easily outdid Ike, Nixon, Ford, and both Bush's. Carter had the heart, but he just couldn't succeed politically. Would JRE keep his promises, I'm sure he would try. Would Barack sell-out his poor followers to favor the middle class? I hope not. Hillary is not anymore of a gamble than the others.

            by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:15:56 AM PDT

            •  Well said n/t

              by MarkInSanFran on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:47:39 AM PDT

            •  you realize how silly some of your achievements

              are?

              $1 gasoline? Like he was responsible for that? Like it's even a great big positive thing? During the Clinton Presidency the average gas mileage -- something he was ostensibly responsible for -- fell to levels as low as when Reagan was President. Talk about abdicating responsibility for long term problems! And did solar power appear on the White House roof like under Jimmy Carter? Not until George W Bush was in the White House! On energy Clinton's policy was HORRIBLE with a capital H.

              "Very few Americans died"... wow, what a high standard of achievement! Ford's stack of corpses was very low, that's why he deserves high praise too.

              And then you go into the riff of comparing to GWB, as if I have praised Bush rather than starting with the assumption he's the worst President in US history. Big whoop -- Clinton was better than Bush! I'm prettier than Einstein! I'm shorter than Kareem Abdul Jabbar! I'm skinnier than William "The Refrigerator" Perry! Also in the same league of achievement as being a better President than George W Bush...

              by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:16:39 AM PDT

              •  Clinton did try to protect Americans from the

                ravages of skyrocketing oil prices.

                To tap or not to tap  
                September 21, 2000: 6:23 p.m. ET

                Clinton considers tapping oil reserve; Bush opposes move; Gore supports idea

                I believe it was because he actually cared about poor Americans unlike Ford (or any other Republican President of my lifetime).

                Ford was not as good as you claim - he followed Kissingers advice and was complicit in human rights abuses in south America and east Timor.

                Clinton did a lot of good IMO - but some people will never see it that way.

                by Sacramento Dem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM PDT

          •  You are incredibly naive about Clinton. I was

            there and you are mistaken and have bought in to the Republican talking points because it suits your needs at this time.  History will show you that you are mistaken if you are open minded enough to learn from history by that time.

            by macmcd on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:24:37 AM PDT

            •  right

              you were there so all the facts in his record that i can cite i should just forget about... LOL. The cult is strong in this one.

              by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:10:42 AM PDT

        •  That is precisely the situation I am in. I love

          Bill Clinton because Reagan/Bush had destroyed my family financially and despite all of the negativity from Republicans, Clinton made a very positive change in our lives.  It breaks my heart to see and hear Democrats using Republican talking points in this way.

          by macmcd on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:22:38 AM PDT

        •  Then he shouldn't do what he's been doing. -nt

          by sqz23 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:43:17 AM PDT

    •  Well, whatever IS measured in dollars

      the US has less of it.  Just saying.

      by Inland on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:02:19 AM PDT

•  I watched the video and Obama was smiling

  You can't really hear the question asked, and Obama's smiling when he says, "don't pull cheap stunts like that" to someone.   And he never loses his cool, really.  

  I'm sorry you seem to think that "hit diaries" are the way to engage approximately 50% of the Democratic Base.   Maybe, instead of just assuming that we're all of one mind, you could stop being so condescending and, I dunno, make a reasoned argument?

  by Greuben on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:58:35 PM PDT

•  My decibel meter . . .

  indicates that what you describe as a "scream" was really just an ordinary conversational voice under amplification.

  Based on your definition I think that ALL of the candidates could be accused of screaming last night.

  To my ears I heard a few heated moments, but nothing registered as a scream.  

  You also neglect to mention that that Former First Lady is also running for president.  It happens that, when anyone a person runs for president -- especially one who has leveled charges against an opponent -- that the opponent is given a chance to rebut the charges.

  by NotGeorgeWill on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:58:43 PM PDT

  •  Barack's screams, Hillary's tears...

    let's just keep fighting about imaginary objects until the primaries are done. Maybe Blue Democrat can do a diary about John Edwards' horns tomorrow.

    by scardanelli on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:02:55 AM PDT

•  This diary is silly

  Was anybody here (or anywhere else for that matter) going to mention Barack Obama was practically screaming at the former first lady of the United States last night?

  Was your soul stung when you saw it happen?  

  by Unseen majority on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:00:26 AM PDT

  •  At least she didn't cry N/T

    by bmozaffari on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:14:37 AM PDT

    •  No, she handled him brilliantly. Thank you for

      reminding me.

      by macmcd on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:26:51 AM PDT

•  I hear ya, and honestly...

  I think a lot of the vitriol against Hillary is happening because she is winning, and the odds are she will keep winning and get the nomination.

  I do think its kinda funny that Obama seems to be in the early stages of Clinton Derangement Syndrome (CDS) and its showing in that video. He really needs to stop the whining...its rather unbecoming. If you gotta go out, go out with dignity, I always say.

  Say what you want about the Clintons....but they don't even pretend to be non-partisan to win Republican votes and they know how to friggin' BEAT THEM.

  by ScanDroid on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:02:35 AM PDT

  •  How to beat them?

    The same machine that knows "how to win" for the Clintons seems to have misfired in 00 and 04.

    Also, Hillary is not winning. She's behind, and by now she was supposed to be confirmed as the Annointed Nominee, which is why she has gone Rove on Obama.

    The vitriol is because people don't like liars who will say anything to get elected.

    by mattw on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:09:48 AM PDT

    •  on the contrary

      if Gore and Kerry had run their campaign as well as Hillary is right now....the country would be a much different place right now.

      in other words....they were lame campaigns. they didnt fight like they should have. we can all admit this.

      in regards to saying anything to get elected, why don't you meet up with Jesse Jackson Jr at the Pot & Kettle convention and discuss with him why Hillary didn't cry for Katrina victims?

      by ScanDroid on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:16:11 AM PDT

      •  did that come up in the debate?

        Did I miss the part in the debate where Obama asked Hillary why she didn't cry for Katrina victims? Because I didn't miss the part where she said he thought Republicans had all the good ideas. It's one thing when some questionable third party takes a shot at Hillary - it's another thing when Bill and Hillary are lying themselves.

        And for that matter, if you want a well run campaign, you should be behind Obama. He is fighting back, but he's doing it without sinking; and the fact that his campaign is even competitive against the Clinton machine is a testament to his ability. With HRC out of the way and all the dems behind him, Obama won't just win - he'll change the game.

        by mattw on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:24:39 AM PDT

        •  questionable third-party?

          the dude is Obama's national co-chair and was discussing strategy "within the Obama campaign"!

          look, I like Obama, but he's not ready. it was clear last night with his answers on the bankruptcy bill 30% thing and health care. that was pure disaster. hell, even Edwards was clearly flabbergasted.

          and honesty, i'm tired of his strategy of seeking out Rethug votes to win him Dem primaries. can't the Dems choose the Dem candidate? is that so wrong? luckily...we saw in Nevada that the liberal, tried-and-true dems are realizing Hillary is the one to take us there. thank god for that, and look for this pattern to continue on Feb 5th.

          by ScanDroid on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:35:48 AM PDT

          •  you have a rough fight ahead of you

            There aren't enough Democrats to elect Hillary. Period. That's just how it is. The same is true for Obama. Both need independents. Obama's appeal is just so strong that he won't just sweep up independents, he'll get "Obama Republicans". Reagan had "Reagan Democrats". Votes are votes.

            I do agree he flubbed the bankruptcy question; oddly, even his aftermath explanation (30% was still too high)  made less sense to me than the first explanation I heard (that he didn't want to vote for a bill that pre-empted state caps that could be lower). That made sense, since Republicans showed a pretty hefty predilection for preempting states.

            My bad on the Jackson thing; for some reason I hadn't realized he was high up in Obama's campaign.

            That said, after Hillary wins by trashing Obama and alienating some dems, she proceeds to a GE where a lot of independents and probably most republicans have fixed negatives of her, will she really pull enough swing states to her side? I don't think so.

            The thing is, the Clintons created the idea of "moving to the center" to win independents and even moderate Republicans. The reason it keeps coming up with Obama isn't that he's pandering to get their votes, it's that he can win them over despite a progressive agenda, not because he moves to the middle.

            by mattw on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:51:46 AM PDT

  •  You really want to go with CDS and BDS?

    you a right-winger?  maybe the online left doesn't like these people for a goddamn reason???

    by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 02:37:53 AM PDT

    •  The online left

      is full of misinformation, as has been evidenced in most Clinton hit diaries.
      Fed to them by the right wing for the last 7 years.
      Pardon me if I don't take the opinion of the "online left" as gospel and make up my own mind.

      by skohayes on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:36:30 AM PDT

      •  the right?

        if you'll excuse me, the right doesn't hate NAFTA, welfare reform and DLC.

        I happen to.

        by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:37:53 AM PDT

    •  Morality, fair play so alien to HRC that

      exhibiting them is a form of clinical psychosis, in her view.

      Clinton does something reprehensible, people are disgusted, her reaction: "You've shown that you're not fit to be president with your reaction".

      by Inland on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:05:12 AM PDT

      •  or "you obviously can't take the heat"

        repulsive.

        by thereisnospoon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:22:40 AM PDT

•  No.

  First, no, there was no screaming.

  Second, Hillary set out to intentionally deceive with regards to Obama's record and positions. Given your "fave Ronald Reagan" comment, we can assume at least one person bought it. You probably think that Obama is a Muslim Manchurian Candidate too.

  Third, what astounding fiscal reforms did Bill Clinton enact that enables him to take credit for the balanced budgets of the late 90s? Because what I saw was an incredible productivity boom, driven by technology, that resulted in record revenues for the government. Certainly, he didn't screw it up, as Bush has, but he didn't create it either. We did. (the people)  But he didn't pull us out of the fire.

  by mattw on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:06:47 AM PDT

  •  Actually if you look carefully

    you'll see that much of the budget balancing was actually achieved by not growing spending on programs of social uplift (in the words of MLK Jr). He got away with what Reagan couldn't, in many ways (welfare reform was just one example)

    by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:08:37 AM PDT

    •  For a good discussion

      see the book "The Sixteen-Trillion Dollar mistake" by Bruce S Jansson

      Rather than settle for modest increases in discretionary spending and small targeted tax cuts, he could have continued the argument he made in 1993: that domestic discretionary spending needs to be substantially increased when education and training are the tickets to mobility for underskilled workers. Figure XX show show federal spending on education, training, employment, and social services ("social investments" in the figure) stagnated during Clinton's presidency... military spending absorbed more than 50 percent of the discretionary budget during his tenure.

      by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:19:38 AM PDT

•  from the opening statement

  this diary is pure pathos.
  Oddly correct position for a Clinton campaign.

  by BWildered on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:08:07 AM PDT

•  I changed tags, then had to change them again

  because of my comma mistake. I admit my mistake on tags, and am
  scooting on out of here now.

  by begone on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:10:13 AM PDT

•  Of course this should be ignored, it's stupid!

  There's nothing "testy" about that video.  Obama's happily happily greeting supporters and exchanges a few polite, respectful words with a confrontational reporter in a perfectly civil tone.

  And you ask if he's cracking under pressure?  What the fuck?  This from somebody whose candidate cried about her hair when she lost Iowa?

  And then you get mad that he raised his voice when Hillary tried to talk over him and constantly lied about him in the debate?  You say he was "practically screaming" at a former first lady, as if the Clintons left that office with any honor?  

  The former first lady and President are lying like crazy about him, something that should be below the dignity of anyone in their position.  They've forfeited their right to be respected.  And you get made because he raised his voice against her in a debate?

  by Troutnut on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:19:51 AM PDT

•  That's testy???

  man I've got a different definition of testy.  He was smiling and being very patient with the reporter.  Am I missing something?  Did I watch the wrong clip?

  by in2mixin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:19:56 AM PDT

•  He seemed very composed

  As opposed to -- I don't know -- something like this:

  by poblano on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:23:54 AM PDT

•  terrible diary

  thank you for having the courtesy of at least not posting prime time.

  really.  i wonder about people who think so much of themselves as to pile on this, frankly, uninspired drek on the diary list.

  is open thread not enough for you?

  by Stampy51 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:25:42 AM PDT

•  Thank you for this diary! Finally!

  Someone on here who gets it.
  Most of the people on here - the Obamaramas especially - are in denial about the facts on the ground.
  As Krugman and others have shown, Obama's policies are not progressive - It was EDWARDS who, last night, showed us how Obama's health care proposal is, in fact, similar to Bush's plan to privatize Social Secrutiy! Edwards - NOT Hillary. Wake up, people!

  - There was Obama's lovefest to Reagan - I don't really care what the context was - there is no sane reason whatsoever to praise Reagan when you are a freshman Senator with practically no experience running in a DEMOCRATIC primary! It was a sif Obama forgot what party he is running in and thought he was getting ready for a Republican debate! Wake up, people!

  The Obamaramas just have to deal with the fact that working class Democracts are voting for Hillary because they know she will "go to the mat" for them when it comes to protecting and advancing core Democratic principles, such as universal health care. She's been doing it for 35 years.

  Obama's "audacity" = arrogance.

  by Palladio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:30:28 AM PDT

  •  The only

    people I trust Hillary Clinton to go to the mat for are her big money donors. Same as her husband.

    Her health care proposal was intended to be a big giveaway to the HMOs but they stuck a shiv in her back. A real progressive would have fought for single payer.

    p.s. I am not in the Obama cult or the Clinton cult.

    by tiggers thotful spot on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:33:04 AM PDT

    •  I too wish for single payer, but it won't happen

      in this country anytime soon.
      I do think Hillary is not Bill - I do believe she wants to accompplish something big - (because she knows he screwed it up!).
      I believe she is a political realist - I wrote a diary about it "Hillary's Realpolitik" - and the health care plan she laid out is not ideal, but it is a great start - she has acknowledged that it will need to be tweaked.
      We will never have a single payer system in this country as long as there is a Republican party.
      it is odd that Obama started out saying he would most liek a single payer system, and yet in his final plan, it is not even universal coverage - I don't trust him to push it through - with him I see compromise compromise compromise until the republians water it down to nothing, which is where we are now.
      She will get it done.

      by Palladio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:44:29 AM PDT

  •  Why aren't you yelling at Edwards

    for using "right-wing frames" in the debate? When Obama used the phrase "Social Security crisis" in an interview, all supposedly good "lefties" in the blogosphere followed Krugman and went bananas against Obama. In the debate, Edwards deliberately went out of his way to talk about the need to do something about social security. He talked more in this supposedly "right-wing frame" than Obama ever has. So where's the outrage from all you progressive Edwards supporters?

    by skeptica on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:58:23 AM PDT

    •  Edwards didn't say "social security crisis"

      He said that you could take Obama's argument for no mandate for health insurance and apply it to Social Security and if you did so you'd get something close to the Bush plan!

      by Palladio on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:30:16 PM PDT

•  well I think Obama--

  --looks just great in that video clip. Very strong, presidential, authoritative, and also patient enough.  He is also kindly continuing to sign autographs while fielding questions.  Obama is looking and carrying himself like a winner.

  Oh man, I was worrying a little today about those California poll numbers, but I feel a bit better after seeing this video about this so-called "testy" exchange

  by TomY on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:32:19 AM PDT

•  terrible diary

  This happens to be ABC's No. 3 political story at the moment.

  That's not worth a diary?

  And what is with the freakazoids here forever worrying about commas and arcane diary rules- when there are much bigger things (umm... the future of the republic?) to consider?

  It's topic. Discuss it or move on!

  by Blue Democrat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:33:06 AM PDT

  •  your writing

    is not worth a diary.

    by Stampy51 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:49:06 AM PDT

•  How can anyone take you seriously

  when you say things like "they [the Clintons] saved the American Dream"?

  by alextmw on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:34:50 AM PDT

•  Were you watching the same debate I was?

  I didn't hear anyone screaming. Maybe you ought to bring your TV set into the shop.

  by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:36:46 AM PDT

•  This place

  This place is an Obama echo chamber so there's no point in posting it because all they want is happy thoughts and hope and think that will help Obama win.

  Luckily more people read beyond Okos and am glad people are seeing the man behind the curtain.

  by GregNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:39:27 AM PDT

  •  Yes n/t

    by Universal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:41:14 AM PDT

    •  Can't Stop The Wave! :) n/t

      by TreeFrog on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:06:40 AM PDT

  •  You guys need to clone...

    Alegre.  She's your MVP!  

    by poblano on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:38:04 AM PDT

    •  Our MVPs

      Our MVPs are the Obamafans unhinged.

      They do all the work we couldn't dream of doing.

      Alienating en masse...

      by GregNYC on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:54:26 AM PDT

•  You assume that anyone who

  criticizes hit diaries like this favors an opposing candidate.  But as someone who leans toward HRC, I can confirm that this diary is crap.

  "Practically screaming"?  Bullshit.  You're running on bile, and willing to take the flimsiest excuse to vent it.

  by Bob Love on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:41:06 AM PDT

  •  Wait a minute

    he was practically screaming at her.  His words were charged with poison and his anger rose to levels that we h