Truce: Clinton, Obama Pull Negative Ads

Via TPM:
Earlier today CNN reported that the Hillary campaign has yanked their radio ad in South Carolina hitting Obama for saying the GOP is the "party of ideas." The Hillary campaign is claiming that it was scheduled to come down. Now the Obama campaign has responded in kind with their S.C. ad hitting Hillary for being willing to "say anything" to win. Obama spokesperson Bill Burton tells us: "Once we confirmed that Clinton was taking down her attack ad, we instructed radio stations in South Carolina to take down our response ad."
What do I think? I think this confirms that John Edwards has been moving up. Negative ads always knock down both the attacker and the attackee. Edwards seemed too far behind to constitute a threat. Looks like that calculation was wrong. But I must say, all the handwringing about this from the Left blogs and the glee filled attacks on the Clintons by the Media are simply ridiculous. No one was called corrupt. And only Obama challenged Clinton's integrity. [Many of] [t]he Left blogs in particular provided a pathetic display of double standards. They are not to be trusted in this campaign imo. I do not question their integrity. I question their rationality on this. They have a horse in this race - Barack Obama.

< Huffpo Launches Huffpollstrology | Republicans In Florida >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    The only left blog. . . (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:01:34 PM EST
    I really read is dKos and, to be fair, the anti-Clinton hysteria there has mostly come from the peanut gallery and not from the front pagers.

    I guess TPM too -- which I think started out pro-Clinton but has now become somewhat anti.

    I meant, of course. . . (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:01:59 PM EST
    the only one besides this inestimable one.

    what kind of a blog addiction is that? (none / 0) (#42)
    by Klio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:44:10 PM EST
    I felt so much better when you copped to one recently.  Now I learn I'm the only one wasting my life on this here interwebby thing ...

    I read 5 (none / 0) (#43)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:47:35 PM EST
    altho two/three are not every day.

    this much is clear (none / 0) (#65)
    by Klio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:10:12 PM EST
    I need an intervention!

    I do not mean the FPers at daily kos (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:20:09 PM EST
    they are not playing in this.

    Markos a little. But not that much.


    Thanks as always. (none / 0) (#54)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    You do a great service to all of us by speaking the truth.  And a small side benefit is that people like me don't question their sanity in the face of relentless spin from everywhere against Hillary Clinton.

    I felt that way in 2000. Felt I was the ONLY one thinking the media was brutal towards Al Gore.  The treatment of Hillary now, and of Al then are very similar. Back then, sometimes, I felt like I had lost my sanity.


    I brought this us here last week (none / 0) (#61)
    by DA in LA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    And was, of course, ridiculed.

    It is why I think Hillary will have a very difficult time winning the GE


    Gore (none / 0) (#88)
    by felizarte on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:29:18 PM EST
    Gore was not tough enough; not thick skinned enough; could not handle it as well as the Clinton team.  And Lieberman was not a help at all. Plus, he was running against a Bush who knew all the tricks.  I am relieved that W. messed up big time that it ruined any chance for Jeb Bush, or else they would be priming him for the next presidential election.

    The media is going to look very silly (none / 0) (#117)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:53:26 PM EST
    if they go from backing Obama against Hillary in the primary to backing McCain against Hillary in the GE

    are the regular rec. list folks (none / 0) (#97)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:45:14 PM EST
    in the peanut gallery?  I'm quite disappointed with Bob Johnson, who has entirely lost his sense of humor and my support.

    He gave me a reply in the Oprah/union (none / 0) (#118)
    by ding7777 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:56:19 PM EST
    diary that was realy foul-mouthed

    No particular title, since I couldn't (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by scribe on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:03:36 PM EST
    come up with one inoffensive enough to everyone to pass any form of muster.  But I will leave this paragraph from the main post (emphasis added) to highlight, well, anyone can name it:

    But I must say, all the handwringing about this from the Left blogs and the glee filled attacks on the Clintons by the Media are simply ridiculous. No one was called corrupt. And only Obama challenged Clinton's integrity. The Left blogs in particular provided a pathetic display of double standards. They are not to be trusted in this campaign imo.

    I've gone back through the 150 posts on this site prior to today, and the level of invective pro-HRC and anti-Obama has been appalling, and the pervasiveness of double standards reprehensible.  And that's without talking about the repeated stick-poking and pot-stirring during prior attempts to calm the waters.

    If people want to have politics as blood sport, it'll happen.  Just be careful what you stir up. You've already decried my comments as "abusive", a misuse of language I will not characterize further than to say I have a lot in reserve.

    your post s are tiresome (none / 0) (#9)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    and repetitive. Blah blah blah.  

    Couldn't agree more (none / 0) (#25)
    by DA in LA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:23:14 PM EST
    Pot, meet Kettle.

    Peace (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Saul on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:04:00 PM EST
    They need to make peace now and prepare for making one ticket especially after super tuesday.  It's going to happen anyway.

    I dont buy that anymore (none / 0) (#11)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:07:34 PM EST
    because I am not seeing what value either he personally or his campaign people bring with them

    the Obama halo (none / 0) (#12)
    by diplomatic on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:11:00 PM EST
    that aura has evaporated pretty quickly, hasn't it?

    I never saw a halo (none / 0) (#15)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    I saw and see an intelligent person with great oratory skills and oh boy, can he thrill/inspire!  But I dont see what that adds to HRC's chances of winning if she is the nominee.  I think she could find a military type from the South if she needs to outgun McCain.

    Wes Clark (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by trillian on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:41:31 PM EST
    Clinton/Clark is my preferred ticket.

    That's Still My Bet (none / 0) (#44)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:47:47 PM EST
    Wes Clark followed her all through NH, working rooms, tryiing to help her.  They seem to have a genuinely close relationship and he's probably done more than anyone else (or at least anyone else who is eligible to be VP, heh) to help her win the nomination.

    I know that there have been tickets where folks hated each other, but I tend to think the genuine dislike that's developed not only between the candidates but also their campaigns makes it unlikely this time.  I can see Hillary Clinton getting over a lot of things, but I don't see her getting over the insinuation that she personally is racist or the twisting of her MLK comments (by everything I've read he was a huge influence on her life and a personal hero of hers).

    And with Wes Clark, who is extremely popular among many progressive activists, as an option, I think she can get away without nominating Obama.  She still has a lot of support among African American leaders (John Lewis, et al) and that will help her bring the vote back to her in November.  

    The one caveat to this is if the delegates are so close he - or his supporters - can force him onto the ticket.


    I also think..... (none / 0) (#48)
    by trillian on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:53:05 PM EST
    ....it wouldn't hurt the first WOMAN CIC to have a General by her side.....especially if it's McCain on the other side.

    BDB, salient point (none / 0) (#50)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:53:53 PM EST
    Could someone explain how that would work? (Yeah, I'm a dumb*ss.  What's it to ya?)  I mean, how does one get forced onto the ticket?

    I didn't even think about Clark (NH is so yesterday!) but that is also very interesting and would help her military creds big-time, especially against someone like McCain.

    Gosh, I haven't even considered who would run for VP on the repub ticket.


    As I understand it (none / 0) (#72)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:19:31 PM EST
    Forced may be a bit of a stretch, but let say Clinton is very close to 50% in delegates, but not quite there.  Neither Obama nor Edwards are nearly as close, lets say 45-35-20.  Lets further say that Clinton leads because she has won the popular vote in most states - more democrats voted for her than Obama and Edwards.  At that point, the party is going to want Clinton as the nominee, IMO.  It isn't going to want a nominee who lost among democratic voters.  But Clinton doesn't have the delegates to win the nomination outright.  A realignment of delegates or super delegates is allowed under party rules (even pledged delegates can change their vote).  Some of the Obama (or Edwards) delegates and/or super delegates would probably line up behind Clinton to give her the nomination and make the party happy, but perhaps the cost to Clinton is to make Obama (or Edwards) the VP.  Although I don't think Edwards has any interest in the VP slot.

    Similarly, not a forced situation, but lets say Clinton wins 51% of the delegates.  Given that Obama and Edwards would control a large block of delegates, they could make the convention unpleasant for her.  They couldn't stop her nomination, but they could make it unpleasant if they wanted to.  One way to stop that would be to silence the delegates of one of those two by putting him on the ticket.  

    Unless, of course, I misunderstand the convention rules, which is possible.


    BDB (none / 0) (#77)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:30:59 PM EST
    Thank you--that sounds about like what a quick investigoogle revealed.  I appreciate your taking the time and agree with your assessment about how the choice would come down.  (And as a southerner, I should remember that ending Reconstruction was one of the backroom democratic party deals that split the ticket)

    I have gathered with this whole VP process, where someone has to be asked, that there is all kinds of dosey-doeing around, because you don't want to (a) be told to f-off in a very public way or (b) then have to choose another person, in which case he'll always be known as your second choice.

    I may be wrong (polling trends toward a yes, but I never trust polls) but I don't see Obama taking the VP slot.  Then again, I don't see Hillary doing it, either.  Contretemps of late have been quite bitter.

    You never know, though.  Historic if either says yes.


    Delegates are pledged (none / 0) (#90)
    by felizarte on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:35:54 PM EST
    to vote for the candidate according to allocations as a result of the primaries in the FIRST balloting.  If no one gets the 2000 + delegates, then the delegates are free to cast their vote on whoever. I think that the brokering will happen after the first balloting (if it is not final) and the second-third balloting.  This should be very interesting.

    Ugh (none / 0) (#100)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:49:39 PM EST
    Unless it's clear-cut, you know that conspiracy plots will abound.  I hope Dean can step in and play peacemaker so it does not get to that.  I don't think either side will budge.

    I Like Clark (none / 0) (#47)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:50:47 PM EST
    good man.  But Jim Webb has more recently caught the hearts of young people imo in his anti-Iraq statements and votes...he sure has his anti-Bush bonifides and then some...and his son was serving recently though I do not know if he is home now.

    I like Obama a lot- but he aint the only game in town.  And I truly do not think he would pick HRC if he wins. Am I wrong there?


    Jim Webb (none / 0) (#62)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:05:55 PM EST
    I don't think it'll be Webb.  I know he's come a long way on women in the military, but I think it's awkward for Hillary Clinton to have on her ticket any man who once wrote "I have never met a woman, including the dozens of female midshipmen I encountered during my recent semester as a professor at the Naval Academy, whom I would trust to provide those men with combat leadership."  

    I don't think he still thinks that and I recognize it was written in the 1970s and it's out of context, but if you're the first woman running for Commander in Chief, why invite this kind of trouble?  


    he already addressed (none / 0) (#66)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:10:57 PM EST
    that and admitted he was wrong.  I heard him and I believed him.  He was a jerk, indeed.  We've all been dopes one time or another in what we say - at least he acknowledged it.

    Totally (none / 0) (#73)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    I agree.  I don't think this should be an issue for Jim Webb any longer.  He's done what he needed to do to put it in the past.

    But, I don't think Hillary Clinton wants to see a television ad with that quote from her Vice Presidential Pick, do you?  I sure as heck wouldn't if I were her.  Even if it's not effective, it's embarrassing.  


    actually, if they addressed (none / 0) (#99)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:48:59 PM EST
    it proactively it could be very funny.

    I am thinking Jim Webb, frankly (none / 0) (#30)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:26:35 PM EST
    so please -  somebody tell me what Obama has over Webb other than "change" phraseology.  I am totally open to hearing real postions.  

    Yes, he can inspire. (none / 0) (#57)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:02:00 PM EST
    But what is he inspiring about?  He has decided to use the tremendous talents of Obama to promoting Obama.  Don't laugh. He is becoming a brand.  That's it.

    Do I hear inspiration and call to action about racial equality (like MLK)? No.

    Do I hear call to action on global warming (like Al Gore)? No.

    Do I hear call to action on poverty? No.

    Inspiring leaders, like Lincoln, MLK, Gandhi, and now Al Gore, bring an issue to the forefront, and inspire others to finally force action on it.  Obama's slogan is "change" and he is selling T-Shirts and hats for it.  It's hard to distinguish his campaign from Nike.


    Well (none / 0) (#18)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:19:19 PM EST
    the halo was strangling him and his supporters.  Martyrdom, vitriol and delusion.  Great combo.  

    that is a tad harsh, imo (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:23:01 PM EST
    you are mixing up the ding dongs on blogs with Obama and his supporters who, when quoted, use their real names.  I know some Obama supporters who are very sharp people.  

    Engagement of young voters (none / 0) (#34)
    by spit on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:35:49 PM EST
    is a lot of what he brings to the hypothetical ticket -- demographically, they make up for each other's weaknesses in that scenario. He'd also be providing his reasonably impressive public speaking skills, if he were used right.

    Personally, I see it being an extremely strong ticket, if it were to happen.


    Nobody votes for VP (none / 0) (#36)
    by DA in LA on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:37:37 PM EST
    They are largely irrelevant, especially considering how polarizing Hillary is.

    IMO it depends on how they're used (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by spit on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:01:09 PM EST
    I haven't seen many campaigns effectively use their VP picks for the last while -- certainly Kerry/Edwards didn't. They need to send them out to campaign often on their strengths for it to make any difference at all. If Obama could keep drawing the kinds of crowds he's been drawing, I think he could play it quite effectively in terms of keeping attention on the campaign.

    People do IMO also form an opinion of the presidential candidate based on their choice of VP, I think -- though I think that effect is possibly more often negative than positive (Lieberman, for example).

    Who knows. It's all hypothetical at the moment anyway.


    Most brilliant pick: Al Gore (none / 0) (#63)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:08:08 PM EST
    I still think that said a lot about both Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Al Gore was intelligent, exciting, and wonky.  He had run in 1988, but had decided against running in 92 b/c of an accident his son had had.  Bill picked him as VP.

    It was fabulous.  Two southeners, but Al balanced the ticket and contributed to it enourmously.  They were the youngest combo ever to run and of couse, ever to win.  To me, it said something about Bill's character.  one, Bill knows how to win.  two, Bill wasn't jealous of someone else's intelligence and wasn't worried about big overshadowed.  He is very liberated that way.  He is not petty at all.  Even many of his press enemies have said that he is famously forgiving.


    it aint up to Bill this time (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:13:38 PM EST
    and Gore aint gonna go for that job no way no how!

    I think some people who (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 10:50:57 PM EST
    might have voted for Ross Perot didn't because of Jim Stockdale.

    so he brings young people (none / 0) (#37)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:37:39 PM EST
    who wouldnt vote for a Democrat othere than him?  Is that it?

    Advantage Clinton (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:32:27 PM EST
    I'd say the Clinton campaign won this round just by keeping the Reagan stuff alive so long.  It should've run its course days ago.  Taking it down now seems like a good move, it lets her go positive right before the voting.

    Obama has a hard time running that particular ad if Clinton's isn't running just because of the text.  And the worry that it will look like he's the only one staying negative.  Although that didn't keep his surrogates from getting on the phone earlier to call Clinton a liar (I have to say, I'd care more about Claire McCaskill's opinion if she hadn't voted with Republicans on FISA this morning and that's not picking on Obama, you can apply that to every one of those Dem Senators who crossed over, at least one of whom is a Clinton person (Bayh), not that I had nice things to say about Bayh before FISA).

    As for some of the reaction (or overreaction as I sit) from the Obama folks, if Obama can't handle the attacks from Clinton he's gotten over the last week, which aren't anything special, then he'll never make it to November.  If it seems like Clinton has been particularly negative, I think it's because she's been particularly effective - Obama hasn't been able to stop or reverse any of the attacks, so attacks that should've lasted a day or two, echo for a week (making them seem worse than they are and upsetting Obama's fans more because of the damage he's taking).  Unlike the racial stuff, which I think is terrible, the jabbing over the last week has seemed pretty typical in any tight race.  Clinton took an Obama statement slightly out of context, Obama called her a lying politician, Clinton put together a video showing an apparent Obama flip-flop, Obama called her a lying politician.  Obama said Walmart (without anything further to back it up, typical guilt by association).  Clinton said Rezko (without anything further to back it up, typical guilt by association).  None of that seems particularly nasty to me.  Is it uncomfortable to see Dems doing it to each other?  Yes, but that doesn't make it some sort of terrible new low in politics.

    I didn't think the Obama negative ad was all that good for the same reasons Ezra Klein suggested (it didn't focus on one area in a way that would require Clinton to respond, it was too scattershot), but I will say that it probably - at last - helped put an end to the Reagan/Republican issue.  I think Obama's campaign should've been able to do that sooner, but at least they finally found something that worked.  Or at least I'll credit it with working (the Clinton camp claims the ad was coming down anyway, which may or may not be true).  

    thank you for mentioning McCaskill (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Klio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:50:27 PM EST
    I think this gets at BTD's point on the lack of rationality in the conversation.  What kind of intellectual honesty, or even consistency, can you have when you claim bragging rights to McCaskill's endorsement and a day later have to publicly call her out on important votes?  

    Endorsements (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:55:53 PM EST
    I feel the same way about McCaskill as I feel about Ben Nelson or Evan Bayh.  I understand why Obama and Clinton want these endorsements.  It means super delegates and possible organizational help in the Senators' states.  I don't hold any of the crap that McCaskill, Nelson, Bayh and others pull against their endorsees.  

    Having said that, their endorsements mean crap to me.  He can have Claire McCaskill denounce Clinton all he wants, but it would mean more to me coming from a Senator I respected.  Short list, I know.


    McCaskill Vote Is No Surprise (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:25:30 PM EST
    When it comes to the occupation and the Constitution, she is more Republican than Democrat. Loves to sprout her bipartisanship creds. Got to keep those bipartisanship creds bright and shiny no matter what it costs.

    She also very willing to IMO cross the line to pander to the religious right.

    Yesterday, October 8, 2006, on Meet the Press Claire McCaskill gets honest about Bill Clinton:

    Tim Russert: "You had Bill Clinton come in and raise money for you, do you think Bill Clinton is a great President?

    Claire McCaskill: "I do. I have a lot of problems with some of his personal issues. I said at the time, I think he's been a great leader but I don't want my daughter near him."  Video and transcript

    Ah, I Hadn't Heard That Quote (none / 0) (#111)
    by chrisvee on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:27:38 PM EST
    Heh.  This just makes me admire Bill Clinton even more.  I couldn't raise money for someone who made public remarks like that about me.  Both Clintons must have skin as thick as elephants to withstand the comments that get made about them!

    yeah - (none / 0) (#38)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:39:14 PM EST
    like I said  - the reagan thing was done.

    As for Obama, when you bring out the schoolyard kicking over of the checkerboard stuff you lose. No wonder he is losing points.


    what (none / 0) (#51)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:54:53 PM EST
    schoolyard kicking of a checkerboard...ya lost me on that comment....sorry...trying to keep up lol....

    checkers (none / 0) (#58)
    by horseloverfat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:03:01 PM EST
    talking about how his supporters would not be there for HRC inn the GE. Not saying, but insinuating, he might not support HRC if nominated.

    my term for saying (none / 0) (#59)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:03:17 PM EST
    she "will say anything to win".  Sounds totally childish to me - like a kid who screams when he or she is losing at checkers and kicks the gameboard over. "She's cheating!!!!"

    That is how that sounded to me.


    ohhhhhhhhh ok thought maybe I had missed something (none / 0) (#64)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:08:28 PM EST
    well to change the subject just a tad, this is the reason that Obama won't be picked as a Vice President on the ticket...Too much bad luggage attached to him at the moment.....

    read it (none / 0) (#70)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:16:24 PM EST
    it is meaningless. I for one hope we play fair and do not damn based on innuendo.

    Move on! Here's the best part of (none / 0) (#106)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:03:30 PM EST
    Chicago Sun-Times:

    Weather:  ARCTIC


    My favorite (none / 0) (#115)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:08:22 PM EST
    "She hit me back first"  my mother in law used to use that to describe fights among her kids.  

    I respectfully disagree (none / 0) (#86)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:20:47 PM EST
    Robert Reich just came out with strongly worded remarks criticizing Bill Clinton for his crossly over the line in his campaigning for Hillary. Rep. Clyburn recently said that Bill Clinton may be hurting his legacy. Gail Collin wrote in today's NYT's an opinion piece critical of the Clinton's campaign tatics as do the WaPo editorial board who criticized the Clinton's for their ad in misrepresenting what Obama said about Reagan and criticizing Obama for trying to make hay over Hillary's LBJ/MLK remarks. I think the reason Hillary pulled the ad is b/c is what not only no longer effective but also b/c Bill and Hillary are being taken to task for harsh campaigning tactics.

    apologies for the misspellings.. (none / 0) (#87)
    by byteb on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:22:28 PM EST
    writing on the run is not good for my dismal spelling abilities.

    Reich Has Been in the Bag for Obama (none / 0) (#104)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:59:37 PM EST
    for some time.  I take anything he says with a giant grain of salt. It's like listening to James Carville say something bad about Obama.  No objectivity at all.

    As for the Washington Post, I'd take their sentiments to heart more if they bothered to stop and ask themselves why Bill Clinton ended up playing such a large role in his wife's campaign.   I think the Clintons tried to avoid having Bill play this prominent a role, but gave up when it became apparent that Obama was the media darling and nothing anyone in the Clinton camp said was ever going to get picked up by the MSM.  Except, of course, when Hillary herself said it, then she was a mean witch.  The MSM wasn't going to question Obama on anything, they were going to fawn all over him while they danced on Hillary's grave.  The only way for the campaign to get any traction on its points was to have Bill Clinton make them.   Now, having forced Bill Clinton into this role, the media denounces him.  Typical.  

    And for the record, I don't particularly like Bill Clinton in this role, but given the coverage the Clinton campaign was getting, I don't think they had a whole lot of choice.  Well, I guess they could've stood back and let Obama be anointed by the media, but I'm not sure that would've been better for anyone, including Obama.  I've said it before, but if he can't withstand these relatively low level attacks from the Clintons, then he is toast in November.


    Here is a (none / 0) (#107)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:06:43 PM EST
    really good chart comparing the end of the clinton era and at the end of bush era....

    I am really afraid (none / 0) (#108)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:11:03 PM EST
    to look at it.



    I dont think it had anything to do with Edwards (none / 0) (#1)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 03:59:36 PM EST
    I think the Reagan thing was over in terms of interest and the Obama thing was just too sad.

    Unity (none / 0) (#13)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:13:45 PM EST
    I think with they would do well together. Experience and change. It would bury McCain.

    you are forgetting (none / 0) (#16)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:15:57 PM EST
    he gets to choose someone too.

    McCain? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:22:26 PM EST
    Whose he gonna choose? Tom Tancredo? Duncan Hunter? Grampa Fred? Huck? I don't see any of those losers giving McCain much help. If anything, they would all be a drag on the GOP ticket.

    Romney.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:23:52 PM EST
    You know the economic skills.  

    Slick Willie Mitt the used car salesmen? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:34:59 PM EST
    Would you buy a used car from that man? Romney has flip flopped one time too many. My guess is the next nasty GOP ads will be against Mitt.

    I can't help it (none / 0) (#53)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:56:46 PM EST
    I feel sorry for Romney.  He's spent so much money and he's so eager and someone called him Mr Fakey Head and I really got upset.

    Uhm...Go Hillary!


    Not to mention that, according to NYT, (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:40:09 PM EST
    the other primary candidates don't like him.  Poor Rudolph.

    well I dont think (none / 0) (#28)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:24:18 PM EST
    I want HRC to choose her running mate based on some lame slogan - I want to hear what contribution he brings beyond wont it be nice to give him on the job training.

    McCain (none / 0) (#32)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:34:24 PM EST
    isnt restricted to the goofballs running - he has few guys out there from the GOP who arent insane...like Chuck Hagel?

    I am not sure the GOP would turn out for McCain (none / 0) (#41)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:42:48 PM EST
    Hagel. And I am not sure Hagel is all that sane, if he is better on Iraq than most members of the GOP.

    Iraq counts (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:55:48 PM EST
    a lot in my sanity measure. :-)

    If his presence unifies the party (none / 0) (#39)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    it is contribution enough. He would play well in certain Southern states by bringing out the AA vote in overwhelming numbers. This would put the GOP on the defensive on their home turf. The bigots (and as a Southerner, I can say  there are still bigots in the South) are going to vote against her anyway. Obama won't make a difference with their vote.

    But dont African Americans already (none / 0) (#55)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    vote for Democrats?  I dont think they are anti- HRC and would only vote for Obama. I am looking at him with a cool eye - if HRC wins is his contribution to the ticket and to the WH better than anyone elses?  It may well be, I just dont want to ignore the question...especially when his campaign says she will do anything to win.. That was way over the line in my opinion.  Entering into ending the relationship zone.  

    Bigger turnout in the AA community (none / 0) (#68)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:14:19 PM EST
    A majority of African Americans will vote for HRC - but I believe the turn out will be higher if Obama is on the ticket.  

    I have not seen that (none / 0) (#71)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:18:57 PM EST
    particular stat - maybe I missed it. Do you have something you are basing that on or are your going from the gut?  (it sounds right to me but I dunno - most Democrats are very angry at the GOP so I dont think anybody who actually cares about the country is going to sit this one out)

    Gut (channeling Stephen Colbert) (none / 0) (#78)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:39:13 PM EST
    and my talking with some AA friends.

    okie dokie (none / 0) (#103)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:56:43 PM EST
    Funny thing is I like Obama and dont want to see him go away.

    Condi Rice? This was discussed today (none / 0) (#92)
    by oculus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:37:17 PM EST
    on Michael Medved's am radio show.

    yeah...watch the Reno Gazette video (none / 0) (#23)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:22:47 PM EST
    This was the most hillarious part, the last 10 minutes.  It went something like this:  "Well, I am not good with military stuff or economics, so I would choose someone with those strengths" So, is this co-presidency or do we have cabinet positions.  
    No economics, no military, no programmatic...but man we certainly go inspired.  (Read the Secret, the other Oprah product endorsement)

    Jeepers kreepers...McCain only claims to not have one of those skills.  


    Sounds right (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:04:13 PM EST

    O/T: Dennis Kucinich quits the race (none / 0) (#7)
    by Molly Bloom on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    The last voice for single payer (other than Obama 2003, of course)

    Unless, of course. . . (none / 0) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:19:26 PM EST
    Bloomberg gets in.

    Left Blogistan (none / 0) (#8)
    by horseloverfat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:06:30 PM EST
    There is more and more trend towards blogs moving in various directions, mostly:

    A)  Pro-Obama blogs

    B) Anti-Obama blogs (several of which I frequently click on).

    C)  Those without a clear horse in the pro/anti-Obama action.

    I am not visiting the Cat A blogs very often these days.

    I'd like to see a unity ticket... (none / 0) (#10)
    by mike in dc on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:07:16 PM EST
    ...but I have my doubts that, if Clinton wins this, she will have any interest in offering the veep slot to Obama.  I think they'll stick with their original plan to put a boring midwestern or southern centrist white male with a DLC seal of approval on the ticket, playing it safe.  There would have to be something akin to a brokered convention for a Clinton/Obama ticket to emerge, in my opinion.

    i think clark has a serious (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:23:31 PM EST
    chance at the veep position with hillary. they supported him 4 years ago. i have read somewhere that obama secretly approached him to abandon hillary for a veep position, but he wouldn't do it. understand i put this foward as hearsay! if anyone can confirm, i'd sure appreciate it.

    Probably Clark or Evan Bayh (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by felizarte on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:54:48 PM EST
    either one could fit the bill of being "president in case" /Clark because of his regional background (south) management experience and ability to be commander in chief.  Evan Bayh because he is from Indiana (mid/south) executive experience because of his terms as governor.

    Obama has said too many things that can be thrown back at the ticket in attacking Hillary Clinton.  The polarity may not be a good match.

    Most of Obama's supporters will transfer to Hillary if she were the nominee especially the AA because of a longstanding relationship.  


    thanks, i know that bayh has been (none / 0) (#119)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 09:48:54 PM EST
    mentioned, but my heart is with clark. i just like the guy. i supported him in 04. bayh made be a wonderful politican but he leaves me snoring. smile!

    hogwash! (none / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    Negative ads always knock down both the attacker and the attackee.

    if that were true, al gore would be getting ready to wrap up his second term in office, comforted by the knowledge that he left the country in better shape than he got it (which wasn't half bad). he would be campaigning for sen. clinton as one of the most popular presidents ever.

    clearly, that isn't the case. karl rove knows this, down to his skeevy bones. if they didn't work, no one would use them.

    Maybe it's like (none / 0) (#35)
    by hitchhiker on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:36:00 PM EST
    Iowa in 2004, when the negative ads from Dean and Gephart--wrecked them both while Kerry and Edwards rose above the fray.  I mean, I know there were a lot of other factors, but I think I remember that the voters mentioned that one in particular.

    Negative ads do work, obviously.  Just maybe not where there are 3 viable candidates and only 2 of them are bashing each other.


    Hey, Mike--Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#17)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:16:19 PM EST
    has a history of reaching out to former enemies.  If she can get Newt Gingrich to crack, she can find a way to work with Obama.  That is if-big if-he'll take it.  If you can trust the polls, most dems want this anyway.  I, for one, would not mind.  I think he needs to learn a lot before he goes national again.

    In other news, I know this is sort of off-topic, but has anyone really commented on the fact that in SC you have to register to vote in the primary 30 days prior to the election?  This means that if you did not register by 26 Dec, then you cannot vote.  The Obama mania really hit after Iowa, when it was too late for "reactionary" voters to sign up.

    I wonder how that will play out...

    maybe super tuesday will (none / 0) (#21)
    by hellothere on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:21:03 PM EST
    determine if obama has the second place on the ticket. if the clintons see merit in it, then welcome aboard. after all this is politics.

    my question lies with the two candidates themselves. do either one of them want it? are they pragmatic?

    the amount of negativity by oabama supporters may come back to haunt them.

    pesonally i want to see a ticket that wins. if adding obama to the ticket does it, then so be it. he would be darn hard to beat in 8 years.

    The Donkey (none / 0) (#29)
    by koshembos on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:25:07 PM EST
    The people that are supposedly progressive, what the hell does the term mean to them is beyond me, have a horse in this race. The problem is that they totally forget that we are the party of the donkey. We are not majestic, glib or fast, but we do the hard work.

    The horse people are also the hate people and that is despicable. TPM has been Obama for a long time and it is reflected in content, frequency and hate. If the netroots sound and look like Klein and Broder, we are in way too deep.

    Progressives... (none / 0) (#116)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 08:11:56 PM EST
    In the old days, progressives were more to the left than liberals.  When liberal became a "bad" word, the liberals, in their parsing and in the language manipulation, started calling themselves liberal.  

    Well me, old socialist, happy to be party hack, liberal, card carrying ACLU member, yes, like Hillary:  I don't want to lose the gains we made.

    Clue to Obama why the Clintons are mad, the one time she showed emotion when she said that she did not want to lose the gains.  The next week or so, you talk about the "old battles" and how they don't resonate.  Ahh, do ya think they got pissed?  


    I hear ya - (none / 0) (#49)
    by Judith on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 04:53:11 PM EST
    you may well be right. It is interesting to discuss anyway.  Thanks for your thorough and thoughtful reply - I was sincere in the question.

    I took it sincerely, no worries :) n/t (none / 0) (#60)
    by spit on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:05:00 PM EST
    this is my choice (none / 0) (#74)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:23:51 PM EST
    I would like to see Edwards as Atty General maybe and Obama as an ambassador maybe to the UN....That would be using their skills I think if Edwards is a good atty that likes to fight injustice and if Obama likes to unite...Perfect for both of them....and for VP I am leaning toward Clark.....

    speaking of the donkey (none / 0) (#76)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:25:44 PM EST
    I still love that poem that circulated last election that is so funny.....

    The election is over,
    let the past be the past
    I'll hug your elephant and
    You kiss my ass.....


    Playing the Victim? (none / 0) (#79)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:50:04 PM EST
    Here's Greg Sargent's headline:

    Obama Winning Spin War Over Who's Victim In Campaign

    Greg goes on to note that Obama seems to be having some success as painting himself as the victim of unfair attacks by the Clintons.  I agree with this assessment and think the write up is a fair one as far as it goes.  The problem I have is that nowhere does Sargent question whether this is a good tactic for Obama.

    When Obama first started complaining about Bill Clinton criticizing him I thought it made perfect sense as a tactic to try to get Clinton to stop.  Similarly, I understand why Hillary Clinton would want to try to paint Obama as engaging in negative attacks with an assist from the media - it goes against his argument that he's above politics.

    But I think Obama does run a risk in going too far in complaining the Clintons are unfairly beating up on him.  I can see the appeal of being David to their Goliaths, people like the underdog.  But people also like winners and Democrats, in particular, seem scarred by 2000 and 2004 and scared about candidates' ability to stand up to the GOP machine.  For every voter Obama wins because they want to see David beat Goliath, I think he might lose one or more who care more about having a Goliath to fight the Republicans in November, than whether Obama is a victim of the Clintons.  

    So this is a game that I think is dangerous for both candidates to be playing.  Clinton risks a backlash for being the Big Bad, but Obama also risks a backlash for looking like he can't stand up to the Big Bad.

    reality based (none / 0) (#80)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 05:51:51 PM EST
    this is the most reality based article I have read yet about Obama-Hillary and is worthy of a read as this is the reality that we are democrats are facing......

    Talking Points Memo is one of them (none / 0) (#82)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    Josh posted this "Without Comment":

    ----I've been more than a little saddened by the way that you've "gentlemanly" sat on your hands and (for the most part) reserved extensive comment on the venom Bill Clinton has been unleashing on his wife's behalf. If Hillary wins this nomination in this fashion, the Democratic party will be destroyed. After seeing this side of the Clinton machine, I have zero interest in supporting their dynasty. Not only will the entire R-side of the country be in full-throated opposition to 8 more years of Bill (at this point Hillary is sadly almost an afterthought), but my instinct is that you can count on a very deflated and divided Democratic party not exactly rallying around Team Clinton.
    It's crushing, but it's true. If she wins by letting Bill kill the future of the Democratic party, the Ds are done.----

    WTF is wrong with people? Now voting for Hillary will destroy us all? Jeebus!

    To Be Fair (none / 0) (#83)
    by BDB on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:08:50 PM EST
    Josh also posted some emails that disagreed with this one.  

    That is completely true (none / 0) (#85)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:20:11 PM EST
    I noticed that when I returned to copy the text... that said he seems to agree that it is not kosher for Bill Clinton to campaign for his WIFE...?

    This is getting fairly ugly and out of control. I hope that Obama's supporters can suppress their overreactive gag reflex and vote for someone with a D after their name, if their golden boy doesn't get the nod.


    I am soooooooo (none / 0) (#84)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:11:40 PM EST
    thankful that I decided to pull my support from that site a while back....That is disgusting...To me that means, he is willing to destroy our democratic party rather than support Hillary...Well screw him!!!!!

    Things are tense (none / 0) (#89)
    by Kathy on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:31:43 PM EST
    I admit, but I think when the media "reports" that folks are upset about Bill Clinton and feel like he's tearing apart the democratic party, they are using liberal blogs as a source.  I also think they are extremely SC-focused, and SC is amazingly tense right now.  Lots of racial flames being fanned by media and such because it sells ad space and sells papers.

    It's really cold right now in most of the country.  Maybe the national media don't have a warm jacket they can go outside in and, I dunno, talk to the average democrat who doesn't have time to post on blogs?

    If they talked to me, they would know that I'm really happy to see Bill fighting so hard.  We need fighters to go against the republicans.  We have been bending over to them since the Florida recount and it thrills my heart to think about being the strong party again.  I don't care whose feelings I hurt.

    I'm a proud democrat and I am willing to fight for the White House!


    With respect to VPs on both sides (none / 0) (#91)
    by robrecht on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:36:20 PM EST
    I too like Wes Clark as Hillary's VP.  That will help against Military McCain, which in turn allows Hillary to focus on core Democratic values.

    Hegel's stance on Iraq pretty much precludes him from being McCain's pick.  I think his best running mate is Colin Powell, who might see this as a last ditch effort to rehabilitate himself.  He and McCain have criticized Bush on Iraq and on torture to establish a slightly more credible stance.

    it wouldnt surprise me (none / 0) (#95)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:43:03 PM EST
    if McCain did pick Lieberman....wouldnt that be amazing....

    That would be something (none / 0) (#112)
    by Stellaaa on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:34:39 PM EST
    The two dead or practically dead white men ticket.  That would be the road to change.  

    it wouldnt surprise me (none / 0) (#96)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:43:57 PM EST
    if McCain did pick Lieberman....wouldnt that be amazing....

    Traitor Joe is running McCain's CT Campaign (none / 0) (#113)
    by LadyDiofCT on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:37:25 PM EST
    Traitor Joe is running McCain's CT campaign along with Chris Shays, our 2 nemesis here in lower Fairfield county.  This will certainly piss some people off.  Joe has been dissing the Dems here since he lost the Dem primary to Ned Lamont and created his new party (illegally I might add).  Lieberman was the mentor for McCaskill and Obama, interesting huh?

    On the VP for Hillary (none / 0) (#94)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:42:26 PM EST
    I would like Michelle Obama. But that won't happen.

    LOLOL (none / 0) (#98)
    by blogtopus on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:46:11 PM EST
    That would confuse a lot of Obama supporters wouldn't it?

    'But, but, but...' [head explodes]


    Well if Obama doesn't win (none / 0) (#101)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 06:52:39 PM EST
    it sure will be thru no fault of the MSM as well as the blogs....I have never in my long life seen such shills for him....Wow....most candidates don't have it nearly this good......and still he isn't in the lead....well for my taste, I don't trust anything the MSM is pushing.....Why? you ask?.....because I know who owns MSM and who controls their content.....

    Did Clinton know (none / 0) (#105)
    by phat on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:03:30 PM EST
    what the response to her attacks were going to be? I mean, sure, SC and ads and all. But elsewhere?

    Because I gotta tell ya. Obama's supporters are doing a very good job for Hillary right now.

    Someone mentioned above the "kicking over the checkers board" and boy, you nailed it.

    I think it might be a lot of new voters ore something, but calling Hillary and Bill Clinton "Rovian" in a Democratic primary contest is possibly one of the stupidest things I've seen in a long time.

    Here in Nebraska I have a distinct feeling that the Edwards people are going to Clinton if he's not viable in their precinct caucus. Moreso now. And I don't really blame them. Sheesh...


    Obama now saying (none / 0) (#109)
    by athyrio on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:16:36 PM EST
    He will support whatever nominee the democratic party presents....

    No Clinton/Obama (none / 0) (#110)
    by LadyDiofCT on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:26:39 PM EST
    Obama basically called Clinton a liar in his recent radio ad.  This is pretty ugly, don't expect them to kiss and make up.   He also claimed that after the primary voting he is sure he would win those voters who voted for Hillary, but wasn't so sure that those that voted for him would vote for her.  This is the most arrogant thing I ever heard from a candidate.  He just takes voters with a D at the end of their name for granted.  Chris Matthews (I know I don't watch very often either) had an African American guy (radio I think) on that basically said the same thing, actually was screaming that the Clintons brought up race in SC with Bob Johnson, and come November they would never vote for Hillary.  The media, the Obama campaign, the blogs, set this race issue on fire in New Hampshire after the Obama campaign lost the inevitable crown (whining about dissing MLK, tears for Hurrican Katrina, 'fairy tale' media coverage).   The anger this man was showing indicated to me just how much damage has been done.  We will be lucky to have a nominee who isn't battered up too much, but putting the coalition back together is going to be a challenge.  Obama doesn't appear to be willing to vote for the Dem nominee and build the progressive party.  Why would Hillary want a DINO for VP?

    They are Dems (none / 0) (#114)
    by PlayInPeoria on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 07:38:15 PM EST
    so they will patch it up. The Dems are like a disfunctional family. AS SOON as the Rep start in on the Dem Prim Winnner... they will come together.

    Just like.. I can pick on my brother... but don't you dare try it. LOL!

    Don't you all have a horse in this race too? (none / 0) (#121)
    by weldon berger on Fri Jan 25, 2008 at 10:46:43 AM EST
    So far as I can tell from reading most of your posts during the past few months, Talk Left is backing Clinton, the Democratic candidate least likely to effect a withdrawal from Iraq and most strongly aligned with that bane of progressive Democrats, the Democratic Leadership Council. I'm not entirely clear on whether or not you personally share Jeralyn's enthusiasm, but I have to say that your ability or willingness to honestly critique her positions hasn't been much in evidence of late.