Remember what they used to accuse Al Gore of by making up things he didn't say? Well Hillary is really doing it!
Not only does she exaggerate her own accomplishments and freely take credit for the work of others, but she also exaggerates when she denegrates Obama's accomplishments.
I have a lifetime of experience. John McCain has a lifetime of experience. Barack Obama has a speech he made in 2002.
Really, Hillary? I expect Senator Lugar and all his colleagues on the Senate Foreign Relations committee would be surprised to hear that since he thought Obama co-authored their successful legislation to reduce the threat of loose nukes getting into the wrong hands.
And then there is the irony that Bill Clinton in 1992 could never meet Hillary's "Commander and Chief Threshold" TM, since he was only a couple years older than Obama is now and had absolutely NO foreign policy experience. I guess Bill wasn't qualified to answer those fateful 3AM calls to the White House. Or does Hillary want to add "911 Changed Everything" to the list of right wing frames she's adopted for this campaign?
Do you want Dick Cheney answering the phone in the White House at 3AM when there's an international crisis?
Why not? He has more "experience" than just about anyone.
How about John McCain? Should the Iraq war's biggest booster, someone who jokes about wanting to "Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" and who has a legendary quick temper be the one to answer that fateful call?
Again, he is virtually unrivalled in Washington "experience."
How about Hillary Clinton? Surely she's not as bellicose as those Republicans. But she is obsessed with appearing "tough." Might the same instincts that led her to vote for the Iraq war resolution without reading the NIE, and vote for the Kyle-Lieberman bill to grease the skids for war with Iran make her unlikley to resist bad advice from a hawkish foreign policy advisor (of which she has many)?
If the last 8 years have taught us ANYTHING, it's that the constant personal need to act tough is a sign of weakness and insecurity that our enemies can exploit, NOT a sign of strength.
The problem with any of these people answering that 3AM call is not their experience, but the mindset through which they view the evidence (if they even bother to consider the evidence at all).
What kind of a "Democrat" talks up the Republican nominee and compares his fitness for the office of POTUS favorably against that of the odds-on Democratic nominee?!
This is the ONLY question Democrats should be asking themselves tonight.
Hillary just forfeited her right to be considered for the Democratic nomination today. (The "Connecticut for Lieberman" Party nomination should still be available to her.)
Paging Al Gore, John Edwards, Bill Richardson, etc.: The time to speak up is NOW. Hillary crossed a "threshold" today, but it's not the one she thinks.
This is quite literally the Elephant in the middle of the room.
Commentators today were pointing out that Rush Limbaugh's "Endorsement" of Hillary likely put her over the top in the open Texas primary and substantially increased her margin of victory in Ohio's primary (also open).
On NPR today, Dole '96 campaign manager Scott Reed openly salivated at the prospect of a Clinton nomination: "Nothing unites Republicans like running against a Clinton."
The Republicans worked to make McGovern the Democratic nominee in 1972. It looks like they're at it again. Like Bond villians openly revealing their evil plans, they don't even try to hide the fact that they know Clinton will be much easier for McCain to defeat. And NPR's political reporters went on to talk about Hillary being the easier target for Republicans as a matter of fact, not opinion.
Yet somehow this reality is not filtering down to the Democratic electorate. The Obama campaign needs to get the word out.
I'm just back from helping the campaign in Ohio (flew back from Cleveland in the middle of an ice storm last night!). In my conversations with voters, I was surprised at how many African-Americans I talked to (in areas just East of Cleveland) were voting for Hillary or at least considering doing so -- and not just women either (I think I talked one guy out of it yesterday).
I think Barack needs to go on "Black" radio stations in Mississippi and Pennsylvania NOW with an ad about how Hillary's campaign deliberately darkened his face in a TV ad in Ohio to make him appear blacker (and presumably more threatening / alien to White people). (Source: http://www.dailykos.com/... ) It could be done as a "Harry & Louise" conversation with one person asking "who's running her campaign now, Jesse Helms?" and the other one noting that 3/4 of those who said race was a factor in their vote in Ohio chose Hillary. (Source: http://www.dailykos.com/... )
He also needs to get the press to cover this story.
Hillary has a new ad up in Ohio that shows just how out of touch she is. If she figures it out and pulls it, the Obama campaign should pay to put it back on the air:
Yes, she really did compare her late nights at her desk to a hospital worker who changes bedpans at 3AM.
As you can see by the hours I usually post, I work late at my desk at home every night -- by choice. I would NEVER in a million years compare myself to someone working the graveyard shift at a factory, diner, or hospital.
I would love to hear from those who have how this ad resonates with them.
Here is the full quote from Clinton's chief strategist:
Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn't won any of the significant states -- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.
Yes, that certainly raises some questions... but not about Obama!
The arrogance of the Clinton campaign is just breathtaking.
So Georgia, Washington, and Virginia (for example) are insignificant as far as the Clinton campaign is concerned?!
Guess what: all of those states send more delegates to the Convention than Wisconsin. I wonder what Hillary's "braintrust" must think of that state. Pretty unimportant I guess.
I wonder if there's a way Wisconsin voters could prove their importance to Hillary?.............
I hope you'll forgive me for tooting my own horn here. I'm actually probably more excited by Obama's blowout win in Maine right now, but thought I should share this.
I run Cedille Records, a not-for-profit classical label based in Chicago, devoted to promoting the efforts of Chicago musicians.
Among the Grammy winners tonight were the modern music sextet "eighth blackbird" which won Best Chamber Music Performance (category 104) for their latest album, strange imaginary animals.
Producer Judith Sherman won Producer of the Year, Classical (category 97) for her work on various albums including two of ours: eighth blackbird's strange imaginary animals and violinist Rachel Barton Pine's American Virtuosa: Tribute to Maud Powell.
I was canvassing in Chicago's 11th Ward (Northern-most edge of IL-3 Congressional District) as part of Northside DFA's work on behalf of grassroots/netroots candidate Mark Pera today (Saturday). According to my "walk sheet" the house I was approaching had an elderly Democratic voter. As is often the case, this voter no longer lived there. I began to deliver my pitch to the new occupant, but the woman who answered the door stopped me when I talked about electing a Congressman with REAL Democratic values.
She told me she was a Republican because "I want the niggers to have to get up for work every morning just like I do."
Today's DKos front page story "Clinton Leads Obama by 12 in California" mentions that
Clinton is perceived by voters as holding a big advantage over Obama as being the candidate with the right experience
This is presumably because Hillary talks ad nauseum about her "35 years of experience". I would like to know how she accounts for this.
Unfortunately, the Obama campaign has done nothing (at least nothing that I've seen) to counter this dubious claim, which appears to be at the heart of her argument for the nomination. But at The Huffington Post, Ari Emanuel takes a look at
The Curious Math of Hillary's "35 Years of Experience" and finds:
35 years ago you were 25... You were going to Yale Law School at the time -- which I'm sure was a personally transformative experience, but it's hardly the kind of change that should count on one's Presidential Training Experience resume, is it?
This 35 years would also, presumably include her years as First Lady. By that reckoning, should Laura Bush be able to run for office next year sighting her "8 years" of government experience?
Yesterday, I diaried Paul Krugman's column about Obama's comments appearing to praise Ronald Reagan for bringing a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing." Even though I am an Obama supporter, I am (like Krugman) concerned that rhetoric like this is not helpful because Reagan's core philosophy that low taxes on the rich solves all ills (carried to its illogical extreme by Bush) is exactly what our nominee will have to battle, both to win the Presidency and to govern successfully.
One commenter -- ericd1112 -- offered a response so strong, I thought it was worth posting as a separate diary. (He is traveling right now, so I know he does not have time to diary his thoughts himself.) He argues that to be able to change Reagan's legacy, we need to first win back the "Reagan Democrats" and the way to do this is not to scold them but to show them we understand their concerns. Only then, with their support, can we implement policies that will actually HELP these mostly lower- and middle-class voters who were so badly betrayed by Reagan's (and Bush's) policies.
While Barack Obama may not have meant to praise the former President, it is hard to read his statement that Reagan offered a "sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing" as something other than a compliment. In any case, in his recent, well-publicized remarks, Barack did NOT say anything specifically contemning Reagan's policies (other than to say that he did not agree with all of them).
Obama is, of course, hardly alone in this. His supporters (and I now count myself as one) have correctly pointed to similar remarks by Hilary Clinton and others. Paul Krugman argues that this failure to condemn Reagan's policies and what they have done to our country (e.g., the huge income gap; the profiting of the top 1% at the expense of everyone else, etc.) is a huge mistake. In his NY Times column today, Debunking the Reagan Myth, Krugman argues that any discussion of Reagan needs to puncture the haigiography the political right has imposed on our discourse:
By now, I hope most Kossacks are aware of what is going on in Nevada. ABC News has a good rundown here.
In March 2007, the Nevada Democratic Party set up procedures for its Jan. 19 caucuses that ALL PARTIES agreed to, including supporters of Hillary Clinton. The idea of holding the caucus on a Saturday was to make it easier on most people to vote. The one obvious exception was hospitality workers on the Vegas Strip, who are at their busiest on Saturday. So for them special at-large caucus sites were arranged since they would not be able to go home to vote. Again, ALL SIDES agreed to this and there weren't any objections until Jan. 9.
On Jan. 9, the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Barack Obama. Two days later, leaders of the local Teachers Union who had personally endorsed Hillary Clinton (although the union itself had not officially done so) filed suit to try to remove the at-large caucus sites, potentially disenfranchising thousands of hotel and casino workers.
This is what Hillary Clinton said about the Nevada caucuses while her political allies are suing the State Democratic Party for tyring to ensure just that.
Because of the difficulty casino workers would have in getting to their home caucuses, the State Party set up 9 at-large caucus sites near the major casinos. This decision was made during an open process in MARCH 2007. Funny thing: no one had a problem with this until January 9, when the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Barack Obama.
Suddenly, Clinton's allies in the state, led by the leadership of the teacher's union, have a problem with this attempt to HELP MAKE IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO VOTE and have filed suit.
On the front page (quite a ways down now), Miss Laura frames this as a dispute between 2 unions, but that is a smokescreen. This is the true brass-knuckles nature of the Clinton campaign coming out for all to see, even while Hillary tries to project her new, softer image as someone who listens to voters (except those she's trying to disenfranchise, of course).
In hers, she says she wants to end the war "the right way".
Anyone have a clue what the fudge she means by that? Sounds to me like an excuse to keep our troops there until we get it "right".
I want our troops out as quickly as possible. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it's also politically the right contrast with the Republicans' insane warmongering (especially if McCain is their nominee).
Why would we want to lose our best issue against them AGAIN?! Have we learned nothing from Kerry's idiotic fumbling of this issue?
Of course, Hillary is the only major Democratic candidate left who voted for the war and still stands by that vote. That ALONE should disqualify her from the nomination....
As fellow denizens of a site ostensibly devoted to promoting people powered democracy, I am curious how people here reconcile their support for Hillary Clinton with the reality of where she is getting her campaign money from.
This is not snark. I am genuinely interested to know why her supporters are not bothered by this:
The Health Insurance Lobby (aka the Murder by Spreadsheet Industry) gives her more money than any other candidate of EITHER party. Rupert Murdoch holds fundraisers for her. She's the number 1 recipient of telecom industry $ in the Senate.
This DOES have consequences in the way she votes. For example, in the 1990s, she successfully lobbyed her husband to veto the Republican Congress's bankruptcy "reform" bill that made it impossible for people to escape credit card debt, calling it "that awful bill." But in 2005 2001, as a Senator receiving huge sums of money from the banking industry, she decided the SAME "awful bill" was worth voting for.
For those who believe in people powered democracy – what this site is ostensibly devoted to – there is a clear difference between the 3 "major" Democratic campaigns for President. In order for the people’s voices to be heard, we MUST FIRST end the outsized power of those who can influence politicians by giving them huge sums of money the rest of us cannot.
The power of ultra-wealthy individuals and corporations completely distorts our economy and our society. The most innovative ideas come from small entrepreneurs and start up companies. Most of them fail in their efforts. Some "deserve" to because their idea or product does not have the requisite appeal or utility. But many are simply shut out of the market because entrenched interests get the laws written and interpreted in such a way as to perpetuate their (often undeserved) position in the marketplace. Media companies have extra power because not only can they donate money, but they can skew their "news" coverage to shut out competitors and ideas that threaten their power.
It is in this context that I, and I believe anyone who truly believes in people powered democracy should, view this year’s campaigns:
While I still hold a VERY slim hope that events could push Gore into the race, I have to consider other candidates at this point. I WISH I could believe in the promise of Obama, but he just doesn't look ready for prime time.
I like a lot of what Edwards is saying (how could I not: he has wedded Dean's message of political empowerment to his own orignal message of economic empowerment) even if contradicts much of his voting record in the Senate (just as Dean was not exactly a radical when he governed Vermont). And I currently see Edwards, with his populist message, as the one candidate who might have a chance of stopping the Hillary juggernaut if he does well in Iowa.
BUT I really worry that if Edwards won the nomination, he would be off the airwaves (as far as advertising is concerned) from about April through the Convention in late August, when he could finally spend money again.
