Daily Kos

Silly Season Revisited

Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:16:12 PM PDT

Somebody’s dodging the issues...

There’s been a lot of talk on the net and in the MSM about some picture that Matt Drudge posted on his site today of Sen. Obama in traditional Somali clothing during a visit to northern Kenya two years ago.  Now I don’t know about you but I’m starting to notice a pattern over at Camp Obama on things like this.  

First he goes after Hillary over an unconfirmed report from Robert Novak about something Hillary’s campaign may or may not say about him, and now he’s having a hissy-fit over something dug up by Drudge.  

Unless BO’s got proof I think it’s safe to say these two facts are in evidence...

There's no proof that such an email even exists.
There’s no proof that such an email came from Hillary's camp.

If they want to keep whining about this then they’d better put up or shut up.  In other words...

Show me the email!

Make the jump – there’s more...

Now here’s what Maggie Williams, Hillary’s campaign director had to say in a press release in response to this nonsense this morning...

"Enough.

"If Barack Obama's campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.

"This is nothing more than an obvious and transparent attempt to distract from the serious issues confronting our country today and to attempt to create the very divisions they claim to decry.

"We will not be distracted."

FYI – public officials dress in local garb on trips like this all the time.  Here’s a picture of Hillary with her beautiful daughter Chelsea and Benazir Bhutto on a trip to Pakistan (one of the 80+ nations she’s visited as first lady & Senator)...

This is nothing more than a BS diversion and if he really is this pissed about the release of a 2 year old photo, it's up to BO to prove what he's been pissing and moaning about while (ahem) conveniently NOT talking about the issues that are so important to voters in Ohio and Texas (and every other state for that matter).  

Hillary's camp is not going to waste valuable time grilling over 700 staffers to see if someone within their ranks sent this 2 year old picture of BO to Drudge.  Hillary’s staff are too damn busy supporting their candidate - who by the way is talking about the issues.

Either way, this doesn’t make sense.  Hillary’s out there talking about the issues that matter to voters - issues like UNIVERSAL health care, fixing our broken economy, rebuilding the middle class, providing help to those who want to attend college, developing green collar jobs – jobs that will help break our addiction to fossil fuels, ending the war in Iraq...

She’s working hard 24/7 so it makes absolutely no sense that – on the day she’s set to deliver a major foreign policy / national security speech (flanked by loads of top military brass btw) – her campaign would send everyone in to a tail spin over some petty issue like that picture.  Foreign policy & national security are issues over which she rules in this campaign.

By the way, the campaign put out the following press release about all those top military brass (27 of them) who were there on stage with her this afternoon...

Hillary Clinton to be Joined by Senior Retired Military and Defense Officials at Today’s Foreign Policy Speech

Clinton Unveils List of Flag Officers Endorsing Her for President

Hillary Clinton will set out her approach to American foreign policy in the 21st Century in a speech at George Washington University today. Joining her will be a group of senior retired military and defense officials who have endorsed her to be this nation’s next Commander-in-Chief. They are: General Wesley Clark, Lt. General Joe Ballard, Major General Antonio M. Taguba, Rear Admiral David Stone, Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. and former Secretary of the Army Togo West. Generals Taguba and Watkins will formally announce their endorsement of Senator Clinton today.

Many of our nation’s most distinguished military officers stand proudly with Hillary Clinton because they believe that she has the strength, experience and leadership necessary to be President and Commander-in-Chief. They include three four-star generals, a former chairman and vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other Americans who have served their country with honor and distinction.

In addition to the endorsements of Generals Taguba and Watkins, Senator Clinton is proud to announce the endorsement today of Admiral William Owens (Ret.).

Admiral Owens served with distinction for more than 30 years in the Navy, rising to become Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the nation’s second highest ranking military officer.

Major General Taguba served his country with distinction for 34 years, retiring from the Army in 2007. The son of a Filipino-American who survived the 1942 Bataan Death March, General Taguba led the Army’s investigation into prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in 2004.

Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr. served nearly 30 years in the Army and completed his military career as the Chief Operations Officer/Deputy Director of the Defense Information Systems Agency.

Admiral Owens, General Taguba, and General Watkins are among 27 flag-rank military officers who have endorsed Senator Clinton to be our nation’s next Commander-in-Chief. They join more than 2,000 veterans and military retirees who are members of Senator Clinton's national and state veterans’ steering committees.

Flag Officers Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President and Commander-in-Chief

General Wesley Clark
General John M. Shalikashvili
General Johnnie E. Wilson
Admiral William Owens
Lt. Gen. Joe Ballard
Lt. Gen. Robert Gard
Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy
Lt. Gen. Donald L. Kerrick
Lt. Gen. Frederick E. Vollrath
Vice Admiral Joseph A. Sestak
Major General Roger R. Blunt
Major General George A. Buskirk, Jr.
Major General Edward L. Correa, Jr.
Major General Paul D. Eaton
Major General Paul D. Monroe, Jr.
Major General Antonio M. Taguba
Rear Admiral Connie Mariano
Rear Admiral Alan M. Steinman
Rear Admiral David Stone
Brigadier General Michael Dunn
Brigadier General Belisario Flores
Brigadier General Evelyn "Pat" Foote
Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr
Brigadier General Virgil A. Richard
Brigadier General Preston Taylor
Brigadier General John M. Watkins, Jr.
Brigadier General Jack Yeager

Since the press & media aren’t really covering her amazing speech today, I will.  Here are a few of my favorite parts...  

Link

We are here at such an extraordinary moment in American history. The stakes have rarely been higher. I’ve had numerous historians tell me that America’s point in our arch of destiny, today is perhaps most similar to the situation confronting President Truman when he became our president and commander in chief.

Dramatic events during this past week have reminded us how volatile our world has become and how essential it is that we have sound strategy and strong leadership. From Kosovo to Cuba, from Iraq to Pakistan, to our embassy being burned in Belgrade, these are some of the most challenging spots on our global map. The world is being transformed with enormous risks and possibilities that we must meet with confidence, optimism, resolution and success.

The next president will inherit all of these global challenges and more from a president who failed to handle them well. A war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq. America’s reputation at an all-time low. Countries rushing to acquire nuclear weapons. Crushing poverty that stymies economic and political progress in too many regions of the world. Global warming and global health pandemics. Genocide in Darfur. A rise of borderless, stateless criminal cartels. And the continuing real threat of terrorism here at home and abroad.

But while these stark realities carry dangers, they also bring unprecedented opportunities if we act wisely, if we have the right kind of leadership. There isn’t any doubt in my mind that we will not only navigate through these uncharted difficult waters but emerge stronger than ever, reasserting both our leadership and our moral authority.

The vision I have for America is one that is rooted in those values. Values that have served us well but have been temporarily sidelined because of this administration’s approach to the world.

Over the past seven years, we’ve seen what happens when the president presents the American people with a series of false choices and then is indifferent about the consequences: force versus diplomacy, unilateralism versus multilateralism, hard power versus soft. We’ve seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We can’t let that happen again. America has already taken that chance— one time too many.

The symbol of our presidency – the American Eagle – holds arrows in one talon and an olive branch in the other. Both are symbolic tools of what we need to keep our democracy strong and our nation safe— tools that a President must know how to use in the daily course of events, but also when that 3 a.m. phone call comes to the White House because an unforeseen crisis has erupted without warning. In that split second the president has to respond and make a decision that could affect the safety and lives of millions of people here in our country and around the world. Whoever sits at that desk in the Oval Office on January 20th, 2009 needs all the tools available, all the resources at our disposal, and the wisdom to know how to use them.

I propose a new American strategy to restore our moral authority, end the war in Iraq, and defend and protect our nation.

We need a president who understands there is a time for force, a time for diplomacy, and a time for both, who understands that we enhance our international reputation and strengthen our security if the world sees the human face of American democracy in the good works, the good deeds we do for people seeking freedom from poverty, hunger, disease, illiteracy, and oppression.

With me, this is not theoretical. This is very much who I am, what I have done, and what I will do. The American people don’t have to guess whether I understand the issues or whether I would need a foreign policy instruction manual to guide me through a crisis or whether I’d have to rely on advisers to introduce me to global affairs.

I’m lucky to have had a pretty good inside view, over eight years in the White House and now over seven years in the Senate, of what the president goes through day in and day out dealing with all of these challenges. Obviously the work that I have done on human rights, democracy, international development gives me a deep appreciation of the importance of winning the hearts and minds of those in societies whether or not they are for us today. I believe that we can seed democracy and create new strong alliances overseas.

And I also know from my years serving on the Senate Armed Services Committee that our military power is absolutely essential but it cannot be viewed as the solution to every international problem. Yes, we must use force when necessary but as a last resort, not a first resort. As one piece of a comprehensive strategy to defend our nation and promote our values.

I’ve been honored to travel to more than 80 countries representing the United States. In sessions with foreign leaders, with influential citizens from the world of business, academia, human rights and so much else. I have traveled to Iraq and Afghanistan three times. And I've seen and have said repeatedly that we must revise our strategy in Afghanistan. When I first went to Afghanistan in 2003 I was met by a soldier who said "welcome to the forgotten front lines in the war against terrorism." I regret to say that those front lines are still largely forgotten.

She then goes on to talk about every point in the world that will need her attention and expertise as our commander in chief.  From Pakistan, to Afghanistan – Darfur to China to Cuba.  With these hot spots and more in play we'll need a steady hand and an experienced leader at the helm.

Now I don’t know about you, but when that phone rings in the White House residence at 3 am I want someone with her experience and her amazing knowledge of the issues.  She doesn’t just have a shallow base of knowledge of a bunch of the issues – this woman knows the issues right down to the smallest of details and she knows the people involved.  She wont’ need to study up for a week to prepare for a debate with her opponent – she’s ready to go now, anytime and anywhere.

Guys this is what we need to be discussing.  Who’s ready to lead on day one?  Who’s got the best and most universal health care plan?  Who’s dedicated her entire adult life to making this world a better place for all of us – especially for children and women the world over?

For my money – the answer to every one of the above questions is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, DEMOCRAT of New York.

Tags: Preisdent, Hillary Clinton, 2008 elections, foreign affairs, national security, Matt Drudge, Barack Obama (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 379 comments

    •  Barack Obama isn't having a "hissy fit" (68+ / 0-)

      over anything.   His supporters have made noise, but Obama himself?  No.  

      I think you'll have a long wait if you expect anything resembling a hissy fit from Barack Obama.  It's one of the things I really admire about him, and rely on- his courtesy,  and his even temper.

      •  Fair enough (4+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Avila, Pragmatic Left, Big Tex, Meng Bomin

        But candidates need to control their capaigns and surrogates.  Same is true for Clinton.

      •  He's Good At Getting Others to Do It For Him (8+ / 0-)

        But you're right - hissy fit might have been a bit much.  His campaign sure jumped all over that drudge thing though.

        •  he wrote a book (19+ / 0-)

          about his Kenyan father, and his own travels there. it was no secret. I think Barack Obama is very proud of his family, and rightfully so.

        •  Heh (9+ / 0-)

          and what do you make of the "Shame on Barack" episode, do you think Hills just became aware of his mailers, making a point he's raised in debates?
          It has gotten very silly, on both sides.

          Because I won't trade humanity for patriotism!

          by Drewid on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:27:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  at least he didn't (11+ / 0-)

          explode on national television with staged outrage at the 'blatant lies' on a flyer by the Obama campaign (not actually lies at all) that's been out for a while.

          people keep trying to call him a Muslim and tie him to terrorists - that is people on the right, Hillary, and the MSM. now those are lies. at least his outrage is not false or staged.

          Cure This : Let's talk about health justice

          by nalin on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:28:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  A Democrat pushing Harry and Louise? (4+ / 0-)

            Barack Obama should be ashamed.

            Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality. Hillary Clinton for President

            by psychodrew on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:31:04 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  nalin (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            LaEscapee

            When you said "not actually lies at all" you linked to this article which says

               *  Trade: A mailer showing a locked plant gate quotes Clinton as saying she believed NAFTA was "a boon" to the economy. Those are not her words and Obama was wrong to put quote marks around them. In fact, she's been described by a biographer as privately opposing NAFTA in the White House.

               * Health Care: A second mailer said Clinton's health care plan "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." We have previously said that mailer "lacks context" and strains the facts. But both Obama and Clinton have been exaggerating their differences on this issue.

            ...We could find no direct quote from Clinton praising NAFTA's economic effects.

            So yes, the fliers were LIES. And I never saw nearly the outrage over them as I did over Hillary's NH fliers. Right now trade and health care are much bigger issues than abortion so you could say the Obama fliers which have been out for weeks are far more serious.

            •  cherry-picking (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Pacific NW Mark

              regarding the "boon" thing - putting it in quotes was the only non-fact. if you read the rest of the article, it says that the word "boon" was used in a Newsday article characterizing Hillary's stance but it was not clear what her current position on it is. there are plenty of quotes during and after being First Lady where she has praised NAFTA as good for our economy (link). arguing over whether or not she said "boon" is splitting hairs.

              regarding health care - although FactCheck asserts that Obama's statements in the flier are somewhat exaggerated, "we can't agree that it is "false" as Clinton says."

              so once again i stand behind posting that link to show that O. and i stand behind saying that Clinton's reaction was staged outrage.

              Cure This : Let's talk about health justice

              by nalin on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:18:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I pasted the entire two summaries (0+ / 0-)

                both both issues. I don't see how that's cherry-picking. It doesn't matter if Newsday uses the word 'boon', Newsday does not speak for Hillary. Only Hillary and her official campaign spokespeople speak for her. If you've ever been interviewed by a reporter you'd double over laughing at the idea that how a reporter describes your views or statements has any accuracy as to your real views or statements, unless they are factual direct quotes (and even then, almost always twisted).

                The boon quote is significant because it is alleged to have taken place late 2006. That is much different from what took place when she was First Lady. Most Democrats including John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have soured on NAFTA and free trade in this decade, as the evidence has piled up that its not helping our workers. But such a quote from late 2006 would have been much more significant.

                So again, I think there is content in both mailers that is clearly misleading and content in one that is downright untrue, and it is wrong to link to that article saying that they were 'not lies at all'. Especially if you judge them by the standard Hillary's NH mailers were judged by.

        •  Why would you think Barack is behind the reaction (5+ / 0-)

          any more than I think Hillary is personally behind the action?  Give our candidates some credit.  This stuff is beneath both of them, unworthy of our time, and surely we can find things pertinent to the race that matter to discuss.  

        •  Alegre, I notice you never (9+ / 0-)

          responded to my posts pointing out documented instances where Clinton defended NAFTA.  Now you're touting this.  Let me give you some friendly advice.  The appropriate response to this would have been "we deplore this sort of ethnic and race baiting and will fire anyone who participated in this."  The inappropriate response is "Obama is trying to stir up trouble where there is none".  The Clinton campaign would have done themselves no damage by taking this stance, would have shown themselves to be upright, ethical, and honest, and the story would go away quickly.  By suggesting that Obama supporters are somehow in the wrong here you tactically keep the story alive in the media and make it an issue.  Within the context of democratic politics that is not an advantage for the Clinton campaign.  I understand the need to appear strong, but this just is stupid.

          •  not sure how much it helps obama (0+ / 0-)

            to have a silly story like this circulating in the media, either. They look like fools trying to act as if this photo is somehow offensive + will make people hate Barack. Especially since the Hillary campaign has already denied knowing anything about it, if it is even a true story at all.

            •  They haven't, as far as I know, denied (0+ / 0-)

              knowing anything about it.  Either way, I think the strategy I outline above would be the more effective one.  She's getting really bad advice about how to handle these things.  Rather than look "tough" or strong, she comes out looking reactionary and weak.

              •  Well either the media's really got it out for (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                ggottlie

                Hillary or her press operation is horrible or both, but here it is...

                On a conference call with reporters just now, Hillary spokesperson Howard Wolfson strongly denied any official campaign role in pushing the photo of Obama in a turban and Somali garb.

                Drudge reported this morning that Clinton staffers had "circulated" the photo. He didn't say who circulated it, what level of Clinton staffer had circulated it, or to whom it had been circulated. Drudge is the sole source for this email's existence. Nonetheless, the media has been all over the story today.

                Asked if the campaign had any role, Wolfson said, "No, not to my knowledge...I've never seen that picture before. I'm not aware that anyone else here has. I'm not aware that anyone here has circulated this e-mail."

                Wolfson did say, however, that the campaign agreed with part of the message in the email -- that if the same photo had appeared of Hillary, it would have been a big story: "It is a common view among this campaign and our supporters that there is a difference in how the media covers our campaign and how it covers Senator Obama."

                Wolfson also grew exasperated with a reporter who pressed the issue, saying: "If you have any original reporting to suggest that this campaign was circulating this e-mail, please let me know."

                "We've been very clear that we're not aware of it," he added. "Obviously the campaign didn't sanction it, and don't know anything about it."

                http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpoi...

                •  Thanks for the update... (0+ / 0-)

                  The press release I'd seen earlier didn't deny any involvement and went on to chastise the Obama campaign for making this an issue.  Again, from a sheerly tactical standpoint-- regardless of your political commitments --this was a bad move as it made it a story about the Clinton campaign rather than simply diffusing the situation altogether.  A number of the "controversies" have become controversies for precisely this reason.  Matthews (I know, I know) pointed out that BC's statement following SC is still being discussed 28 Days later.  This has hurt the Clinton campaign.  Why has this ghost lingered after all this time?  Because the campaign chose to say he was "just making a factual statement" and deny the offensiveness of it all.  Here's my point and I hope I'm not attacked for it:  it might very well be true that Bill was "just making a factual statement".  However, when the surrogates and supporters tried to rationalize and sanitize this statement away, they made it an issue that wouldn't go away in the media..  

                  Let me give an analogy to illustrate this point.  Have you ever been in a fight with a close friend or lover where you don't feel recognized in the course of the argument?  Maybe I'm obsessive, but you keep arguing and arguing until you do feel recognized.  The reason this race baiting charge has stuck around, is because the folk that felt that it was race baiting felt dismissed and ignored.  If it had just been said immediately that "oh shit, we didn't mean to say that but can see how you took it that way, we're sorry" without qualification it could have gone away very quickly.  Instead there was a lot of rationalization and denial that turned this claim into a ghost (i.e., something that haunts and sticks around), making it an issue that's lost the Clinton campaign a significant percentage of AA voters.  There have been a number of moves like this in the Clinton campaign.  Again, I am not talking as a Clinton supporter in expressing these points, but strictly from the point of view of rhetorical strategies and their effectiveness.

                  •  I appreciate (0+ / 0-)

                    your view Philoguy, but I'm not sure if the tack you are suggesting for the Clinton campaign would have worked. Didn't they fire Bill Shaheen from the steering committee and those Iowa volunteers circulating that email immediately, and denounce? Yet the stories kept coming. I think they're trying a different tack now because they're probably paranoid that the Obama people are deliberately trying to kick these kinds of controversies up, knowing they look bad even if they apologize immediately. So they're trying to take a risk and fight it out. And honestly, that picture of Barack is really trivial and his campaign seemed awfully quick to jump on the 'Hillary racist' line. At this point in her campaign it's worth taking a risk to fight it rather than just apologizing.

                    •  I think the Shaheen move (0+ / 0-)

                      was a good move, but it wasn't consistently followed up.  My suspicion is that the campaign backed itself into a corner (at least with the advisers), where somehow the predominant view was that any capitulation was seen to show weakness.  The idea was that there's a double standard with women where they have to show strength in order to demonstrate fitness to lead.  The problem was that they ended up defending a number of spurious and weak arguments to the public.  Going into the election there was already a prejudice against the Clintons that they parse and play on legalistic technicalities, rather than speaking honestly (the whole "that depends on what the meaning of "is" is" joke).  This way of arguing publicly reinforced those negatives and created declining poll numbers, whereas the key thing the Clinton had to do was create an aura of credibility among the voting public (because, rightly or wrongly, of the media presentation of the Clintons in the 90s).  Don't listen to me though, I'm just the professional rhetorician in the corner.

                      •  well (0+ / 0-)

                        professional rhetorician is impressive. But the Clintons didn't get any positive credit from getting rid of Shaheen immediately. There was still speculation that he was a fall guy, that it was all a part of a centrally coordinated smear campaign. It did a lot of damage to her. And it was all over the news that a 'Clinton co-chair resigned'. A lot of people who don't understand the nuances of the story or aren't interested will still see that a 'Clinton co-chair resigned' or 'the Clinton campaign apologized' and that's all they will see. I think that's critical to understand. In October 2006 I was talking to a Republican friend of mine and I said shouldn't Hastert resign over this Foley thing so you guys don't go into the election with a Speaker who oversaw this crap? He said no, it would just look even worse because it'd be an admission of wrongdoing. And he could very well have been right. I do think Clinton's opposition was very good at reinforcing her negatives and she was not able to respond well to that. I do think they received a lot of help from the prevailing pundit class and the media, and from Democratic elites.

            •  And as an aside, Alegre is a talented (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              ggottlie

              writer and thinker.  She should be above this and shouldn't just be spouting campaign spin.  There are a number of ways she could be a far more effective advocate for her candidate.  This style of argumentation doesn't help.  She should use her noodle to defend her candidate, rather than repeating campaign memes that simply reinforce the negative stereotypes (parsing, dishonesty) of her candidate.

        •  Axelrod/Obama has been trying so hard (0+ / 0-)

          to look so mainstream America...this little picture doesn't help him I guess. Maggie was right on this...Obama has lost it...he needs to try and study up for the next debate...maybe they'll even ask him some real questions.

          "I think we can all agree, the past is history", George W. Bush, worst ever Orator and POTUS.

          by comstockgrants on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:27:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i think his campaign (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Tonedevil

          did an excellent job of jumping on the story and tying it the last two negative attacks that came from the Clinton camp in everyone's mind.  

          I think the mistake here from Sen. Clinton's campaign -- Maggie Williams herself it would seem -- was to assume that they have free floating credibility currency in issues like this anymore.  For better or worse, I think the common wisdom is that both Sen. Clinton and former President Clinton will "do anything to win"; that's a commonly held view, and after the two different attacks on Sunday and Saturday, in such stark contrast to Thursday night's debate denouement, there is simply next to no suspension of disbelief when Ms. Williams' rebuttal came out.  For better or worse, everybody thinks the Clinton camp sent it out, and will continue to believe as much, because it fits with a recent pattern of behavior.

          I agree with Philoguy here -- a different approach from the campaign could have really cast the Clinton camp in a different light, but instead, they played the same card that would have worked 10 years ago, which I think has been their problem in many situations this campaign.  They're over-pursuing, and every time they have a line of attack that starts to work, they get overeager and blow it (plagiarism, etc.)

          That said, I find Ms. Williams' assertion that the Obama campaign would be doing this to shift any sort of focus pretty silly.  Obama is leading, and trending upward in 3/4 state.  There's no need for him to change the subject, because the current subject is working wondrously for him.  I find her statement to be disingenuous at best.

          That said, I truly hope this primary ends well, because I believe both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama have much potential great work ahead of them in our government.

      •  Why is Hillary responsible for everything (5+ / 0-)

        her supporters do, but Barack is not?  When that moron in NH made a comment about cocaine, it was Hillary's fault.  When Sen. Bob Kerry referred to Obama's middle name and family ties to Islam, it was Hillary's fault.  But when Obama's people push this story about the picture, it's not his fault.

        Is this what we have to look forward to in an Obama administration?  Four more years of the buck not stopping with the president?

        Together, we will turn promises into action, words into solutions and hope into reality. Hillary Clinton for President

        by psychodrew on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:28:11 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't believe that either candidate (4+ / 0-)

          should be held personally accountable for the foolishness of the actions of others, unless they are their own paid staffers.

          I don't have a double standard on this-  I discourage all promotion of the flap about the photos- I could care less.  I didn't like it when Obama people on DKos screamed "Foul" and I don't like Alegre implying that Barack Obama overreacted.

          It's all just a distracting waste of time, when we have real work to do.
          I want to work together, both to tamp down these teapot tempests, and to win the election in November.

          •  when you have 700 paid staffers (0+ / 0-)

            and you don't know who has done something or even if it was done at all, what can you do? Hillary can't control the actions of all those people, she would need supernatural powers to do so.

            •  you have to draw the line somewhere. (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              AaronInSanDiego

              If your campaign said it, you own it at a level equivalent to the level of the staffer who said it.  If some frothing blogger said it on some web site somewhere, you don't.

            •  Then let's hope she has fewer staffers (0+ / 0-)

              If God forbid she makes it to the White House, shall we?

              She can't enforce some sort of message control on a campaign staff of 700, but she's still steadfastly 'ready on day one!' Ready for what?

              I started this campaign season thinking HRC was a fine candidate who would make a good president someday. She wasn't my first choice, but she had my respect. Unfortunately, the conduct of her campaign has left me in serious doubt of her abilities to lead anything, anywhere, much less the country, this year.

              She started the race with massive advantages in exposure, name recognition, huge poll advantages, etc. and she has pissed away every advantage she once held. Now we're to be treated to a week (and I pray not much more) of her increasingly desperate attacks.

              Maggie Williams is right, but not in the way she intended: "Enough." Let this be over soon, and let Hillary return to Ne York and the Senate, where I hope she manages to restore some of the respect she's squandered.

              "In the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope."

              by Pacific NW Mark on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 10:32:56 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  As President (0+ / 0-)

              she would be managing a hell of a lot more than 700 people.

              -3.12, -5.90
              Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

              by AaronInSanDiego on Tue Feb 26, 2008 at 07:29:33 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Mark Penn did not say this ... (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Mia Dolan, adrianrf, MingPicket

          •  Daivd Axelrod did not do this... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Montague

            Democrat Barack Obama tried to use humor to cut down rival Hillary Rodham Clinton before Saturday's presidential caucus. His "Iowa nice" approach gone, Obama debuted a biting political standup routine Thursday night that mocked his rival, and employed it again on Friday.

            Obama began by recalling a moment in Tuesday night's debate when he and his rivals were asked to name their biggest weakness. Obama answered first, saying he has a messy desk and needs help managing paperwork _ something his opponents have since used to suggest he's not up to managing the country. John Edwards said his biggest weakness is that he has a powerful response to seeing pain in others, and Clinton said she gets impatient to bring change to America.

            "Because I'm an ordinary person, I thought that they meant, 'What's your biggest weakness?'" Obama said to laughter from a packed house at Rancho High School. "If I had gone last I would have known what the game was. And then I could have said, `Well, ya know, I like to help old ladies across the street. Sometimes they don't want to be helped. It's terrible.'"

            "Folks, they don't tell you what they mean!" he said. Obama chuckled at his own joke before riffing on another Clinton answer in the debate, when she said that she is happy that the bankruptcy bill she voted for in 2001 never became law.

            "She says, 'I voted for it but I was glad to see that it didn't pass.' What does that mean?" he asked, again drawing laughter from the crowd and himself. "No seriously, what does that mean? If you didn't want to see it passed, then you can vote against it! People don't say what they mean.

            "You know what I'm saying is true," he said, then addressed his routine directly at audience members who don't know who they will vote for yet. "Undecideds, remember now, remember what I'm saying."

            He continued by responding to a new Clinton radio ad that accused him of having financial ties to supporters of the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site that most Nevadans are loath to come to their state.

            "I have said over and over again I'm against Yucca," Obama said. "I'm against Yucca Mountain. I think the science is not there. I've never, I've never been for Yucca. Never been for it. Never said I was for it.

            "Suddenly you've got the Clinton camp out there saying, `He's for Yucca.' What part of I'm not for Yucca do you not understand?" he said, then laughed along with his audience.

            As the laughter subsided, Obama drove home the broader point he's been trying to make against Clinton the entire campaign.

            "Those kinds of tricks, that kind of approach to politics is what has to stop because what happens is then nobody believes anything," Obama said. "The voters don't believe what politicians say. They get cynical. Folks in Congress, they'll tell you they're looking out for you _ they're looking out for somebody else. We have to change that politics and that's why I'm running for president."

            Clinton spokesman Phil Singer retorted with a dig at Obama's experience.

            "Judging from his act, it doesn't sound like Senator Obama has much experience doing stand-up either," Singer said in a statement. "Nothing says change more than using jokes to distort his opponents' records."

            Obama repeated the routine Friday in Reno.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

            Oh wait, now you are going to tell me 'but it's okay when Barack does it because everything he said was true!'

      •  He did give a statement. Go to my diary, (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil

        you will find it.  Ah, but you were not looking for it anyway.

        •  I'm sorry, I didn't see it (0+ / 0-)

          He made a statement about the photos of him in tribal dress?  I saw a general statement about the negativity of yesterday and today.

          You've got a lot of links in there, I'll go back and look again.

          •  found it, thanks. (0+ / 0-)

            Sorry I missed it earlier.  I think he just said the reasonable thing, though, that it shouldn't be an issue, and that the flap about it is just part of the unfortunate dynamic of end-game politics.

            It's all so lame.  And at this point, who knows who is behind what?  527s gearing up with no purpose except malprop, bottom feeders like Drudge...  here we go.

    •  I would tip you if I could (15+ / 0-)

      but I disagree with parts of your diary. In that major foreign policy speech, Clinton equated Barack Obama to George W. Bush when it came to foreign policy experience. How is that not being divisive?

      Clinton issued a sort of a non-denial denial in her interview with an ABC affiliate in Dallas where she said:

      "ABC News' Teddy Davis and Jacqueline Klingebiel Report: During a Monday interview with ABC's Dallas affiliate, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., did not flatly deny the DrudgeReport's charge that her campaign forwarded a photo of rival Barack Obama in traditional African dress.

      She then turned the tables on her Democratic rival and accused him of using the controversy to distract the public's attention from deficiencies in his platform and experience.

      "I know nothing about it," Clinton told ABC affiliate WFAA. "This is in the public domain. But let's just stop and ask yourself: 'Why are you -- why is anybody concerned about this?'"

      What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

      by slinkerwink on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:20:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Fair Enough (0+ / 0-)

        But you've got to admit she has a point when it comes to lack of experience on the international scene.

        •  Only if she makes the point that hers is not much (6+ / 0-)

          better.

        •  It's not about being on the international scene (12+ / 0-)

          It's about having judgement on foreign policy matters. Clinton hasn't shown that necessary judgement on the most important foreign policy matters of our times.

          What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

          by slinkerwink on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:24:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That is in the eye of the beholder (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            zbctj52, Montague, Eloise

            and your position is based mostly on her Iraq War vote.  Wes Clark has said repeatedly that she has both great experience and judgment in foreign policy matters.  He said that in his original endorsement and again today at the speech.  Joe Wilson wrote similarly about his interaction with her when he was over African Affairs.  She has real foreign policy chops but all Obama supporters want to talk about is the Iraq vote and they want to say hateful things like accusing her of murdering our soldiers in Iraq.  And most of them don't seem to care how offensive that is.

            The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

            by mikepridmore on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:37:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My brother has a friend over in Iraq (7+ / 0-)

              I grew up playing Sega games with that friend, and that's why I take Clinton's Iraq vote very personally, and am bothered by the fact she didn't even read the NIE.

              What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

              by slinkerwink on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:39:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Lots of us have (0+ / 0-)

                personal ties to people in Iraq.  And it doesn't take a genius to know that the NIE was hyped even without having read the whole thing.  Everyone here wants to bring up bob Graham saying that the NIE would have convinced people if they read it that it was based on lies.  While I respect Bob Graham, that is patently false because lots of others read it and came to different conclusions.  And why aren't you willing to give Hillary credit for doing her own calls and fact checking during this time?  I don't get that really.  And in the end there is good reason for what no one knew for sure that Saddam didn't have weapons: he later admitted he claimed to have weapons to keep the Iranians at bay.  In 2002 Ted kennedy was saying that he it was unfair to say Bush wasn't dealing honestly with the congress.  In 2004 Tim Russert brought that up on MTP.  So why isn't Teddy defending Hillary when she says she took Bush at his word?  Because he wants to play politics and get control of the Democratic party away from the Clintons.  People in MA,that know him best, voted for Hillary.  That should tell you something.

                The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

                by mikepridmore on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:09:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Alegre (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Pithy Cherub, adrianrf

          love ya, mean it, but what expieience are you refering to?
          Can Hillary really claim her time as first lady as international expierience? Otherwise she has a four year headstart on Barack, and she's gotten most issues wrong in those four years.
          Well, atleast the most important issue.

          Because I won't trade humanity for patriotism!

          by Drewid on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:51:31 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Clinton's right about Obama's lack of foreign pol (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        TexMex, zbctj52, PamelaD

        experience - head of the European Affairs committee and called no meetings (did I get that right?).  

        He's a fine man and would be a good President, but his foreign policy experience is weak.

        •  Not One Substantive Meeting (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          TexMex, PamelaD

          They've met but I don't think they've actually gotten anything done.

          If memory serves - that subcommittee is in charge of things related to NATO.

          Scary indeed!

          •  Very - but that's what happens (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            PamelaD

            when you view election to the senate as a ticket to spend all of your time running for higher office, which he has done. His record of attendance on votes is APPALLING.  Clinton's is quite good.  Now you might not like all of her votes, but you need to show up.

            •  Showing up (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              DaveV, adrianrf, eltee

              I would have preferred her skipping the Iraq war vote.

              •  That's weak (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Montague

                You show up for a vote like that -- it's nice to critize the vote when you were safely out of office, then later on cover your ass by saying "you don't know" how you would have voted.  Oh but when the tide's turned against the war, you voice full-throated opposition (while of course continuing to fund the war as Obama has -- and so has Clinton).

                •  he used his anti-Iraq-war stance (4+ / 0-)

                  as part of his run for office, even though it was extremely unpopular at the time. i'm pretty confident that if he were in the Senate at the time, he would've voted against AUMF along with the 23 Senators (and many of us) who were smart enough to know it was a bad idea.

                  Cure This : Let's talk about health justice

                  by nalin on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:42:00 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Are you kidding? (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    ActivatedbyBush, Montague

                    He was in a liberal district and Dick Durbin was opposing the war too.  I don't think it was much of a risk.  I know Joe Wilson wasn't very impressed by his opposition to the war.

                    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

                    by mikepridmore on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:18:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well (1+ / 0-)

                      Recommended by:
                      nalin

                      Joe Wilson is a Clinton mouthpiece.  

                      And whether it was an easy decision or a tough decision for Obama, it was the right decision.  And that is important, because Clinton's decision was completely wrong.  

                    •  Right - I don't think badly of him for his oppos (0+ / 0-)

                      but it was not a courageous stance.  He wasn't leading the charge.  It was a safe opinion for him to take at the time.  

                      If he had guts on this he would say one way or the other how he would have voted instead of simply wafling.

                •  Try again (7+ / 0-)

                  Barack Obama: October 2, 2002

                  I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

                  * * *

                  Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

                  I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

                  THAT is the kind of thinking that I want in office on Day 1.  

                  •  We've all seen the speech. (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    ActivatedbyBush

                    How is that a response to the above comment?  It's just a speech, and I might add, a speech where he admits Saddam might have WMDs.  Not a very flattering admission.

                    The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

                    by mikepridmore on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:20:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

                      Even though he was "safely out of office," he publicly opposed the war at the same time that Clinton voted to support the war.  I don't know how much more stark the contrast could be.

                      a speech where he admits Saddam might have WMDs.  Not a very flattering admission.

                      That's just stupid.  I don't think anyone who opposed the war completely ruled out the possibility that there were WMDs.  How could you know for sure?

                      What Obama said, and what he was right about, is that you had better have something more than speculation if you start a war, and that even if there were WMDs, that the war was still a bad idea.

                      •  Thank you!!! (0+ / 0-)

                        How could you know for sure?

                        Oh, I thought we disagreed.  You agree that there was no way to know for sure.  So you must also agree that it made sense to get weapon's inspectors in to find out for sure?

                        The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

                        by mikepridmore on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 09:42:28 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

                          We agree that there was no way to know for sure whether there were WMDs.  The point is that you don't authorize a war if there MIGHT be WMDs.  And frankly, even if there were WMDs, invading Iraq would still be a terrible idea - a "dumb war" as Obama might (and did) say.

                          On Day 1, Clinton wouldn't be able to tell her ass from third base.  There is no defending her war vote.  Her "experience" is experience in being wrong and demonstrating horrible judgment.  

              •  she could have showed up for FISA (5+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                ChicDemago, DaveV, nalin, adrianrf, ggottlie

                Obama did

            •  lies (4+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Philoguy, Mia Dolan, adrianrf, ggottlie

              do you actually know Obama's senate record? or do you just like to make shit up?  how has he spent "all of his time" running for higher office with a record like that?

              Hillary's attendance record since 2000 link
              Obama's attendance record since 2005 link

              Since they've both spent large parts of the last year campaigning and Obama has been in the senate less time than Hillary, the difference in attendance percentage is minimal.

              Cure This : Let's talk about health justice

              by nalin on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:37:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think a VP can help bolster the foreign policy (8+ / 0-)

            issue, but I'm not terribly concerned with being on the international scene because my concerns lie more with the long-term future of the Democratic Party. Obama's shown an impressive ability to organize at the precinct by precinct, county by county, and state by state level. We NEED that sort of organization in the general election especially for the down-ticket races. What has me so concerned about Clinton's viability in the general election is that she hasn't shown that ability to organize in most of the states due to fundraising problems and hindsight strategy where they just assumed it'd be over on February 5th. The mismanagement of her campaign does not give me confidence that she would be an excellent President.

            Hillary Clinton may sound like a great President, but she has shown that lack of ability to manage her policies vis a vis her campaign due to their consistently muddled message.

            I feel quite sad, actually. I originally liked Hillary at the start of the campaign season. I thought she'd win the nomination easily, even though I was supporting Obama at the time. I wanted her to be more warm, and talk positively. She hasn't done that lately, other than the Thursday debate, and it's frustrating watching her campaign go down the path of "throwing the kitchen sink" at my candidate. Negativity doesn't sit well with me, and it shouldn't sit well with Hillary either because all it does is drive up her negatives. Whoever's giving her the advice to be full-on negative needs to be FIRED because it sure isn't doing her any favors.

            What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

            by slinkerwink on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:32:35 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Are you f'ing kidding me? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Rumarhazzit

              Hillary has more Democratic voters than Obama in the primary and the whole premise of his campaign is reaching across the aisle, the very thing that Markos and others have been howling about with the Dems in Congress now.

              The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

              by mikepridmore on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:39:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Actually, Obama has more primary votes (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Donna Z, nalin, Philoguy

                you can't just leave the Independent votes out of the primary totals. It's sort of like cherry-picking facts which is silly.

                What's madness but nobility of the soul at odds with circumstance?

                by slinkerwink on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:41:05 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You were the one (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Montague

                  talking about the future of the Democratic Party.  Well, more Democrats have voted for Hillary.  You can't leave out that part either, which seem to want to do.

                  The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

                  by mikepridmore on Mon Feb 25, 2008 at 08:45:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]