To me this whole argument over the NIE is a perfect encapsulation of the differences between the two candidates. What I find amusing is that the same people who are criticizing Senator Clinton for not reading the NIE are perfectly willing to accept that Senator Obama made his decision without reading the NIE, or receiving any briefing. If Senator Obama didn't have to read the NIE to validate his judgment, then why is it that Senator Clinton is a traitor and murderer, according to comments on various blogs, for not reading the NIE? (h/t to Eriposte for an excellent discussion of that very issue here)
The political world is buzzing over Senator Clinton's recent 3am red phone ad and Barack Obama's lightspeed response ad. Missing from all this buzz is the fact that Senator Obama's ad depends on several carefully crafted lies.
Lie number 1: Foreign Policy Experience doesn't matter
Today Lanny Davis was on Morning Joe pointing out that in 2004 Senator Obama, when asked in 2004 how he would have voted on the resolution, said "I don't know." The host thought that was a convincing point and asked why the Clinton campaign had not been making that point sooner. To which Lanny Davis replied that they had made that exact case but the press got all sidetracked because of the use of the word fairytale.
While Obama supporters often obsess over the Iraq War Vote, there is no denying that Senator Clinton has far more Foreign Policy experience than Senator Obama. If one reads the Foreign Policy Speech she gave yesterday (link), there is an impressive grasp of world affairs.
But giving a speech is not the full extent of her foreign policy experience. There is testimony from all parts of the world about her involvement in world affairs, playing a role that is far beyond that of a typical First Lady or even a US Senator.
In and of itself, a high turnout in Democratic primaries is not predictive of a November win. The last record year was 1988. Dems have had higher primary turnout numbers every year since 1972 except for 1996 and 2000.
(link)
Obama promises that he can change the tone in Washington, and derides "the partisan politics of the past" (ie the nineties and Hillary Clinton). But he can't change the tone because the problem is with Republicans not Democrats. A non-partisan Democratic President will be as hapless against partisan Republicans as the Democratic congress is often accused of being now. Republicans are willing to block progressive legislation.
There was another time when a leading Democratic candidate, in an eerie parallel to Barack Obama, was recognized as a liberal by his supporters, riding a wave of youth support, had a string of primary wins and had polls showing that he beat his potential November opponent in the polls. (link)
Poll Shows Dukakis Leads Bush; Many Reagan Backers Shift Sides
By E. J. DIONNE JR.
Published: May 17, 1988
Michael S. Dukakis is capitalizing on deep public doubts about Vice President Bush and the Reagan Administration's handling of key issues and has emerged as the early favorite for the Presidential election in November, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
Yesterday I wrote a diary talking about Jesse Jackson Jr. seeming to threaten black superdelegate supporters of Senator Clinton with a primary challenger if they did not switch to Obama. (link) I based that on this news article. But during my drive time yesterday I heard an interview with Emanuel Cleaver wherein he said that relations between the members of the Congressional Black Caucus are cordial. (link)
What if I told you that Bill Clinton had been calling women who support Senator Obama in states where Senator Clinton won, pointing out the fact that the majority of Democratic voters are women and telling them that if they stand in the way of the first woman president by using their superdelegate status to vote for Senator Obama, that they might have the rug of support yanked from under them and find a female challenger for their seats in the next election? You'd say that was ludicrous right? How dare he interfere with their free choice to vote for who they think is the best candidate?
When people say they want change it's not because they are tired of "partisan bickering" (which basically consists of derisive Republican laughter.) They're sick of a government that does exactly the opposite of what they want it to do. And they aren't picky about how it gets done. If it can be done with gentle persuasion, that's great. But if it takes a fight, they're all right with that too.
This is the central difference between the beltway CW as expressed by the Bloomer party and the village gasbags. The elders believe that nothing can get done without "moving to the middle" which currently means, even in the best interpretation, somewhere between the center right and the far right. And even that is incredibly optimistic. The truth is that Republicans out of power believe in total obstruction. They are perfectly happy to block all progressive legislation because they know they will suffer no consequences for it from the mild mannered Democrats and the bipartisan zombies. --Digby
Former Virginia governor Doug Wilder is playing the race card by twisting the words of former President Bill Clinton completely out of context. He insists on pretending that when Bill Clinton said Obama's record on the Iraq War was a fairytale that what he was really talking about was Obama's candidacy itself and not his record on the Iraq War. (link)
"Barack Obama is not a fairy tale. He is real," former Virginia Gov. L. Douglas Wilder told reporters at a Democratic fundraiser as the former president spent the day campaigning for Hillary Rodham Clinton in Richmond and three other Virginia cities.
Frank Rich has a brain. I used to enjoy reading him and watching him stick it to whatever Republican talking point that most raised his ire on a given week. But I don't understand why he has chosen to be so subjectively hateful of late to Senator Clinton. For example, after discussing her recent Town Hall event in a tone dripping with sarcasm, Rich says (link):
What’s more, it offered a naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come.
Let me be perfectly clear: I want Obama on the Democratic ticket this fall. I want him in the White House for sixteen straight years, eight as VP and eight more as President. So I don’t want to bash him in a way that would damage that possibility. What I do want to do is raise questions about whether he actually is as liberal as some of his supporters think. For example, a lot of his supporters tell me they are voting for him because he is more liberal than Hillary, and refer to the recent National Journal ranking as proof. So let’s start by discussing that.
First, I want to apologize for calling Iceberg Slim a liar here. I do believe that she is wrong when she says the Obama team didn't play the race card, but I should have given her the benefit of the doubt. Emotions run high during the primary season and one day soon we will have to work together. I also want to apologize for a diary that was perceived as an attack on Michelle Obama. (link)
The biggest problem Barack has with the Iraq War Vote, the one that supposedly shows his superior judgment, is that his most high profile supporter, Oprah notwithstanding, is on the record supporting Hillary Clinton’s position. On March 21 2004, Teddy Kennedy was on Meet the Press. First, Tim Russert pointed out that in 2002 Ted had clearly said that Bush was trustworthy on the issue (link):
The Big News in NY-29 today is the fourth quarter fundraising by Netroots Superstar Eric Massa. He outraised his opponent Randy Kuhl for the third straight quarter. Both NY state blog The Albany Project and local blogs like Rochester Turning have this part of the story. From October 1st to December 31st, 2007, Massa raised a total of $267,960.18, bringing his campaign war chest of cash on hand to $414,603.90. Kuhl raised $156,736 in Q4 and has $326,513 cash on hand. More on the flip.
On Martin Luther King day I had this to say about John Edwards:
More than either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, John Edwards has a populist message that gets to the heart and soul of the Democratic party, also reminiscent of Dr. King.
...And in addition to reminding us why we are all here, John Edwards embodies the changes over the last few years more than anyone else in that he has dramatically shifted from a post-9/11 conservative to progressive populist. And both seem to be the right position for the time.
