Chuck Todd: Clinton Staying In Helps Dems

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Jeralyn and I are on record as thinking highly of Chuck Todd of NBC. Even when his analysis was not what Jeralyn wants to hear. Obama supporters across the blogs have also given much praise to Todd. They won't praise, via Todd Beeton, this Todd post:

Obama can no longer argue that when compared with Clinton he will expand the electoral map in a general election with McCain. Now he can simply say he will use a different map; a map that ultimately might expand for the party as a whole, even if his path to 270 is no less narrow a victory than Clinton's. It is just different.

. . . The party ought to lay off the calls for Clinton to drop out, at least for now, because her presence at worst is making Obama a better candidate. The Wright flare-up was the first true political crisis of Obama's national political career, which is remarkable given how close he is to being the Democratic nominee. Who knows when the Wright controversy would have circulated had the nomination been locked up.

No you won't see that post featured at daily kos or Talking Points Memo. Chuck Todd became a little less astute to them today.

< My Advice To Pelosi | Grand Jury Secrecy Applies to Eliot Spitzer >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    It won't matter for those (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:04:30 PM EST
    who believe that it was Hillary's fault that the story got out.

    Hey, as Aravosis said recently, if Obama (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Joelarama on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:08:27 PM EST
    loses in November, it's all Hillary's fault.  That just about sums it up.

    Signs that he secretly believes (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:13:15 PM EST
    that he's picked the wrong horse.

    I think that actually explains much the the shrillness over at orange too.


    I wonder how many of them know NOW (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    about how Obama had 26 pieces of high-profile dropped in his lap for sponsorship during his last year in the IL Senate? Early Obama shills like Adam B. lauded his record to the skies. I'm sure many people over at DK realize he was nothing special at all. The fact he has been so unimpressive in debates doesn't help.

    His debate performances have, (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:19:30 PM EST
    with a few exceptions, been quite ordinary. Maybe good enough for a mayoral candidate.

    I think his speeches are ordinary (5.00 / 7) (#35)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:39:40 PM EST
    I don't understand the fuss, to tell you the truth. I've watched video's of him on youtube and all I see is a politician. He's a good speaker, but what he says is standard political claptrap, not brilliant oratory. Of course, most of what I know about oratory is from reading historic speeches. I suspect that most of Obama's fans have never heard or read a truly great speech. They think that MLK rocked because he said "I have a dream", but they have no idea that what made him remarkable wasn't that speech, it was the sum total of his words, written and spoken, and his actions. Most of them have never heard of "Letter from Birmingham Jail", much less read it.

    Great men don't talk about hope and unity. They inspire people to think in ways that make them hope and make them want to work toward unity. When I read great speeches, I get shivers on my spine. I am moved. Obama's words just don't cut it. His rally's remind me of rock concerts, not campaign events. Maybe I'm just missing something, but I don't understand why Obama is considerd a great speaker.


    We have seen so few brilliant orators (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by kredwyn on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:11:58 PM EST
    that the ordinary and decent becomes brilliant and historic.

    How many of them care? (none / 0) (#24)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:23:44 PM EST
    I haven't seen any evidence of Obama's supporters taking this seriously at all. Perhaps his taking credit for other's work is not a big deal, nor his apparent plaigerism issue, nor his repeated "me too" of Hillary's positions and work.

    Adopting the good ideas (none / 0) (#30)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:31:23 PM EST
    of others is a good thing....Separating the good ideas from the bad ideas is the issue....

    Not when you claim them as your own (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:42:10 PM EST
    It is good to adopt good ideas, but it is important to give credit where it is due. Obama took credit for writing a lot of good bills that were not his. If he had done that in an academic institution, his career would be over. In politics, it is accepted practice, but that doesn't make it right.

    A bill is not (none / 0) (#40)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:58:39 PM EST
    an academic paper.  If it is accepted practice, it sounds as if it doesn't violate the ethical standards for bill sponsorhsip.

    It may be technically right (none / 0) (#44)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:04:17 PM EST
    But it still stinks. Especially when the person who is taking credit for the work is using that work as proof that they have experience that they don't have.  

    It is not accepted.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by alexei on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:22:26 PM EST
    practice for working and introduction of bills.  Sponsorship is just that - we are not talking about sponsoring bills (which is adding your support to a bill).  We are talking about the creation and hard work in passing the bills - and no one wants "free loaders" to lie and take credit.  Case in point Dodd, an Obama backer did not allow Obama to take credit for the Dodd/Frank bill on mortgages.

    I agree with the exception (none / 0) (#37)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:45:15 PM EST
    that if Obama gave credit to those whose ideas he adopts, he looks like a suckup. Where are his brave, audacious new ideas? His advisors are republican lite on social security, Healthcare, and the economy. Where are his new ideas going to come from? Hillary? His choice of advisors, like Powers, seem over the top and difficult to swallow. If Powers was his choice is a pro-palestine view his real perspective? Or anti-Israel? Consider his "mentor's" views on Israel. It is not reassuring. And to be left to rely on Obama's not so perfect judgment on which persons to be close too, or which ideas to accept, I am not reassured.

    Obama is looking more naive to me. (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:57:12 PM EST
    I think his logic with Wright and perhaps others was:

    This/Religion is my private life and has nothing to do with my public life.  Even though JFK's religion speech was necessary and Romney's religion worked against, despite his (painfully clumsy) speech about it.  

    I think Obama does not realize that in politics and especially presidential politics, anything at all is fair game.  Anything. at. all.

    He's running against Hillary Clinton who has been through almost every kind of media scrutiny for decades.  Surely he didn't think that the Clintons were a special case and that no one else would be subjected to that.  Kerry's swiftboating?  Someone who voluntarily served in Vietnam being attacked for his service?  The press and rumor mongers could make an issue out of who his tailor is if they wanted to.  They've done it for hair cuts!  Katie Couric asked John Edwards about Elizabeth's illness.

    In politics, there really are no sacred cows.  


    Israel (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:00:51 PM EST
    I don't agree that he is not good on Israel....But his schmoozing of Bloomberg may have a point....

    Putting Bloomberg on the ticket as VP would be different and put Florida back in play.


    I agree. Did you see the post in the past (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Joelarama on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:18:49 PM EST
    week or so when Wolcott said he sensed some nervousness among the Obama people, and (I believe) referred to Daily Kos in the same write-up?

    For the life of me I can't understand what Kos is thinking.  Until around the time he signed on to the ridiculous Hillary ad "blackening and widening) smear, Kos essentially had the same view as Todd.  In several posts, he pointed to the turnout numbers, urged patience, and said the long contest was helping the party.

    I wonder what changed.  I suspect it had to to do with self-interest, and some tacit or explicit agreement among the leading blogs.  TPM and AmericaBlog went whole-hog for Obama at about the same time.


    Who knows (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:21:48 PM EST
    it all seemed very hackish to me.

    I believe the underlying reason is that Obama (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:22:03 PM EST
    has run out of reasons to vote for him.
    When did you hear something new? Except for the blatant copying of some of Hillary's plans, I can't think of anything.
    7 months is a long time for Obama to coast to victory.

    Something slightly different, I think (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:24:27 PM EST
    if you don't get the movement, or feel that you're part of it, Obama has absolutely nothing special to offer. And no, I'm not using the C word.

    I suspect (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:32:19 PM EST
    there's a bit of group-think phenomenon - everybody reads a small set of A-list blogs, including the A-listers, and lacking a prominent leading pro-HRC voice small fluctuations can turn into fixed CW quickly - then CW gets turned into preference and then confirmation bias sets in.

    Nervousness (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:44:51 PM EST
    Obama freely admits his candidacy would seem implausible....

    Obama supporters are of course nervous....


    I agree completely (none / 0) (#68)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:49:48 PM EST
    Every time we show them something positive or good for Hillary, they scream and shout because it hurts to know that they are ON RECORD as backing the substandard Candidate. It hurts, it burns and that makes them all the more cranky.

    See: Denial and Projection.


    I usually respect what Chuck Todd has to say, (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Joelarama on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    just as I used to respect generally what Kos and Josh Marshall said.

    Thanks for not pulling punches on the state of play on the major left-leaning blogs.  I miss the days when I found them to be credible and fair (if not balanced, which was fine with me).  

    In fairness (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:15:33 PM EST
    I still find kos interesting and insightful on matters such as Congressional races. And Josh would be fine if he'd stay closer to his proven competency in uncovering unsavory doings.

    Agree on Kos. He seems pretty (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:17:20 PM EST
    rational on everything except Obama vs. Clinton, although, way before Clinton announced she was running for the Dem. nomination, he has made it clear he profoundly dislikes her.

    However, if (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by dk on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:22:54 PM EST
    Kos and all the others can lack so much credibility on the presidential race, who is to say that their pieces on congressional races are any better?

    This is the problem when you lose credibility on one thing...it becomes impossible to trust you on anything.  I think it's fair to say that, by and large and with only a few exceptions (this site being one of them), the left blogs have lost all hope of claiming truth or accuracy in anything they write, and once you fall into that pit it is impossible to climb out.


    Good point. Now I'm remembering (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:24:54 PM EST
    Tester amidst the wheat.  

    Richardson ... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Demi Moaned on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:31:04 PM EST
    is another topic where I don't understand kos. Sure, I get the Latino-solidarity appeal, but BTD took the words out of my mouth when (wish I had saved the link) he called Richardson a buffoon.

    Sure, he's better than Geraldine Ferraro ever was, but that's not setting your sights very high.


    Seriously (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:33:50 PM EST
    He's like our Tommy Thompson, but more gaffe prone.

    That's really unkind (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by badger on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:36:33 PM EST
    He has problems (none / 0) (#64)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:45:40 PM EST
    on domestic issues but is fine on foreign policy.

    Send him to the UN, then! (none / 0) (#73)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:59:34 PM EST
    But for pity's sake, don't let him run the country if he "has problems on domestic issues".

    Nobody is perfect (none / 0) (#77)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:08:40 PM EST
    and perhaps he might be a Secretary of State...As a VP candidate, he could pick up his game....

    After Bush (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by Fabian on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:18:23 PM EST
    I will never again believe in on the job training for POTUS.

    Bush is just as pathetic at just grasping diplomacy and negotiation now as he was in 2000, much less attempting them.

    I no longer believe in giving people a chance to see if they will grow into the responsibilities of the office.  There is no 12 week probationary period.  It's four years, barring impeachment and we haven't had any of that either.


    After the kind of rank one-sidedness and (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Joelarama on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:23:20 PM EST
    willingness to sign on to smears, their credibility is at issue.  That applies across the board, even when they are interesting, when they are smart (as they almost always are) and when I agree with them.

    I get what you're saying -- and I'll continue to find them interesting.  But the issue going forward is that I will be less likely to take their word for anything, and will cynical as well as skeptical about their motives.

    No more reading their posts without "clicking through" on every link to check their sources and assumptions.


    yep (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:23:48 PM EST
    I miss what I thought was credibility a lot.  The strange thing is that I'm pretty sure I gave kosrepublic.com a lot more respect than it ever deserved.  I used to think that the community there was reality based and that any bs would quickly be exposed and denounced.

    Now I wonder how much crap I swallowed whole just because it had survived the kos community filter-- a filter that has turned out to have holes big enough for plenty of lies.


    Trash has always gotten through (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:25:40 PM EST
    but not as often to management.

    When I look back, there were signs (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:53:01 PM EST
    There were things that bothered me about dKos before this dustup. There were filters... one-sided ways of looking at things. I spent a lot of time during the latest Israeli-Palestine battles a while back simply trying to convince people that Israel was not an evil nation. I'm not particularly "pro" Israel, but the only attitude that was tolerated was one in which they were completely wrong and the Palestinians were innocent victims. I saw the same thing in attacks on Pelosi and Reid. The site quickly developed a "conventional wisdom" that Democrats were cowards and fools and had betrayed the electorate in order to appease corporate interests. My philosophy is that life is not simple. People are not purely good or bad, and they do the wrong things for the right reasons and vice versa. That attitude was not welcome by many at Daily Kos.

    I agree. It was all black and white (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by hairspray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 10:54:26 PM EST
    For example, Pelosi and Reid were jerks who needed to be challenged out by "good democrats" and if a poster tried to give a broader interpretation to a situation, it was STFU and plenty of screaming traitor-like language. Several diarists were very good but now it is simply a hate Clinton and an echo chamber. The comments were so sophomoric that I wondered at the ages of the posters and at their intellectual grasp of complicated situations.  Very Skinerian.

    Count me (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:08:26 PM EST
    as an Obama backer who likes Todd.

    I don't think it's necessary to Clinton to get out.  I just think it's necessary for her to stop tearing Obama down, stop saying that McCain passes the commander in Chief test while Obama doesn't, stop insinuating that Obama's patriotism can't be trusted because of his pastor, stop saying that Obama wants to strip the people of key swing states of their rights as citizens.

    Hillary has every right to stay in the race up till the end, to push for her policies and her own candidacy.  She could be a positive force, hammering McCain from a different angle than Obama and rallying more support to the general cause.

    But if she can't stay in without waging a negative campaign against the frontrunner that damages Dem chances in November, then she does need to go away.

    Does Obama need to be positive only (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:10:32 PM EST
    also? Is this a one way street?

    I think the damage to Democrats (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:12:43 PM EST
    is a two-way street (both Obama and Clinton).

    It's a fine line. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Faust on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:12:44 PM EST
    Both candidates have a right to test each other but it does go over the line quite a bit lately. My main concern is the vitriol lobbed between the supporters. This trickles down from the candidates to a certain degree but alot of people also just take it on themselves to be as negative as possible. Unfortunately it's not going to stop till the losing candidate rallies their supporter behind the eventual winner.

    And I would also add (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Faust on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:15:04 PM EST
    That calling for Hillary to drop is silly. If people want to influence this lean on your favortie undecided super. It's mostly about them from here on out anyway. They have more control over the momentum than voter at this point. Not because voter don't have a voice, but because the demographics seem to be so locked down. Until someone shakes up the demographics (hasn't happened yet) then this thing is just locked in.

    On the Obama as Commander in Chief (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:16:04 PM EST
    issue, what Clinton sd. was that she and McCain had crossed that threshhold and the press should ask Obama about himself.  

    On The Rev. Wright, Clinton was asked a question and she answered it, saying she wouldn't stay in a church in which such statements were made from the pulpit.  

    Obama, until his recent contact w/Thurman in FL, has not advocated for MI or FL voters to be heard.  How could Clinton say he has?  


    He owns the Wright mess (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by nell on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:25:33 PM EST
    Obama owns the Wright mess and he has to take responsibility for it and weasel his way out of it. He was just asking for her to say something (and believe me, she could have said MUCH worse) when he sent out that prayer breakfast photo. It backfired with the MSM calling it amateur hour, but it was ridiculous and just showed that he fails to take responsibility for anything.

    Should Clinton get the nomination, there is no way in hell she should allow herself to be dragged down into the Wright stuff (which the Obama campaign tried to do, perhaps he should have left HER out of it).

    He made his own mess and now he can deal with. Clinton's job in life is not to baby Obama and protect Obama, it is to make life better for Americans, which she has done and will continue to do.


    She should have... (none / 0) (#47)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:06:18 PM EST
    just skirted the Wright question.  It isn't like she is uncomfortable not answering questions.

    I don't see any reason she should have (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by oculus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:09:26 PM EST
    avoided answering the question.  The Rev. Wright made statements from the pulpit that were highly disrepectful of the Clintons.  She should and did respond, although not mentioning either Obama or his pastor by name.  She would have been justified in adding some adjectives, but she didn't.  

    Do you lack confidence (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:16:19 PM EST
    that Obama can handle the Wright issue effectively? Or does he need to be coddled by Hillary because he's such a tender, immature child? Does she really have to "mommy" him?

    Because she's a fellow dem... (none / 0) (#66)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:47:38 PM EST
    and she (and her supporters) shouldn't be trying so hard to destroy Obama as a candidate.

    Here is McCain's response to Hannity's leadings.  It's the kind of response I would like to have seen from Hillary.



    If he isn't weak (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:52:09 PM EST
    why the continued fear he will be destroyed? Has he no legs to stand on his own without being coddled oand protected all the time? Actually I'm glad for the controversies. It gives Obama a chance to show his mettle. If he can't then he's a wimp and doesn't deserve the nomination. I agree with Todd. This is good for him and us.

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by Nadai on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:22:23 PM EST
    She's running against him.  It's not her job to cover for his weaknesses.

    She's a fellow dem... (none / 0) (#67)
    by proseandpromise on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:48:52 PM EST
    and he's the front-runner.  She can do what she wants, but this was a less respectful and amicable response than McCain gave.  I think that is telling.

    Referring to her (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Nadai on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:08:30 PM EST
    as Tonya Harding wasn't particularly respectful or amicable.  Nor was saying she was "likeable enough", nor was saying that she attacked him "periodically, when she felt down".  I think that is telling.  Obama has forfeited any right to be handled with kid gloves, Dem or no.

    When she was silent on the issue... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Dawn Davenport on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:19:42 PM EST
    ...many pro-Obama blogs and Obama supporters were faulting her for not speaking out in support of Obama, which is pretty darn nervy considering the comments that Wright made about her and her husband.

    I detest the moral hypocrisy in which both the media and the Obama campaign are awash, and this is a prime example.


    I'll bet dollars to donuts (none / 0) (#71)
    by blogtopus on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:55:46 PM EST
    that McCain's response would be a lot different if he'd been asked the question in October during the GE.

    Politics is not "nice" (4.50 / 8) (#41)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:59:18 PM EST
    It's negative. Always. One person says "I am better than this person, because...", and then proceeds to promote himself and denigrate his opponent. Clinton is playing by the rules. She is not denigrating Obama personally, she is claiming the experience high ground and criticizing his professional abilities. If he wants the issue to go away, then he needs to show that she is wrong, not shut her up. If he feels that he truly has the experience it takes to run the nation, then he should prove it and stop criticizing Clinton for saying he doesn't. McCain is going to be running on experience. Obama is going to have to address that issue, now or later.  

    Nobody's asking for "nice" (none / 0) (#52)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:22:19 PM EST
    or even for "positive."  Clinton is of course free to make her case for herself, and to point out Obama's weaknesses relative to her strengths.  But in the interests of the party and the progressive cause, she has to make her case with the understanding that Obama is the second best choice.

    The Obama campaign isn't pure and clean; "she'll say anything" was below the belt.  But Obama didn't say that.  In the last debate and on the podium, Obama has said several times that Hillary Clinton would make a fine President, and none of his campaign's criticisms of her attack her basic competence for the job.

    Clinton has, herself personally, said that Obama doesn't pass the Commander in Chief test; that he wouldn't be ready for the job on day one.  She approved a commercial telling us that we should be afraid of him answering the red phone at 3AM.  That's what needs to stop.


    No! (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by alexei on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:26:27 PM EST
    The CinC is a legitimate issue and was handled fine.  It is Obama and his campaign's responsibilty to justify why he can be CinC.  
    They failed.

    Precisely (4.75 / 4) (#61)
    by Nadai on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:37:18 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is bent out of shape because the allegation is basically true.  McCain has quite a lot of foreign affairs experience.  Clinton has some.  Obama has a chairmanship of a Foreign Affairs subcommittee where he hasn't even bothered to convene any hearings.  Pointing out that the man is largely an untested neophyte when it comes to foreign affairs is making a legitimate distinction between the two of them.

    One more time.... (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by mattt on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:43:25 PM EST
    The issue is not that Hillary claims more experience than Obama....it's that she says he's unqualified to be President.  There's a big difference between making her own case as the better choice, and making the Republican case that Obama is unqualified.

    Then Obama can make his case (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:55:16 PM EST
    If there is no doubt, then there is no worry. What an opportunity for Obama to make the case for himself. Coddling doesn't allow him that chance.

    And you are assuming (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Nadai on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:02:36 PM EST
    that he is qualified to be President.  I remain unconvinced, which is exactly why I'm supporting her in the primary instead of him.

    And is McCain qualified? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Knocienz on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 12:18:02 AM EST
    Personally, I didn't think it was a big deal that she said she was the best qualified, and if she had said that she believes she was the ONLY one qualified, that would have been fine too.

    Simultaneously questioning Obama's qualification and stating that McCain has such qualification, was inappropriate IMO. That immediately weakens legitimate attacks on Mr 'Bomb Iran while we stay in Iraq for 100 years'


    Nadai... (none / 0) (#86)
    by Rainsong on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 06:14:23 AM EST
    The Obama campaign is bent out of shape because the allegation is basically true.

    I'm glad somebody else said that!

    Its like when she says she has a lifetime of experience, which can be easily backed up with evidence, just check Clinton's and Obama's wikipedia entries. (even if wikipedia has issues with innaccuracies, omissions etc - there's still a lot more verifiable solid evidence for Hillary's claims than Obama's)

    Stack them up side-by-side, like resumes of two applicants for a job.

    Hillary's does go way back, way before she met Bill even. long before she was Arkansas first lady too - In political life, academic life, and in public life over 30+ years.

    She's even got a more impressive legal background than Obama, eg on the Watergate legal team, and pro bono work, more years in community organising, and campaigning for Democrats (other than Bill) and an impressive array of academic published work as well. For much of their married life, Hillary earned more than Bill.

    and far more runs on the score-board, and runs that she can claim full credit for, in her longer Senate career in a very wide variety of subject matter areas, from Agriculture to Defence.

    And if you were hiring, you might check their references too.    

    Why is it that women with 10 times the relevant experience, better qualifications, stronger and more credible references etc, are still told they are bimbos, and "not good enough"?

    If Obama was such a good Democrat, why did he attack her on having experience in having "tea-parties"? along with using loaded language like "claws coming out" etc, all basically saying she isn't qualified, to even be in the running.

    If he was such a good Democrat, why attack other Dems as racist, given the whole Party's long and proud history and credentials in A-A civil rights? Why trash the Clinton administration as McCarthyist? and admiration for the Reagan Administration?

    Is that how he gets the youth vote? The ones who grew up with re-runs of soundbites of anti-Clinton slime, repeated ad nauseum and revisionist Hollywood movies?

    As for the 3am ad, sheesh - if thats all it takes to have him whining:"Mr Dean! She's picking on me! I'm going to tell the media on you too!" Then methinx the Party is in some really deep dog-s*** next fall, no matter how positive the MSM treats him.

    Now I think more about it - you know something? McCain is starting to look better to me, and I'm really not happy about that at all :(


    If Obama is CIC material (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:31:26 PM EST
    then why isn't Hillary's statement laughable? Your rush to hush suggests uncertainty about obama's readiness or ability to make that case. I don't blame you. His inecperience and lack of judgment gives good reason to doubt that.

    OK (none / 0) (#75)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:08:12 PM EST
    You tell me, what are the qualifications required to be a good CIC.
    Don't know? Well here they are.

    be a natural-born citizen of the United States
    be at least thirty-five years old
    have been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years

    The rest is total BS and meaningless opinion, IOW it is a set up question that has no answer, but you knew that.


    Those (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Nadai on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:10:21 PM EST
    are the minimum qualifications to be a CiC.  Being a good one requires a bit more.

    A Bit More? (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 10:16:07 AM EST
    Can you explain?

    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Nadai on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 02:37:06 PM EST
    Intelligence, willingness to do the hard work, the ability to listen to others and be shaped by them, self-knowledge, curiosity about the world and the way it works, sufficient ruthlessness to make hard decisions even when someone's going to get hurt, sufficient self-control to make those hard decisions for good reasons instead of power hunger or other psychological deficiencies.  I'm sure there's a ton of other stuff, but that's what comes to mind right off the bat.

    IOW (none / 0) (#90)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 11:40:06 PM EST
    Both dem candidates would make an excellent cic.

    King Bush (none / 0) (#89)
    by hookfan on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 08:58:39 PM EST
    meets those minimum qualifications, and he's done so well hasn't he? Answer the question. If you don't doubt his qualification, then why all the calls for protection and coddling?
       If he is strong let him make the case. I doubt he can. I suspect from all the rush to hush you doubt so too.
       Finally since when are voters perceptions meaningless opinions? Sounds like Cheney's "So?".

    Prove it (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    If Obama is CinC material, he will have absolutely no problem proving it to the voters.  He needs to step up to the plate and prove his credentials.

    Obama has to make that case (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by dianem on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:46:31 PM EST
    It's not Clinton's job. If Obama is a better choice than McCain, then HE Has to make that case. I know that people are worried that Obama is being portrayed as inexperienced. He is inexperienced. His supporters need to be focusing on building him up in other ways, not attacking Clinton for telling the simple truth.

    obama (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 07:41:08 PM EST
    Obama personally (not his surrogates) said he hasn't been running for president since age 7 (last february) and called clinton disengenous (last fall).  He also said that voters are tired of politicians who wouldn't take positions - because clinton wouldn't fall into the russert "something must be done about social security" trap.  He's no innocent.

    You can be sure Matt that (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by hairspray on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 11:06:54 PM EST
    MCain will not stop.  And you can be sure this issue will be front and center in the fall.  Better that Obama learns how to make the case that he will be a good CIC than cry that McCain is being soooo mean.

    I second that notion. n/t (none / 0) (#5)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:10:24 PM EST
    the media's narrative is... (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Josey on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:22:43 PM EST
    Hillary's campaign and surrogates are the most vicious.
    The public is easily fooled because few if any ever heard of Obama's Punjab remark, or Jesse Jackson's Hillary/Katrina remark, or Gen. Peak calling Bill Clinton "McCarthy", or Obama volunteers spreading the rumor that Elizabeth Edwards was dying, or Obama's "claws" remark, or...

    Some of the Obama Camp's attacks haven't even lasted through a one day news cycle and some only mentioned briefly in news articles.

    Yup (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by nell on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:21:29 PM EST
    You should just listen to some of the conference calls his campaign hosts! They aren't always available but Mark Halperin had one up a few days ago. It was AWFUL. I actually felt like I might vomit after I heard it. Basically, the theme was Hillary is the worst person in the history of the world and would torture puppies and eat babies if it  would get her elected.

    It was so sickening because it is in SUCH sharp contrast to everything the Obama's used to say about the Clintons. Obama chose her to mentor him in the senate, Michelle said that Hillary was the political wife that most inspired her, the Axelrod's had a lot of affinity for her and work she did to help them with their charity..

    In contrast, the Clinton campaign calls NEVER sound anything like that.


    The Long Defeat (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:22:57 PM EST
    The Pew Poll has Obama up by 10 over Hillary and the Gallup poll has Obama up by 8 over Hillary. The longer she stays in the wider the gap. By the way, President Clinton is coming to my little town on Sunday March 30. He's visiting Medford and Bend, Oregon, both rural. He's booked into a middle school and a high school to speak. Oregon is trending to Obama.

    Where was your comment (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:33:27 PM EST
    last week when HRC was up in all the polls?

    Inaccurate (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:37:58 PM EST
    Both polls have shown up and down, based on events, etc. Arguably this was a bad media week for Hillary campaign, it shows it all polls to various degrees. Last two weeks for bad for Obama and it showed. So it is inaccurate or not honest to look at this drop our of context and spin.

    Let's see what happens next.


    Not a new trend (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:58:04 PM EST
    Obama has always been expected to take Oregon 5-10 pts.

    Todd (none / 0) (#17)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 05:19:57 PM EST
    is pretty harsh on HRC at the end of the article.

    Mega Campaign Headquarters (none / 0) (#43)
    by 1jane on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:02:21 PM EST
    The Obama campaign is opening its Portland, OR campaign headquarters in a empty Wild Oats grocery store, two floors. 25 days to go before the PA vote, what a loong wait.

    I agree she should stay in until after NC and IN (none / 0) (#45)
    by jcsf on Fri Mar 28, 2008 at 06:04:43 PM EST
    after, that, we will see.  

    Was heartened by her drawing a distinction today between Obama and Clinton, and putting Obama in a favorable light.

    forgetting of course (none / 0) (#85)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 29, 2008 at 01:16:28 AM EST
    that NBC is firmly behind McSame then it would make sense that Chuck Todd would say that and Scarborough would praise Hillary.

    They want to see Obama and Clinton mud wrestle.

    Don't be surprised at their pro McSame coverage while denigrating whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic party...it is anything but liberal media...they just have KO and an appearance of being liberal.