Hillary takes a hard shot in Ohio. Guess she felt that valedictory storyline was getting a little out of hand. --Michael Crowley
Hillary takes a hard shot in Ohio. Guess she felt that valedictory storyline was getting a little out of hand.
--Michael Crowley
Posted: Saturday, February 23, 2008 3:44 PM with 86 comment(s)
Woah, she sat on this one for a while. Saving the goods for crunch time I guess. Or else getting desperate (maybe Krugman is secretly advising her campaign now). A bit of meta cognitive dissonance though, having seen that flyer for so long on this site, now in her hands.
That looks like the same flyer I read about a long time ago, which says nothing in it that isn't true. She's opening herself up to get hit on that abortion "present-vote" flyer, which was so misleading that NARAL was forced to issue a public statement boosting their support of Obama's present-voting. Or am I getting this wrong?
But, but, won't this damage the 'we-all-want-to-save-Hillary' storyline? How can she both have a cow about a mailer and be nurtured by the electorate at the same time?
Oh, and by the way, the whole nonsense about NAFTA? Really? I guess that it is true. But, wasn't she the co-president of the US of A at that time? Doesn't she have all of that experience?
My God, my world is crumbling around me. It is fading. Do you hear the loons?
When Clinton campaign points out that Obama closely echoed a passage from a speech that Deval Patrick, now the Massachusetts governor, used at a campaign rally when he was running for that office in 2006, Jason Zengerle calls this “ The Clinton campaign's latest tactic is to smear Barack Obama “
When the Obama campaign smears Clinton :
“(Editors from Newsday responded on its Web site last week, stopping short of a correction but saying that “Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading.”)
what was the Michael Crowley’ reaction. Disdain of Clinton.
Shame on You, Michael Crowley.
Will Hillary's "Shame on you, Barack Obama" be her Howard Dean scream?
How can she square her uplifting moment re: it being an honor to share the same stage as Barack Obama and then this screechy feigned outrage.
What's her beef now?
Clearly, it is misprepresentation to portray her as a NAFTA proponent based on her prior statements and the fact that NAFTA was her husband was the one who proposed and pushed NAFTA through Congress. Is it now unfair to call her on her past statements or her husband's signature policies?
Re: health care, lemme see if I got it straight....
It's OK to say Obama's plan is not universal care and leaves out 15 million, but not OK for Obama to say that Hillarycare would mandate coverage through enforcement mechanism such as garnishing wages......when it was Hillary who said it in a televised intereview just a few weeks ago.
How can Hillary supporters ignore this disgraceful behaviour?
Does anyone out there really think Barack Obama is more like Karl Rove than Hillary and BIll?
I think Hillary just undid her climb back to dignity at the end of the last debate.
The cognitive dissonance of her Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde campaign is too much for any fair-minded democrat to bear.
Someone needs to save Hillary from herself. Because today she just blew any chance at being VP or Senate Majority Leader.
Actually, this latest gambit makes me believe that Hillary really can unify America as a presidential candidate. Make her the nominee, and we'll be back to the era of Republicans talking about a "permanent GOP majority." Americans are just gonna _loooove_ having Hillary Clinton give angry lectures about shame and manners.
"Enough with the speeches and the big rallies, and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is...
daveis,
"How can Hillary supporters ignore this disgraceful behaviour?
Does anyone out there really think Barack Obama is more like Karl Rove than Hillary and BIll?"
How can Barak supporters ignore this disgraceful behaviour?
Does anyone out there really think HRC is more like Karl Rove than Barak and Michellel?
Re:Someone needs to save Hillary from herself. Because today she just blew any chance at being VP or Senate Majority Leader.
Man daveis, try and cut your kool aid consumption to six cups a date. You'll live longer. It's called politics. Your guy is smart, the probable nominee but this obsession that Obama is running through a field of daisies while HRC is a political mobster is so played out.
Imagine if everyone in Chicago had this reaction when Barack challenged the petitions of all his state senate competitors in his first campaign. He got them knocked off the ballot and no one batted an eye. People thought it was smart politics, which is fine except when you mistake your opponent as the Antichrist and your guy as some sort of post pot Brownie fusion of Ghandi, Speed Racer, and Joan of Arc.
Hillary Clinton has been the GOP's favorite Democratic nominee for a long time. From their perspective, she just gets better and better.
She's accusing Obama of operating out of the Rove playbook? This is shameless.
Consider: the Rove playbook says you attack your opponent in his perceived strength-- which is precisely what Clinton is doing, by claiming that Mr. Clean Obama is playing dirty politics.
But the awesome irony here is that another part of the Rove playbook says you accuse your opponent of doing whatever dirty trick you're actually doing at the time. So if your dirty trick, for example, consists of "operating out of the Rove playbook," you go accuse your opponent of doing the same.
This makes my head spin, because I've never seen those two tactics used together. It's way too meta. I can't tell if the Clinton campaign is aware of the irony of just supremely unaware of itself. But it's pathetic.
jacob, can you in anyway tell us what in the ad is untrue? we debated (if debate is the word since no one could point out what in the ad was untrue, the Hillary supporters just whined the whole way through it)
Again, what is untrue? It is a fact in Mass. many people are paying the fine because they can't afford insurance, so in the end they have neither. And why can't they? Many are young people, with student loan bills, single income, high rents, high cost of living but "income" far above the threshold. Yes, lets punish them. That will really drive support for the system. The Hillary people say Obama can't stand up to criticism from Republican, but this criticism essentially destroys her, and this from a Democrat. If she can't defend it to a large swath of Democrats, she is doomed with America. But hey, lets ignore substance.
What is untrue?
blackton,
What ad are you talking about? I'm taking about the NAFTA ad.
Read nytimes:
"It was not the first time the Clinton campaign had seen the flier, which cites an article from Newsday that says Mrs. Clinton believed the North American Free Trade Agreement was a “boon” to the economy. Mrs. Clinton said the newspaper has since corrected the article.
(Editors from Newsday responded on its Web site last week, stopping short of a correction but saying that “Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading.”)"
Her entire campaign has been a case study in projection. Every single day she goes out and feigns indignation and outrage over things that she is equally and often more guilty of doing herself. It's like their strategy is to go to voters and say "hey, you shouldn't vote for that guy because he's just as bad as I am!"
And what exactly makes her plan unassailable? I don't see how Obama pointing out what he sees as a flaw in her plan is somehow attacking core democratic values. She's acting like he can't point out one of the few legitimate differences in their policies; it's ridiculous.
I thought the mailer was a bit below the belt due to imagery referencing the defeat of her previous health care reform attempt. However, what exactly is factually untrue about the claims? Can anyone give me the details on how her plan won't force everyone to buy insurance? What are the penalties for not buying in? And if it doesn't force everyone to get insurance, how can she claim that Obama's plan leaves people out and hers doesn't?
jacob, she is holding the health care ad in her hand, clear as a bell. As to the NAFTA ad, Obama quoted Newsday in an ad, Newsday corrected the article later, so Obama was supposed to search down every ad that was handed out based on the Newsday quote, which Newsday (I presume) made a mistake on. That is pretty extreme to me and a spectacular waste of resources.
If anything Hillary should be bitching about Newsday.
Beyond that, she can't win on this issue, this way. She is running based on her experience in the White House, taking credit for the good economy. It can be argued that one of the reasons for the good economy was NAFTA. Bill takes credit for NAFTA as well. If she wants to say Bill was wrong about NAFTA, let her be explicit about that. If not, then she has no reason to criticize Obama for pointing out she favors it. She can't have it both ways, take credit for it and disavow it at the same time. If she doesn't make a choice, then she leaves Obama free rein. Personally, she should own NAFTA but say it needs to be tweaked, which is the truth. But she won't say the truth because Ohio voters won't like it.
blackton, I mean, if the Newsday editors make a statement like that, I think I'm going to trust them unless you show me they're in Clinton's pocket or something ("Editors from Newsday responded on its Web site last week, stopping short of a correction but saying that “Obama’s use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading.”). And many Obama supporters didn't care for the Harry and Louise, uh, xerox.
blackton:
It's simple, really. Remember the all the stuff that you liked about Bill's administration? She was for all that and played a big role in implementing it! Remember all the stuff you didn't like about it? She didn't have any part in that stuff and how dare you say her husband's decisions should be held against her!
yes, lymon, but what is the sequence of events? Did Obama produce an ad with the newsday line, distribute it, and then Newsday made a "correction"? And why not a retraction from Newsday? The fact that Newsday calls it a correction tells me they are circling the wagons for themselves, not Hillary.
Anyway, what was the sequence? If Obama took the original quote after the correction was made, then I will concede that would have been (I can't say wrong, because did she say Nafta boom?) misleading. Other than that, I have to wait for all the facts.
lymon, found something: The second mailing, on the North American Free Trade Agreement, quotes a 2006 Newsday article suggesting Clinton believed the agreement had been a "boon" to the economy
Earlier, Newsday published an item saying the word "boon" had been their "characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements."
So Newsday said boon, but Hillary didn't. But her characterization of it was the same, that it had been a boon. And Obama is misleading us??? So if he said Hillary thinks NAFTA was great it would have been fine?
Wow, after this it seems HIllary really has no leg to stand on. "I didn't say boon, I meant the equivalent to boon, but I never said that word so how dare Obama said I said it."
Wow. That is pathetic.
Seems like there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Last week's "Texas or bust"/"Whatever happens, I'm gonna be fine" message was a perfect application of Noam's sympathy-strategy. This stuff about the old mailer, I'm presuming it's Penn's, is GOP to the core: grab balls, twist and twist.
It's ironic that the "ready one day one" technocrat is crumbling because, in the end, she suffers from an overabundance of loyalty and too little knack for the brass tacks. Thank goodness we've been able to learn this from campaign incompetence, and not executive neglect.
March 4th can't come soon enough. The process worked. Our nominee is much stronger than he was on January 4th. But now it's time to wrap this thing up and get to work on the real deal.
Backton,
Based on your standards of what’s a fair and truthful ad is what’s is a smear and what’s not a smear, can you point to an any Clinton ad that is not true? It seems to me that if you apply your own standards to HRC, you have no reasons to complain about Clinton ads and Clinton tactic.
"Thank goodness we've been able to learn this from campaign incompetence, and not executive neglect."
Well-put.
Found on YouTube:
www.youtube.com/watch
So I finally watched the video. Wow.
I have never, ever seen Hillary so unsympathetic and unlikeable. I can't imagine ANY undecided voter being swayed by her tone. And what despicable hypocrisy. She sat there the other night so warm and fuzzy and suddenly she's outraged by a flyer that's been out for weeks?! Like she just discovered it? And now, she's challenging him to duke it out. Guess Penn finally got to her.
And who the hell is that doofus nodding his head behind her: "uh-huh, that's right." What is he, Puff Daddy in the old Notorious B.I.G. videos? Get real.
The video I was talking about is here: www.youtube.com/watch.
My favorite comment:
filegirl:
"Meet me in Ohio" is especially choice because he is already IN Ohio, which her campaign would know if they could find the broad sign of a barn. (yes, that's a figure of speech, and I plagiarized it)."
I have to say, it's getting the sharpest comments I've ever seen on YouTube. Not a typo or four-letter word in sight.
A disaster.
What on earth were her campaign managers thinking?
She's destroying herself. This is perhaps the worst campaign I've ever seen.
Just saw the video.
I'm all in on Hillary's white male vote going through the roof in Texas!
Wow. That's awful. I feel really bad for poor Strickland (???) in the background, having to stand there shaking his head and looking outraged.
(aid and comfort? Isn't that a Rove line?)
CharlesFosterKane ,
"So I finally watched the video. Wow. I have never, ever seen Hillary so unsympathetic and unlikeable. I can't imagine ANY undecided voter being swayed by her tone"
You can't tell. You are Obama supporter. For me, every Obama speech is phony, for you it's a divine revelation.
It's true, Jacob, and such a perceptive and original comment: Obama is a messianic cult leader. To followers like C.F. Kane, Obama's words carry the force of scripture, of divine prophecy.
The tragedy is that by the time Kane and his ilk have come to their senses, golden statues of Obama will already have been erected on every street corner, and our official currency will be the "Barack."
Is this what generations of American patriots died to protect?
The Harry and Louise ad was sent out in Wisconsin several weeks ago. Now it is being sent out again in Ohio. The reason Obama is using Republican tactics is that he is using an exact copy of the Harry and Louise ads from 1993. Also, he is distorting Clinton's plan. There are provisions for if people can't afford insurance. The penalties are for people who CAN afford it but don't get it. And Obama's plan has penalties too, you know. He's said that if people show up in ER's for treatment and they don't have insurance, then they'll have to pay back premiums.
Also with the NAFTA ad, it's being resent. So the sequence of events is: Newsweek article, Obama ad, Newsweek correction, same Obama ad.
CharlesFosterKane said: "I have never, ever seen Hillary so unsympathetic and unlikeable. I can't imagine ANY undecided voter being swayed by her tone."
I wasn't going to comment in this thread, but after reading that, I just had to. Only a few hours ago, I was sitting here with two undecided (and somewhat apathetic) voters, women in their early forties. I showed them that video clip after one of them had mentioned how boring the campaign is. They watched, turned and looked at each other kind of stunned, then one exclaimed "Now, SHE'S ready to be commander in chief!" and did a high-five. They aren't so undecided (or apathetic) anymore.
As a side note, not long after that they squealed in delight at Tina Fey's pro-Hillary rant on SNL's "Weekend Update". It was definitely Hillary reawakening night for those two. An early Easter.
blackton: I'm still not all the way with you on the Newsday, for as you say they seem to be circling their own wagons, repeatedly. Their excuse for ascribing the word "boon" is it's a "characterization" of a "review of past stories and public statements"? You can't see the potential for abuse there? I'm presuming the Obama campaign has enough money to pay for NEXIS and find whatever comment HC gave in the past that rose to "boon" levels. Again, once Newsday says "quoting us this way is misleading" I'm troubled that Obama would continue to do it. It's analagous (but not as bad) as when Obama made his Republican-remark clarification and the Clintons proceded with that radio ad.
I am so damn sick of Barack Obama's campaign. It's a walking, talking piece of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance. He talks about reaching across the aisle, as if he's ever really done so. His entire political career has been a combination of extreme leftism (when it's politically easy) and extreme spinelessness (when it's not). You want to know where negatives come from? They come from taking on difficult problems and the entrenched interests whose livelihoods depend on a political system that refuses to address those problems. They come from fighting, day in and day out, for things that are progressive (read controversial) in America -- things like universal health care. And hell yeah, Clinton has a few negatives. But she'd be a hell of a President and Commander in Chief!
Now, it doesn't surprise me that Obama has a health care plan that's politically passive. I shouldn't and wouldn't expect invertebrates to be what, by nature, they are not. He's certainly never shown backbone before (anybody remember Liberman-Kyle; anybody heard of the word "present"?) However, he shamelessly attacks the only remaining universal health care plan in the lot. Hillary's plan is not only substantively better than his, but it's also more politically savvy by a factor of ten! Substantively, it creates an economy of scale in the health care market; thus, it drives down costs by eliminating the hidden tax that occurs every time one of Obama's 15 million freeriders shows up to the emergency room. Politically, it has a reasonable chance of passing simply because it works to neutralize insurance industry opposition by giving them millions of relatively healthy young Americans who (despite Obama's mendacious explanations) are not opting out of insurance because they can't afford it, but because they, quite simply, don't think they need it! Anyway... Barack Obama certainly has the right to propose whatever asinine policy he wants, but as a progressive who cares deeply about these issues, I cannot stand by and watch him attack the most honorable defender of these values in modern America. What's more, I cannot abide the kind of tactics that most assuredly will come back to bite him (and us) in the ass should he decide to get off it in 2009 and do something about the health care crisis. I can already hear the Right-Wingers: "But you yourself said we can't have government telling people what choices to make!" This is disgusting! I'm with Krugman on this one, but I'd go further: I'd put money on the fact that an Obama presidency won't deliver anything remotely like universal health care.... that is, unless, he pulls the Messiah Wand out of his ass and instantaneously raptures us all into "Unity Heaven" where Conservatives love gay people and Liberals hate the poor.
What really gets me is that Barack Obama's candidacy is predicated on some ridiculous notion that he embodies a post-gender, post-racial, post-partisan and post--mere-mortal candidacy. He's different, you see! He's brings HOPE! He is inspiring! Yeah, he's inspiring alright... in the same way Crash, the movie, was inspiring. It inspired a lot latte sipping White Guilt sufferers to burn a few calories patting themselves on the back for being so above it all. So, if Obama is so unique (so above it all), and if he is such the product of a virgin, a manger, and a city called Bethlehem, then he should be uniquely suited to have taken difficult positions. Why doesn't an Obama supporter name one politically difficult thing he's ever done. And no, I'm not limiting you to his term in the U.S. Senate, for that would be downright unfair! If you've missed all your votes (and you're only a freshman), how can you be expected to do something difficult, much less remarkable? One would have to show up to have dirtied oneself in politics...
The fact is this: B.H.O. is a politician like every other. He just happens to enjoy a unique set of circumstances that both makes his nomination probable and makes it laughable. That set of circumstances, that perfect storm, is a media environment which systematically refuses to treat him with the disdain his presumptuousness deserves. You can't even wait tables in some big cities without experience on your resume, yet this naif is allowed to waltz into the biggest, most difficult job in the world holding out his inexperience as an asset. "Name a moment in which you dealt with supreme crisis," they ask. And he's allowed to get away with mumbling something about a single mother and taking responsibility for his choices. God help us if he becomes Commander in Chief of the military.
Alas, "American Idol -- the Election Season" continues. It's Lord of the Flies around here, for children are in charge.
I'm, sorry. this made me donate again to Obama.com
I cannot tolerate this Clinton person at all. She makes me ill.
Oh goodness.
Look, I don't hate Obama. I hated the Clinton's post-SC shout-out to whites so much I voted for him. Here's my main complaint about Barrack Obama -- running on a campaign of "yes we can" and refusing to speak hard truths. Our nation desperately needs immediately action on energy independence -- nuclear, higher CAFE limits (higher than Congress pushed through), more mass transit subsidies, and in the short term drilling in ANWAR. Illigal immigration is big problem to the working class and "green card amnesty" for 12-20 million people will be the death knell for the African-American underclass (and will make African-American voting power shrink expodentially faster than it has already). I could go on and on.
Obama's popularity is much like our nation's Chinese credit card binge -- just one more way to put off the day of reckoning. You can rightly argue that Hillary Clinton would not govern much differently, but at least there'd be no mass disillusionment with the incrementalism/gut-it-out change for the next 4 years. Anyone who thinks there's money to do differently as long as Bush's tax cuts aren't renewed hasn't looked at the numbers.
Let's say you're a Democrat and you support Hillary for the nomination.
In that case, which Hillary Clinton do you expect will run for president this summer and fall? The quiet technocrat Hillary who can't even run a campaign staff? The weepy emotional you-feel-my-pain Hillary? Or the angry dragon-lady "shame on you" shouting Hillary? Or is there some as-yet-unseen Hillary personality that you expect to manifest itself when she has the nomination?
I ask because this is important: She's remade herself more often than Madonna or Mitt Romney in this campaign so far, and each time she's done so she's increased the degree to which her personality will alienate general-election voters. Is there actually a real Hillary there anymore beneath her many public masks, and how would we know it if we saw it? And does anyone actually think that Hillary Clinton, of all people, wagging her finger and saying "shame on you" to basically any other American, will do anything other than alienate 75 percent of the voting public? Who can seriously believe that Hillary Clinton is in any position to call anyone else out on matters of personal probity and moral uprightness? Her? Of all people?
This isn't about Obama being the greatest thing ever -- it's about Hillary being perhaps the worst candidate Democrats have ever taken seriously in my lifetime. If her supporters want to lose as badly as they seem to, they should have gone with Dennis Kucinich. At least he actually stands for progressive values and policies. There would be a certain dignity, even integrity, in losing behind that sort of nominee. But Hillary? What is shameful is that Democrats would sell our party's soul as cheaply as that.
Rhubarbs,
There's no more "real" Hillary than there was "Bill" -- forget that nonsense you heard in the debate, her campaign is one for a Billary restoration. That's what supporters expect in the Fall (not that it looks likely now). Some recoil and there are valid reasons for that. To others, the Clinton era was the best, most optimistic time of their lives. It's the only time in my lifetime that not only did workers seem to have real "hand" in the job market, but African-Americans closed the economic gap. Rwanda was shameful, but there was true humanitarian intervention under Clinton: Haitti, Kosovo, Bosnia. In contrast, Obama has made the ludicrous statement that "those of us who care about Darfur" don't want intervention and that genocide "is not the criteria" for when we should project force.
Also, I realize the source is somewhat suspect, but did you see Novak today? He has a piece saying the Teamsters endorsed Obama after Clinton inidcated they wouldn't end the federal monitor (pursuant to a 19 year old federal court case settlement) while Obama indicated he would. Let's not pick and chose our disgust here.
I am always amused by Clinton supporters put-downs. Essentially, it's the "drinking the Kool-Aid" and "high on hope" 'meme (or is it high on "dope", yes i'm talking to you "peter1943").
Yet as Obama so aptly noted in the Austin debate, notwitstanding some of his supporters undisciplined zeal, anyone who appreciates Obama's more civil and inclusive tone must be "delusional" or has been "duped." Just like those pot-brownie eating, hackey-sack playing naifs on the editorial boards of every single major newspaper in Texas all of whom endorsed Obama
Re: Hillary I'm reminded of Texas' most famous and respected female politician, Ann Richards, who once said of Pappy Bush: "stick in for in him, he's done" and "poor George, he was born with a silver foot in his mouth."
It appears this is the end for the "inevitable" Billary. The ju-jitsu effect of their negative campaigning only causes further permanent and irreparable damage to their reputations and legacy with the majority of the half of the country that supported them in the 90's.
Rhubarbs.
"The quiet technocrat Hillary who can't even run a campaign staff? "
HRC is running a great campaign. In spite of overwhelming hostility and bias against her in the media, and in spite of automatic support of Obama by Africa-Americans she is still essentially even.
"Who can seriously believe that Hillary Clinton is in any position to call anyone else out on matters of personal probity and moral uprightness? Her? Of all people?"
She is a decent honorable woman.
"This isn't about Obama being the greatest thing ever".
This is about Obama being an unacceptable choice for the President. He brings the worst in the people, intolerance, hate, selfrightness.
Obama does not have a record of reaching out. To the slim extent that he has any record at all, he has been a conventional representative of the very liberal Hyde Park district in Chicago. If he had made anything other than an anti-war speech in that district in 2002, he would have been dumped fast. In the context of the district he represented, his famous sppech in 2002 was simply conventional politics. Since he has been in the Senate, his record has been utterly conventional. In fact, Hillary voted against the Republicans' senate resolution condemning MoveOn for the Petraeus ad, but Obama did not.
Obama claims the high road while using lots of distortions and half-truths to furhter his candidacy. He and his surrogates turned legitimate discussions of race (e.g., the role of a courageous and effective president in getting the 1964 voting rights act passed or the role of the African-American vote in South Carolina) into Obama's own playing of the race card. He did the same in South Caorlina when he used Malcolm X's language ("bamboozled," "okie-dokie," etc.) to smear Hillary and Bill Clinton--two of the strongest proponents of civil and human rights that this nation has had--as racists.
He did the same with the Harry and Louise ad on health care, and he is doing the same with the NAFTA ad.
One of the problems is that Obama supporters do not seem to know how cynical his campaign tactics often are. He even betrayed the woman who made him his successor in Chicago by getting her thrown off the ballot with legal techniclities. He pursues the classic Rovian tactic of accusing his opponents of doing exactly what he is really doing himself.
The racial anxiety of the media and their coverage has made it difficult for this to emerge clearly in the public perception. But the Republicans won't be so inhibited.
pccostello: remember folks like you also said that Obama's candidacy was a "fool's errand' in the face of Hillary's inevitability. Watch him prove the critics wrong again in November. I apologize if i'm too juiced up on hope, but gotta admit I got good reason to believe. Hillary was a stronger candidate than McCain, esp. in a Dem Party primary process that Hillary supporters all but owned just a few short weeks ago.
You might be right. I hope you will be proven wrong for the god of the country.
Hillary may very well lose the nomination to Obama, but he has had enormous advantages in the Dem primaries that count for very little in the general election.
Pccostello and jacobtl: Thank you.
Truth is, I'm a cynical NYC born attorney whose earliest political memories are of Richard Nixon. So this whole "hope" thing is new to me.
But I'm in.
There are several positive references of Hillary to NAFTA on record. For instance, in her memoir, she states "particularly after Bill's SUCCESSES on ...NAFTA."
IN 1996 she said she thought NAFTA was proving its worth, and in another statement promised her husband would "continue to support economic growth in South Texas through intiatives such as NAFTA." (AP). She also stated elswhere that year that NAFTA would bring "widespread benefit." (UPI).
She's been against NAFTA since whe started the campaign - that's it. But Hillary doesn't do "I was wrong." So, she just repeats the current position and gets very nervous when someone points out that what she has been defending for years, and what she says now do NOT coincide. Personally, what really worries me about Clinton is NOT what she used to say about NAFTA - I'm more interested in what she says now. Unfortunately, I do not trust her to be a good president because 1) she is a hawk 2) she is a hawk with bad judgement ( see Iraq and Iran votes) - I can't support someone that had worse judgement on Iraq and Iran than what I had - and 3) she is an inefficient and wasteful manager (see her campaign).
irunkle,
Obama has also often supported free trade. No difference with Hillary. He has "discovered" what a terrible idea NAFTA is only since he's been campaigning in states where that position would sell. Just more of the same carefully calculated rhetoric from him.
pcccostello: come on now. whatever you wanna say about Obama and trade it pales in comparison to Hillary trying to walk away from her much-touted experience and long record in support of NAFTA. Did you see where she tries to say that NAFTA (Clinton's signature gift to corporate special interests) was created by G.H.W. Bush?
Talkin' 'bout Obama on trade? Talk about audacity!
Late night thoughts: Clinton is right about the "Harry and Louise" ad. It's low politics, pure and simple. Not because it's wrong for Obama to point out where he differs from Clinton, but because it's deliberately reminiscent of the 1993-4 insurance company campaign against the Clinton health care plan. Obama should be debating Clinton on the merits of his plan vs hers, not using fear tactics. Unfortutnately, he'd lose if he did, because hers is better. If does him no honor to resort to this type of attach when she's got him merit.
The NAFTA thing: give me a break. Clinton in is trying to rewrite history by making an argument about word choice. It's as bad as "what the meaning of is, is." She's a long time proponent of NAFTA and is now pandering dishonestly to Ohio voters, and this does her no honor.
On her "mad as hell at Obama tone:" I think (I'm afraid, actually) it's good political theater and might work. Obama has been getting both cocky and careless lately. Sounding tough, and calling him on his (as I argue above) misdeads might work for Clinton in Texas and Ohio.
I still prefer Obama over Clinton, but I really want this to be over, one way or the other, before Democrats tear each other apart once again, to the delight of the Republican party.
Wow, a deluge of posts since I wrote on this thread last night. I will tackle my responses one by one.
jacobt,
Obviously you haven't paid attention to what I've been saying. Obama's speeches "divine revelation?" Like the post-Wisconsin one that I (and incidentally, most other Obama "kool-aid drinkers") criticized? What about the fact that for weeks I've been saying his speeches were too vague, too general, that he was not focusing enough of specifics, the nitty-gritty. But no, you're right, I'm just looking for a messiah. I've noticed this a lot with Hillary supporters lately, a condescending dismissal of Obama's support on the basis that anyone who likes him is just hoping a bandwagon, doesn't care about policy specifics, is just in it for the rhetoric and the imagery. There are LOTS of people in both campaigns supporting their candidate for superficial reasons. And there are many others who have substantial reasons for doing so. I won't impugn your motivations if you won't impugn mine.
mollypowell,
I think you make some fair points. That said, the thrust of Obama's health care planner is true even if its tone is too harsh and some of the characterizations misleading (incidentally, I criticized this flyer when I first saw it which, by the way, was weeks ago -- did I really catch it before Clinton? Certainly not before her staff, who had a conference call on it, one of them going so far as to compare it to Nazis marching through Skokie -- Wolfson had to backtrack on that one). Anyway, despite provisions for some of those who can't afford insurance, there will still be a certain group of people for whom it will be difficult to buy insurance. What is Hillary's enforcement mechanism? Why put the need for mandates BEFORE affordability (Obama had said he would not oppose mandates, he just didn't want to start from that standpoint, which is one reason I wish he wouldn't be so harsh in criticizing Hillary on it).
allante,
Well I stand by my statement: "I can't imagine ANY undecided voter being swayed by her tone." Obviously, my imagination fails me in this case! It sounds like some female undecideds are being swayed by this speech, but I don't think it will make heavy inroads with people already leaning towards Obama, or elements of his natural constituency. Your friends thought she sounded like a Commander in Chief. I thought she sounded strident and hectoring. To each their own. We'll see how the majority of voters feel on election day (that is, if this has much of an impact on its decision which I hope it will not, since it's ultimately a trivial event). I too saw the Tina Fey thing (Huckabee was funny in that segment, though the show overall was, as is always the case, terrible). But she defended her on female-solidarity grounds ("bitches get stuff done!"), not something that will appeal to white males and working-class voters who are starting to drift Obama's way.
nturner,
Oh God, where to begin. First of all, I'm perfectly willing to discuss Obama's record and policies with you. But your characterizations of Obama support have nothing to do with me, and are a hindrance to any real debate we could be having on the subject. The "Obama's superficial" meme is becoming a convenient straw man. As for the rest...
"He talks about reaching across the aisle, as if he's ever really done so." He has, in both the state legislature and the Senate. Check his record.
Also, you act as if Obama started attacking Hillary's plan out of the blue. He put out the mailer after months of her mischaracterizing his plan. Both seek universal care, he has a different path than she does, and it's fine to debate the merits of that path. I think she has some good points on her side. But her constant harping on his lack of UHC and "15 million people left out" is very dishonest and misleading. Anyone who wants care could get it under either Obama or Hillary's plan. A fair attack for her to make is the one you do, that free-riders could game the system and cause an imbalance. She started to make this in the last debate. But prior to that, and throughout the campaign, she's taking the easier route, making it sound like Obama is not including 15 million people who desperately want health care. She started these attacks, and she started the distortion. For her (and you) to get on the high horse now is hypocritical.
As for right-wing attacks on the subject of mandates, do you REALLY think the Right couldn't come up with this on its own? By the way, I'm with you part of the way. I thought that mailer was stupid and that Obama should, while defending his own plan which has its merits, tread lightly on anti-mandate ground as he may need to go there himself one day. But the suggestion that conservatives weren't going to go hog-wild over "government-enforced health care" is silly. One practical boon (dreaded word) of Obama's plan is that it denies them this card.
"Why doesn't an Obama supporter name one politically difficult thing he's ever done." OK, passing important civil liberties legislation for videotaped confession, something police officers strongly opposed by he was able to pass by bringing together all parties. And though, you only asked me to name one, various health care reforms with UHC advocates in Illinois considered tremendous progress (he did so by including all parties in the process, something Hillary did not do in '94 and which still does not seem to be her style). There's been plenty written about Obama's record on this site and elsewhere. Avail yourself of the wonders offered by the World Wide Web. Unless you'd like to maintain ignorance as a kind of a self-righteous pro-Hillary armor.
As for crises, Hillary's only response to that question was to reference her marital difficulties and then proceed onto an effective but irrelevant closing statement. I'm not knocking it, I thought it was a great moment for her and at the end it looked like Obama was thinking, "Damn, I should've said that!" But it's disingenuous to imply he was the only one unable to answer the crisis question satisfactorily.
And jacobt, as to your second post:
Hillary Clinton is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
Why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
(pccostello, I thought your recent post was actually pretty good - maybe it's just your company on this board! I disagree that the Clintons are somehow spotless, but I don't think Obama's a saint. I do think he's run a cleaner and more positive campaign than they have, however. I am curious, though, will you vote for Obama in the fall over McCain? I don't ask this as a "gotcha", I'm genuinely curious. Despite moments of exteme loathing for the Clintons, I suspect I would vote for Hillary in the fall, though as an independent, I'm not completely averse to McCain.)
To the extent that Obama actually has a record on anything, he has supported free trade until now.
Charles,
Thank you for your question, though I am surprised that you don't find all of my posts brilliant and illumiunating. ;-] I have never voted for a republican. I can't quite imagine myself doing so. But this is the closest I've gotten. I really don't want any more people to die in Iraq if policy change can prevent it. (Though, as George Stephanopolis points out, the facts on the ground there are changing.) I don't want McCain appointees on the Supreme Court for the next forty years, and there are likely to be a number of appointees coming up for the next president. I don't want to live in a nation where so many of my neighbors don't have basic health care. So, more or less, on policy grounds, I don't have any choice.
But I remain intensely uncomfortable with Obama and very wary of the antics of his supporters. I don't like watching parades, and I even less like marching in them. There is an episode in Milan Kundera's "The Book of Laughter and Forgetting" where a group of believers join hands and begin to stamp their feet and chant and rotate in a circle until they gradually leave the ground and float off into the air. That, to me, is so much of the Obama campaign. It's a rock concert. It's the iPod. It's chit chat at Starbucks. It's Oprah chanting "Is he the One?" Yuck. The Pied Piper/Music Man/messianic quality deeply disturbs me.
The best distinguishiing thing about Obama to me is that he is part African-American. That makes me happy in the same way it made me happy when Colin Powell became Secretary of State and Condoleeza Rice became National Security Advisor and then Secretary--not because of their policies but because their personhood was healing.
Obama's rhetorical gifts, I think, would ultimately be a source of disappointment because he is implicitly or explicitly promising a situation that will fail to materialize. When he fails to deliver on what he promises, the disillusionment will be strong. People turn on failed idols.
I think Hillary is a woman of depth, compassion, and competence. In her politics, she bridges the gap between the powerful and those who are struggling in a way that Obama does not. She has been on the right side of issues her entire life, has drawn fire, and has flourished. She has a depth of soul. Although I disagree with virtually all of McCain's policies, I think he has that depth also, as shown by his postion on torutre and his maverick departures from party discipline. I do not think Obama has it.
nturner, shorter posts please, and more on topic if you hope to be read, at least jacob and pccostello keep them brief and to the point. The topic is the two ads, no one has disputed the veracity of either but instead the politics. As I said you can't complain that Obama can't stand up to the Republicans criticism, but complain at any directed at Hillary.
At worst Obama took the Newsday summary of her position, as a boon to the economy, and used it in the ad. But, in fact, it was a boon, American agricultural products are the norm here, so successful it has caused the collapse of much of the agricultural sector (hence campsinos going to America). Why would Hillary want to run away from that (the boon, not the side effect)? The jobs that have been lost have not been to Mexico but to China, which has nothing to do with NAFTA. Why Hillary would not nail him on this, instead of crying dirty politics, is ridiculous.
I have said before, I thought she was wonderful in both debates and on Letterman. Warm, engaging, very knowledgeable.That was the candidate who could have won, I honestly don't understand why she holds on to that pig Mark Penn, who turns her into a scheming attack dog on the stump, both disingenious and cold. In one campaign he has done worse the Bob Shrum in 7. Is there really anyone who can defend him at this point?
One of her staffers, can recall her name, was the guiding force behind the last two debates, got into a huge fight with Penn because he wanted her to come out screaming. Only advice I have Hillary is fire Penn, promote her.
The Rezko-Obama homestead raises its ugly head, with clarity and force. Look for he line about those Rezko recommedned for state jobs and those whom Obama recommedned.
www.nypost.com/.../print.php
In her politics, she bridges the gap between the powerful and those who are struggling in a way that Obama does not. (and the evidence is where? name one struggling person she has personally lifted up) She has been on the right side of issues her entire life? So you are in favor of banning flag burning, the patriot act, the surveillance wire tap program, authorizing the war in Iraq and now Iran, and are in favor of NAFTA? Incidently, I am in favor of the final 3, which is why I can live with McCain, I am against the flag burning vote, and the patriot act, etc. I am just suprised you are more conservative than I am.
I certainly don't think Obama is on the right side of all issues. Who is the one guilty of hyperbole?
" from the article: While there is no suggestion that Obama has done anything illegal, the Rezko trial will focus attention upon the propriety of a deal between the senator and Rezko"
Propriety? That is it, after 20 some years in politics the most that anyone can come up with is one deal that lacks propriety? Here is the definition of the word: appropriateness to the purpose or circumstances; suitability. conformity to established standards of good or proper behavior or manners.
Yes, Obama perhaps had bad manners.
Bill Clinton perjured himself, a clear felony, and only his high office saved his ass. Hillary Clinton sat on the board of Walmart, which has a vast slave labor force captive in China, and she did nothing. I can fill pages full of Clintons impropriety, immorality, and even criminality.
pccostello, keep saying Rezco, as Hillary continues to sink. She is like a woman covered in her own shit complaining that Obama farted.
nturner: excellent post.
blackton:What Obama is doing with these flyers is worse than just using a quote from a subsequently retracted paper piece. I say this because a day after this all came out his campaign is still insisting that every aspect of both flyers is true. We all agree that this is not the case, so I find the fact that he won't retract his claims reprehensible.
I also find it very frustrating that we have to deal with a very weak analysis of the differences between their health care plans. There was an excellent analysis of HRC's health care planb and how it had evolved since the 90s to produce a plan that could actually suceed because (1) companies would also support it and (2) since enrolement is mandatory you actually stand a chance at keeping the costs in check by also having those that don't need health insurance buying in. This is the same way any other kind of insurance works (auto, home). I think this is a _huge_ difference between the two plans. As Clinton said at the debate, Social Security would not work if it weren't universal. It drives me crazy when the press just says, he says this, she says that, and doesn't try to actually talk about what could get through congress and be signed into law.
My biggest fear now is that BHA will coast to victory just because voters are tired of following the electron process. I really don't think his performance in the primaries is indicative of his chances in the generals.
jckasper: who is we? what is untrue? Hillary, in previous statements, has applauded the success of NAFTA (and she is and was right!) but because NAFTA is unpopular in Ohio, now he is saying how bad it was, and complaining the Obama won't let her have it both ways. I disagree with Obama about NAFTA, but at least I know his position. Who really knows what is her position.
And as to the health care, Hillary is flat out wrong. Mandates are a failure in Mass. They have not come close to solving the situation, in fact have made it worse because it has turned off many people to the system.
Can you tell me in American history where individuals have had to pay after tax income to a for profit company merely on the condition of being alive? It was tried in Mass. and failed. So Hillary's idea is to make it 300 times larger. How will she enforce it? She doesn't say.
Here is a critical point you disregard. Social Security is a Federal program, financed by taxes. Compliance works because it is done at the employer level. Mandates are financed by taxpayers with compliance done by the taxpayers themselves. Do you propose police stop people walking on the streets and demand their insurance cards?
Here is a simple solution to the problem of free riders. Increase the portion of the tax that pays for Medicaid, with the extra money dedicated to payments for the uninsured.. If people have insurance
they can get that tax rebated. Compliance is universal, and is income fair so that middle income people who can't afford good policies will essentially be covered by Medicaid (a federal program)
Is this not better than mandates? And I am a complete nobody.
Obamas plan will pass, Hillarys won't because mandates will never pass. After Obama passes his plan he will find it easier to bump up medicaid taxes then impose unenforceable mandates, don't you think?
Blackton,
"Clinton sat on the board of Walmart, which has a vast slave labor force captive in China, and she did nothing"
Didn't you notice that the verb tenses will not make any sense if you would think about them :-)
Did Walmart have vast slave labor force captive in China in 80s? Give me a break.
pc,
I never liked the Oprah thing either, and I'm supporting him in spite of that. I do think he has depth, though I concede (and have conceded) that he hasn't done enough to emphasize that, although in the past week that's started to change. Because of this, and because Hillary's now thrown down the gauntlet, Tuesday's debate should be very interesting.
I think, aside from the merits of her attack (which I've already condemned as dubious), it's just plain bad strategy. OK, Tina Fey likes it. But "Bitches get things done!" will not be a winning message with constituencies she needs to win. Everyone seems to agree she does well when she comes off as warm and human. And it's not just her. People don't seem to like angry candidates this year. Look at the failure of Edwards and the (relative) success of Huckabee, not to mention Obama. This is clearly Penn's doing and I agree with blackton, she should stop listening to Penn (not fire him, since that would draw bad press) and promote Grunwald -- I think that's who it was. Can't we all agree that her closing in the debate the other day was much stronger than her silly hysterics in Ohio? And that, at the very least, the two provide an uncomfortable contrast for voters vetting her suitability for the demanding, high-pressure job of President?
and one last thing, my idea does encourage people to buy insurance, uninsured people will be paying taxes, yet still will be liable for their medical expenses, doctors visits will be out of pocket, and mid range costs hospitals can sue and garnish wages. essentiallly people will see they are paying taxes but their income level will be too high for them to walk from their medical bills. Hence, self-interest will lead them to seek out insurance. If not, if they are lucky and have no need for insurance, they will still be paying taxes and funding those others.
And if Medicaid is more efficient and cost effective than private insurance, there might even be savings for the overall economy. This might even wind up being a back door route to single payer (but don't tell anyone)
jacob, that was when Walmart initiated their plans. Do you think this all sprung up overnight? and, of course, that doesn't excuse Walmarts treatment of unions or environmental safety standards. Give me a break, or are you in favor of Walmart as it was then? Do you really want to go down that route? My point is that Rezco is nothing compared to Billary, so stop bringing it up!! And as Rosie baby says above, she does better when she doesn't.
Rosey, thanks I think it was Grunwald too. You are right, she should just nod and smile at Penn, pretend to listen, and maybe she can get out of this alive, and if she doesn't win, let Penn write his memoirs at how Hillary lost because she didn't listen to him, and see if anyone buys it. I am glad Penn is a white rich man, that way I can really criticize him, if Penn were a woman, I would be called a sexist pig, but luckily since he is a man, I can call him the jackass that he is and no one has complained or defended him.
charlie,
naw, you're wrong. she's both tough and sweet. that wins.
"jacob, that was when Walmart initiated their plans"
Do you have any evidence?
jacob, yes, I am sorry, I should have said Walmarts sweatshops that they had, and as reported on Dateline in the early 90's Although Wal-Mart's "Made in America" campaign was still nominally in effect, "Dateline" showed that store-level associates had posted "Made in America" signs over merchandise actually produced in far away sweatshops. This while Hillary was on the board. I am sorry, it wasn't Chinese sweatshops but other asian ones. Does that make it better?
Please, please, please defend Walmart when Hillary was on the board, but do it after you read this:
reclaimdemocracy.org/.../history.php
Google Versus Hillary, google wins every time.
You know Jacob, if Hillary were to just say she is sorry she ever associated with Walmart, it would be much easier. Honestly though, how can you defend Walmart or her involvement on it? I admit, I made a mistake above when I thought Walmart had chinese sweatshops, instead of other nations. you know, faulty memory. I wasn't aware you view some sweatshops as being good, and others when in China as being bad. honestly, how much evidence do you want? There are 576,000 websites detailing her perfidy. I admit I made a mistake, will you just admit that Hillary made a far bigger one?
and this from another website:
And the board Hillary Clinton sat on was rabidly anti-union, was exploiting sweatshop labor around the world, discriminating against women workers, forcing workers to labor off the clock and destroying communities that did not want them. This should not be a shock: Clinton was a partner in the Rose law firm, one of the most active anti-union law firms in the country.
So, the question still remains: what did Hillary Clinton do—or, not do—when she served on the board of Wal-Mart? Maybe, if her memory was refreshed, she could tell us how she protested the company’s relentless union-busting, expressed feminist outrage at the widespread discrimination against women and was horrified that the mushrooming wealth of the Wal-Mart family was made possible on the backs of slave labor around the world.
Her behavior then, when the spotlight was not on and her record did not matter to voters, should tell voters a lot more about her principles and values than the carefully orchestrated image New Yorkers try to figure out now. The voters deserve to know.
Again, Hillary vs. google, Hillary loses big time.
Anyone see this Frank Rich piece in the Times? Talk about hitting the nail on the head:
www.nytimes.com/.../24rich.html
"Please, please, please defend Walmart when Hillary was on the board, but do it after you read this"
I don't need to defend Walmart I need to defend HRC. If HRC is responsible for all successes and failures of Walmart, she should be the next president because she is a person of enormous talents.
CFK,
Why do you think firing Penn would draw bad press? If Rich is right that Penn is to HRC what Rumsfeld was to Bush, it could buy her some time. Not much, of course, but it would signal to supporters and donors that she wasn't just another bullheaded loyalty-fetishist willing to lose at all costs.
jacob, that was a terrible response. Again, here is the question: So, the question still remains: what did Hillary Clinton do—or, not do—when she served on the board of Wal-Mart?
I sometimes think one of Hillary's biggest problems are her supporters themselves. At least here on this thread they have been remarkably unpersuasive. how many threads have there been here where not one has effectively rebutted the truth of the two ads, that Hillary has praised NAFTA in the past, and that Mandates will force people to buy health insurance, regardless of real life circumstances like high mortgages on depreciating homes, college loans, high col expenses etc. if they don't have it. None. The only criticism is he used Newdays summary of her previous words equating NAFTA as a boon, whereas she had just said it was a great success. So we are to take it that Hillary views Bill's passing of NAFTA to be a disaster?
No Hillary supporter has rebutted the substance of the ad, only the politics of it. Very weak.
some choice Hillary NAFTA quotes:
The Buffalo News reports that back in 1998, Clinton attended the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and thanked praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Yes, you read that right: She traveled to Davos to thank corporate interests for their campaign ramming NAFTA through Congress.
On November 1, 1996, United Press International reported that on a trip to Brownsville, Texas, Clinton "touted the president's support for the North American Free Trade Agreement, saying it would reap widespread benefits in the region."
The Associated Press followed up the next day noting that Hillary Clinton touted the fact that "the president would continue to support economic growth in South Texas through initiatives such as the North American Free Trade Agreement."
In her memoir, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for president in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."
But she never said "boon." So how about it Hillaryites, rebut what was untrue in the ads. Because you can't, when Hillary spouts faux outrage, she and you look like fools.
All of this sniping over an engineered outburst. Why aren't more people figuring out that the perfect rhyme for "Nader 2000" is "Hillary Clinton 2008". Or has everyone forgotten the $54 M spent by the rePublicans to unseat our democratically elected president? Remember all of the attention that was focused on HRC's law firm? Great. Maybe you think that the rePublicans have forgotten Whitewater? Why not just vote for McCain?
Again, here is the question: So, the question still remains: what did Hillary Clinton do—or, not do—when she served on the board of Wal-Mart?
I don't know. Do you know what Obama did in all their jobs?
"I sometimes think one of Hillary's biggest problems are her supporters themselves.
I think one of Barak's biggest problems are his supporters themselves. This is my main reason why I would never vote for him.
"But she never said "boon." "
Exactly. The add can be misleading but should be factually correct.
"and that Mandates will force people to buy health insurance, regardless of real life circumstances like high mortgages on depreciating homes, college loans, high col expenses etc. if they don't have it."
Yes, people have to pay income taxes, SS and mediicare taxes as well as pay a fair share for their healh care one way or another. Bill Gates is not going to pay for all our health care, we all have to pay our fair share. Obama has mandates that would force people to buy health insurance for the children, regardless of real life circumstances like high mortgages on depreciating homes, college loans, high col expenses etc. if they don't have it."
Obama demagogy just proves that he is unfit to be a president.
CharlesFK,
Hillary was instrumental in every crisis Bill faced. Moreover, she experienced marital crisis in the White House played over and over by a 24 hr. news cycle. And she was the Senator from New York when we were attacked on 9/11. All of this was flooding through my head when she was asked the question. I think she decided after Obama's non-answer that she'd go for likability points rather than beating him over the head. But I feel quite sure that reason Obama chose his lame answer was, quite simply, that he had no crisis to discuss.
The differences between these two people and their competency levels for the job of President is undeniable.
"I think one of Barak's biggest problems are his supporters themselves. This is my main reason why I would never vote for him" That's a pretty terrible main reason not to vote for someone.
nturner, well you can selectively chose what you want to believe, but the fact is that they both gave non-answers. And I'm sure she had her conclusion planned all night, and didn't want to let the last question get in the way of it. Not that there's anything wrong with that, good for her. She knocked it out of the park.
As for her & Bill. I for one am tired of the Clinton show. What can she take credit for in his administration? It's all shady as to where and when her hand was played. The only major initiative we know she ran was an unmitigated disaster. No, I don't have much confidence in her competency as an administrator. Both her & Obama have done well as legislators, but so far the only administrative experience we've seen from either of them (if we generously decide to discount the health care debacle) is how they ran their campaigns. And we've all seen how that's turned out.
"naw, you're wrong. she's both tough and sweet. that wins."
It hasn't been.
blackton, the sharpest Hillary defender (or at least Barack demystifier) is lymon.
Who, incidentally, voted for Obama when the chips were down.
You're right about one thing: the Lewinsky scandal did indeed affect Hillary personally, and she blew it: she had to choose between (i) divorcing Bill and saving her integrity or (ii) sticking with him for political reasons (and the false belief that he could deliver her the White House).
She might be better positioned today if she'd chosen her integrity then. That disaster, as much as anything, reflects her poor judgment and the limitlessness of her personal ambition.
Re 9/11, what did she have to do other than figure out how to get on the news as much as possible? I remember thinking she was pretty unbearable that day. And I was Hillary-neutral at the time.
At the Dallas rally Wednesday, he was introduced as "the one man with the integrity of President Kennedy . . . the morals of Dr. Martin Luther King, the virtues of Cesar Chavez." The crowd even cheered when he blew his nose mid-speech.
LA Times
CharlesFosterKane,
""I think one of Barak's biggest problems are his supporters themselves. This is my main reason why I would never vote for him" That's a pretty terrible main reason not to vote for someone."
The main selling Obama's point is that he is uniter, not a a divider. Based on writing of majority of Obama supporters in the media and the blogs, I see that he unites people in intolerance and hate.
VIVA OBAMA 2008
This is my new favorite song.
Viva Obama Viva! :-)
jacob, as I said above and you ignored it, here it is again. Here is a critical point you disregard. Social Security is a Federal program, financed by taxes. Compliance works because it is done at the employer level. Mandates are financed by taxpayers with compliance done by the taxpayers themselves. Do you propose police stop people walking on the streets and demand their insurance cards?
You clearly demonstrate what’s wrong with Obama followers. They will defend an Obama position no matter how wrong this position is. Let me repeat, Bill Gates is not going to pay for all our health care, we all have to pay our fair share.
BTW, Do you propose police stop people walking on the streets and demand their CHILDREN insurance cards?
jacob, ever hear of schip? As I said way above, I disagree with mandates in any case. The fact is is Obama is partly wrong for demanding it for children, Hillary is totally wrong for demanding it of everyone. So I am not defending Obama's position, just saying it is better than Hillary's. Did you read my post above about how to solve the problem?
As to children, every child in america should be covered by schip, regardless of income level, just as education is a right for children, so should health care be.
And the solution for free rider adults is a medicaid tax to fund charity care, with those that have insurance getting a rebate at the end of the year.
So I have already criticized Obama's position (especially in another thread, where I listed all of his mistakes, the small employer loophole is another one) and then you accuse me of defending Obama's position no matter how wrong it is? You owe me an apology my man. And I posted that other information days ago.
So what is wrong with my idea?