Who Were the Boos For?

Update: Here's just the 13 second clip of the end of Hillary's statement, Olbermann and the booing:


The tv pundits are saying that the audience at the AFL-CIO debate booed Hillary after her criticism of Obama for saying what he thinks about Pakistan.

I've watched the replay twice. Her answer was done, there were no boos until Olbermann interjected asking Chris Dodd to respond. That's when the audience began booing.

I think they were booing Olbermann for giving Dodd instead of Obama the chance to respond.

On a related note, Thomas Edsall, writing on Huffington Post, has some campaign contribution numbers from Open Secret for Clinton, Obama and Edwards.


In addition, the campaign web site Opensecrets.org reports that Edwards has received $6.5 million from lawyers, many of them trial lawyers; $668,590 from employees in the investment banking industry; $254,297 from officials of the health care industry and $218,290 from operators of hedge funds.

Obama has been no slouch in this territory, according to Opensecrets. Employees of investment banking firms gave him $3.2 million; real estate companies $1.3 million; health companies, $701,993; and hedge funds $652,105.

Clinton's contributions fit much the same pattern.

The reality is that CEOs, managers and officers of companies with large stakes in public policy are major sources of campaign contributions. Except for mega-rich self-funders like Steve Forbes and Ross Perot, every serious contender for the nomination has tapped into the same general universe of donors.

The point being, says Edsall,

Edwards and Obama may not be taking contributions from federally registered lobbyists, but that does not mean that their money is as pure as they'd like us to believe.

Final note: MSNBC's David Shuster says in the Obama-Dodd fight over Obama's Pakistan statement, Dodd was right and Obama was misleading about his prior statement.

My live-blogging of the debate is here.

< AFL-CIO Democratic Candidates' Debate | Does Anyone Want The Troops Out of The Iraq Debacle? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Video link: (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:35:09 PM EST
    Comments Destabilize Pakistan But Not Iraq? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by sanman on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:11:33 PM EST
    Why is it that Obama CAN'T speak freely about Pakistan without causing "instability" to it, but Hillary CAN speak freely about Iraq without causing instability to it? (ie. the entire Democratic party are talking about withdrawal every chance they can get, and when the Bush admin warns they may aggravate the situation there, the entire party hotly responds that political debate should not be suppressed due to Whitehouse "scare tactics")
    So are we saying that only Pakistanis watch TV and Iraqis don't? How does this selective hearing work?
    It's hypocrisy.

    It May Have to Do With (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:17:15 PM EST
    The fact that Iraq is in total chaos and quite instable. Pakistan does not want to be like Iraq so.....

    Get the idea.


    pakistan does not want to be like Iraq...? (none / 0) (#32)
    by Prithimp on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:01:31 AM EST
    I am sorry not sure i understood..
    Are you saying that Pakistan does not want to be in total chaos and so it will not descend into chaos if America unilaterally sends in troops into Pakistan or Afganistan?

    No (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 10:57:20 AM EST
    I was responding to sanman's absurd comparison.  Obama's comment about Pakistan is different that Hilary's about Iraq.

    Apples and oranges.

    The wingnut cry that criticism of Iraq harms our troops is utter BS. While Obama's self serving words regarding Pakistan are incendiary and counterproductive.


    I was at the forum, and the boos were for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ShochuJohn on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:11:53 AM EST
    Having attended the presidential forum this evening, I can tell you, without a doubt, that the boos were for Hillary, namely her suggestion that politicians ought not to always say what they think.  The boos started at this point, though this was not picked up clearly on TV until after she finished speaking.  The crowd reaction to this comment precipitated the subsequent Obama comment that the American people ought to be involved in these discussions.

    It was my sense that Hillary got booed because her comment came off as arrogant, that somehow the people are not entitled to honesty and forthrightness from their candidates.

    Full disclosure, I joined in the booing.

    The Boos Were for Hillary (none / 0) (#34)
    by OkieFromMuskogee on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    From watching the video, I have to agree with ShochuJohn.  The noise starts before she finishes her statement, and then it builds.  The first time I watched, I was stuck on what a stupid thing she had said and didn't even realize that the moderator was addressing Sen. Dodd.

    Obama on Pakistan (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Prithimp on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 01:49:28 AM EST

    I am Indian and have travelled extensively and spoken with people across  Europe/South east Asia and China  .I also count among my friends a number of Americans.
    I can tell you one thing, the one reason American politicians (as distinct from the american public) are so unpopular today is because they have arrogantly  assumed that they  have a monopoly on righteousness and appropriate the right to  a unilateral  attack on a sovereign country (based on " actionable intelligence"of cource (whatever that means!)
    History is a witness to the fact that this  "actionable intelligence " has most often been incorrect with Iraq being only the most recent example. In any case there are laws that govern international relationships .
    Consider this. For decades members of  number of organisations designated by India as terrorist organisations have been granted politcal asylum in the United States(/Canada/Uk and a few  other european countries) as politcal refugees . India has information that a number of these people are personally responsible for bomb blasts in India
    while others are responsible for raising funds for these organisations. India has been fighting a number of extraditon cases with the US (and with these other countries ) for years with no progress.
    More than a 100,000 Indians have died in these terrorist attacks (Kashmir,Punjab mainly)
    Would it then be ok for India  to take matters into her own hands and attack the US.
    I DON'T THINK SO!! it is a recipe for disaster!.

    Do unto your brothers as you would have  them do unto  you!

    One other point.
    When the Indian Government decided to go nuclear I was really upset as I am very anti war . But the day America decided to go against the UN and unilaterally attacked Iraq I was glad that we had nuclear weapons  .I feel safer  that  another  country (and here read the US as it is the only country consistently doing this) would be forced to think really hard before they unilaterally attacked my country because they disagreed with the way we were approaching an issue.I am ashamed that i feel this way but l am glad we have a nuclear deterrent.
    This US foreign policy and the insecurity it generates   is probably the biggest reason fuelling the race for Nuclear weapons in the Middle East (read Iran).

    Obama WAS VERY IRESPONSIBLE in what he said abt Pakistan.
    Also considering his main theme is Change he's not  obviously terribly original where this is concerned (ref Joejoejoe and history). And quite disingenuous when he projects himself as being especially so in this case  
    It is also quite disturbing that this is actually gaining him points with an audience I would consider to be more rational ,informed and sophiticated where such rabble rousing is concerned.

    He also has not read his history. Have you guys forgotten this mess started when the American politiians decided to get into bed with the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to get rid of the Russians in Afganistan! That was a long and bloody war. What makes you think the second time around is going to be easier. Afganistan  lends itself to guerilla warfare . It will be another Iraq.
    Sorry abt the looooooooooong post but I am really quite upset!

    SPIN (none / 0) (#1)
    by Jgarza on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:09:41 PM EST
    Hillary got booed. She takes money from lobbyists and Edwards and Obama don't. Those are the facts now spin away!

    MSNBC's reporter in the crowd said they were for (none / 0) (#2)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:14:33 PM EST

    Pretty clear they were.  And she deserved them for what was either a gaffe or a sign of being really, really, really out of touch.

    Watch the clip for yourselves and decide (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:17:15 PM EST
    I think Jonathan Alter was wrong. There's too much of a delay between the end of what Hillary said and the booing... and Olbermann was speaking in between, calling on Dodd for a response.

    I watched it three times, and it's pretty (none / 0) (#4)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:22:06 PM EST
    clear her 'not in front of the voters' statement didn't go over too well.

    I give conclusive weight to the Kris Jansing, who was in the crowd.


    Post (none / 0) (#5)
    by Jgarza on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:22:08 PM EST
    Can you post a clip.  It seemed clear at the time, but I haven't watched it repeatedly.

    Crooks and Liars has the clip (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:40:31 PM EST
    here, it's at the end. Hillary speaks, it goes to Olbermann -- the boos start when Olbermann goes to Dodd for a response.

    At least that's my take.


    I hear boos about 1/2 to a full second (none / 0) (#10)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:48:08 PM EST
    before Olbermann speaks up.

    No (none / 0) (#18)
    by Maryb2004 on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:04:23 PM EST
    I listened. They were booing Hillary.  

    they were booing hillary (none / 0) (#31)
    by Stewieeeee on Wed Aug 08, 2007 at 03:09:34 AM EST
    obama supporters at the debate were booing hillary.

    Comcast sucks (none / 0) (#8)
    by Cheesehead on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:35:31 PM EST
    Unfortunately, Comcast dropped MSNBC from my cable network selections.  (Did Murdoch not like what was being broadcast?)  I'll never vote for Hillary anyway, but I would have liked to have seen it.

    Obama and Pakistan (none / 0) (#11)
    by joejoejoe on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:49:15 PM EST
    Obama's remarks are a simple restatement of US policy as of September 18, 2001. The fact that sitting US Senators who voted for the same policy Obama is articulting today think it's a gaffe for Obama to restate what they voted for in Congress is a farce.


    "I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear. There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again.  If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

    AUMF, 9/18/01, passed 98-0 in the Senate, 420-1 in the House:

    Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

    (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

    If Musharaff won't act to get Bin Laden we're authorized to "use all necessary and appropriate force" to get him. That's what the AUMF/Terrorism states and Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, and Biden ALL voted for it. Obama didn't say he was going to invade Pakistan. He said he was going to terminate Bin Laden if he Musharaff would not. Is that controversial?

    Did I miss anything? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:49:24 PM EST

    Well, on defunding only Kucinich passed (none / 0) (#13)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:53:01 PM EST
    your test.  

    Dodd went after Obama on Pakistan and got the worst of it.

    Kucinich was on fire.

    Biden blew off a widow's question and attacked Edwards.

    Hillary got booed for saying that "when you're running for president, you should't always say what you think."  Jeralyn disagrees.


    Dodd RULES!!!!!!!!! (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:01:04 PM EST

    I also disagree (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:54:35 PM EST
    Dodd got the worst of it in the Obama/Dodd spat. Especially since MSNBC reported Obama mislead the audience on his own speech. Obama said what Dodd said he said.

    MSNBC got that wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:07:41 PM EST
    From Obama's speech:

    As President, I would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional, and I would make our conditions clear: Pakistan must make substantial progress in closing down the training camps, evicting foreign fighters, and preventing the Taliban from using Pakistan as a staging area for attacks in Afghanistan.

    I understand that President Musharraf has his own challenges. But let me make this clear.  There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will.

    And Pakistan needs more than F-16s to combat extremism. As the Pakistani government increases investment in secular education to counter radical madrasas, my Administration will increase America's commitment. We must help Pakistan invest in the provinces along the Afghan border, so that the extremists' program of hate is met with one of hope. And we must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair - our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan, it is a democratic ally.

    HIllary is a girl (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:57:05 PM EST
    and Biden doesn't believe in partisanship.

    Joe has the DLC and Broder locked up (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:01:27 PM EST
    He lost the widow vote though. (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Geekesque on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:13:23 PM EST
    Jeebus, talk about tone deaf.

    I tuned out for 5 minutes (none / 0) (#21)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:17:36 PM EST
    and missed that. I think I'm going to go back to not watching debates. I didn't learn anything useful tonight.

    OT (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:26:11 PM EST
    Kevin Drum did some great blogging today.

    Ya'll should go read it.

    link? (none / 0) (#23)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:28:11 PM EST
    I never read him.

    Here (none / 0) (#24)
    by squeaky on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:32:01 PM EST
    gotcha (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 10:32:57 PM EST