Double Standards

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only.

If there is one thing that has truly has bothered me about the reactions of some of the Left blogs is the blatant hypocrisy they have displayed. The outrage they have voiced on behalf of every perceived slight of Barack Obama and his campaign has been just plain laughable while they have excused every smear, sexist or otherwise against Hillary Clinton.

Note - Comments are closed.

Consider this thoughtful analysis of the Samantha Power brouhaha by Josh Marshall. I happen to think his analysis makes a lot of sense. But here is my problem, when it comes to attacks on Hillary Clinton's character and honesty (see "she'll say anything" and "Bush-Cheney lite" for two such examples) and for the sexist smears from NBC, Josh has had nothing to say about it. Indeed, he spent a lot of time defending NBC and misdescribing what the Clinton campaign said about the Shuster episode.

I absolutely deplore what the Clinton campaign is doing now in contrasting Obama to McCain on the C-i-C question. I have consistently criticized the racial remarks made by Clinton surrogates. In two instances the Clinton campaign fired two campaign operatives, one in Iowa and one in New Hampshire. There was no thoughtful explanation provided for those episodes. The blatant hypocrisy and bias is undeniable. It bothers me and it utterly undermines the credibility of the complaints you hear from those quarters. These folks do themselves a great disservice imo.

< Undermining "The Will Of The People" | Friday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Can you imagine the outrage (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Jim J on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:21:03 PM EST
    if Wolfson had called Obama a "monster?" They would not only demand for his resignation, but immediate execution without trial.

    Yes, he only compared (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:29:06 PM EST
    the Obama campaign to Ken Starr

    This is true (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    and really stupid of Wolfson. But that has no effect on the November GE.

    And Power did the right thing (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    and resigned; Wolfson should at least apologize or say he overreacted.  I'm not holding my breath.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:36:43 PM EST
    And posted just that this morning.

    Fair enough, I missed that (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:35 PM EST
    David Axelrod and Obama should also apologize (5.00 / 7) (#51)
    by BigB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:36 PM EST
    David Axelrod should also apologize for bringing up whitewater and Obama should apologize for bringing up Rose Law Firm.

    These are things that were investigated by a partisan independent counsel for close to ten years. And, he couldn't do anything with them. If the Obama campiagn is going to dig these up then it is appropriate to point out that it represents Ken Starr like tactics.

    The Obama campigan brought this out on Wednesday the day after they lost.


    Could we have an apology from JJJr (none / 0) (#158)
    by echinopsia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:14:27 PM EST
    For the "we must analyze these tears" comment, please?

    Its not dumb (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:14:36 PM EST
    what he doing is a using a repeatable sound bite to convey that the Obama campaign is attacking Clinton using the ham sandwich rope a dope inclusive of a fishing expedition while insinuating guilt, something is hiding udner the bed and when and if she dose provide the docs they will pick at a pimple until is a cancerous tumor the AH HA a red herring and waste of time and emotion but Tweety, KO and Josh can rationalize as massive problem that it is not.  I happen to agree with Wolfson and it's dirty, and its ugly and I don't like it.

    I however would retaliate differently demanding Obama to take action to remove any implied suspicion and submit to the Press requests of on the record interview concerning the Rezko Obama home co purchase and the subsequent land deal while Rezko was under federal investigation for political corruption, for the good of the Party which would be just as dirty.


    But see here' s my problem... (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:37:18 PM EST
    ...you can't take offense at being compared to Ken Starr and then use the same GOP talking points that were going around during the Whitewater investigations. I'm sure it is unpleasant for the Obama campaign to be compared to Starr but they have also been preaching unity with Republican so it would almost at this point make more sense for them to defend Ken Starr, crazy as that sounds. Too many inconsistencies, which I think is BTD's point.

    Wow, is that a stretch (none / 0) (#43)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:42:01 PM EST
    the same talking points as the GOP during Whitewater?  Come on now.

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:39:23 PM EST
    Axlerod tried to bring up the Whitewater fiasco.

    In response to (none / 0) (#46)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:42:57 PM EST
    a reference to "land deals", "law firms", presidential library donors, ...

    Clinton's camp pushing Rezko is also Starrian, of course.


    True (none / 0) (#176)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:43:12 PM EST
    Can both parties stop the witch hunts and guilt by association innuendo? I would much rather hear about what their views are on Chavez, and what to do about our poor relations with South America, what to do about our overdependence on the Saudi's oil, our broken relations with "old Europe", how to stop screwing up our trade deals with Canada, and what to do about our billions lost in tourism trade due to homeland security and border idiocy. Hopefully there are more important things to electing a nominee than who is calling who what names.

    Yes. They'd send him to Guantanamo! (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by derridog on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:10:32 PM EST
    Yep (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    Same with Goolsbee's lies on the NAFTA meeting.

    Blatant hypocrisy.


    I listened to Hillary's Obama vs McCain (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:28:53 PM EST
    CIC business too and I gagged.  I really don't want the left blogs to earn the cred of Redstate though either so please bloggers - get your head together!

    Oh, so true (5.00 / 8) (#17)
    by BRockNYLA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:54 PM EST
    The lefty blogs are mostly dead to me at this point.  There are so many places I used enjoy (Kos, TPM, etc) that I can not stand anymore.  Again, I don't mind them having a preference, but at least stop pretending your unbiased (that's you Josh) and at least try to be fair.  

    Keith Olberman is dead to me for that very same reason.  He is off my tivo list along with Tweety. Dan Abrams is kinda cute, though.

    Totally agreed (5.00 / 8) (#41)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:41:06 PM EST
    bias is fine with me -- heck, I find this place sometimes biased, especially in terms of the commenters, and Jeralyn has never made her Clinton support a secret. That's fine with me.

    But throwing basic intellectual honesty out the window in favor of blatant and sometimes incredibly low-quality shilling is where I draw the line.

    A lot of the left blogs have been stunningly disappointing IMO. Not because of which candidate they tend to favor, but because of the quality of the arguments or discussion. They've become worse than Fox News ever was.

    There are a few outposts of relative sanity, but surprisingly few.


    The final straw for me (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by badger on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:39:47 PM EST
    at dKos was a front-page post by DHinMI speculating that former MI governor Jim Blanchard was the Clinton supporter who told the Canadians the NAFTA talk was just politicking and not policy.

    It was essentially an exercise in "six degrees of Kevin Bacon" completely ignoring the facts that:

    a. It hasn't been established that any Clinton supporter actually did that and,

    b. There's absolutely no evidence Blanchard was involved.

    But I guess if you hate Blanchard and you hate Clinton, it's OK to blame them for anything at all, even stuff you make up yourself. Even if the facts ultimately vindicate that post, it had absolutely no basis in reality at the time it was written, making it simply another hit piece - about the same level as the Kennedy assassination or 9/11 conspiracy stuff that kos (rightly) bans.


    DHinMI Also Did A FP Post On How Horrible (none / 0) (#187)
    by MO Blue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:53:37 PM EST
    Hillary was to campaign in Florida despite her pledge not to do so.  DHinMI got called out on the misinformation on that post pretty quickly by those not drinking the Obama kool aid. For once, the rebuttal comments were at the top of the thread and hard to ignore,  

    They don't just excuse the smears, they help (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Teresa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:34:31 PM EST
    create them. There is another FP post on the skin color video. We are going to need another server for all of the people leaving other blogs.

    People say it will be better when the primaries are over but it won't for me. I will always remember the hypocrisy. If somehow HC pulls this out, will they then start defending her? They'll be too busy trying to walk away from the smears they created.

    I agree with you on HC's comment about CiC. I don't like her bringing McCain's qualifications into it. She needs to keep the comparisons between herself and Obama or herself and McCain. If Obama wins, they'll use those words against him.

    That has been a flop (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:41 PM EST
    I am leaving that one alone.

    Speaking of hypocrisy. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:56:00 PM EST
    Remember the outrage on the "A list" blogs about Path to 9/11?  They were going to boycott ABC, all its advertisers, etc. etc. because they had the audacity to distort Clinton's record (and distorted it was).

    Well, ABC needs to rescreen the movie, because I know of whole legions of brand new Clinton haters who will rejoice in seeing the "truth" about Clinton.  The ratings will be tremendous, I'm sure.

    Just saying.


    Would needing another server (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by Dave B on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:19:25 PM EST
    be a bad thing?

    I didn't even realize that this place existed before I couldn't take it at dKos anymore.  It's breataking.

    I have a user id of 10100 at Kos and am a trusted user.

    But now I am considered a troll, just for trying to call bs - in a nice way.

    They are totally destroying any credibility that they have fought for.  All the worst things said about blogs by the MSM are coming to fruition over there.


    I feel your pain (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    I have a user id in the 20,000s and have a trusted user for four years. I tried to stick it out for a very long time, because I didn't want to give in to the hostility, but since I discovered this place I've found I hardly even go over there to see what is on the front page (since it is almost always candidate crap).  The last two diaries I wrote were about the DOJ's refusal to enforce the subpoenas on Miers and Bolton, and telecom immunity. No one was interested in them.

    This place has been so refreshing.


    HRC always guilty even of gossip based accusations (none / 0) (#201)
    by Ellie on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:44:11 PM EST
    My skepticism about Team Obama's commitment to a new politics has been crunking since the drumbeat of the charge that HRC is "divisive", and only increased since. It's an attributed, passive "problem" having nothing to do with her performance, actions, abilities, etc.

    It's based on the hateful actions of others: the 15-yr unmerited RW and media persecution of the Clintons based on their engagement and success in the political process. I don't like the mindset behind it and the intentions. Are all of the targets the hard right despises to blame for being "divisive"?

    Rush Limbaugh and his snorting pals call her a FemiNazi and Hitlery and Tucker Carlson crosses his legs ... ergo HRC is "divisive"? I'm still not in either camp, but Team Obama still has a lot of 'splainin to do on that count.

    Beyond that suspiciously cynical mindset, the notion that removing HRC from the race for the WH will improve politics returns everyone to the drawing board:

    • Step one: A cool speech for CHANGE! New politics! 'Nuff niceness!
    • Step one: ????
    • Step one: Unity!

    However, the people being inspired aren't the people TeamO will be persuading and working with. Who else, already under many many years of fire from the RW, does TeamO consider "divisive"?

    So far, the promises are riding on a new face amd voice surrounded by some smart, targeted marketing fluff. It's cobbled-together old feelgood phrases and self-help lingo dissolving into grooviness that leaves a nice smell.

    Can we all agree that politics sucks? Duh, YES!!! WOO HOO! Does everyone want more good weather and less bad weather?? Oh man, you can't imagine how many times I've wished that.

    The O-mentum has already crested IMO. People who are tuning "to be inspired" are getting the same warmed over phrases they've seen over and over in soundbites, like those corporately endorsed cool tunes guaranteed by your iPod commercial not to make you look like a fricken dork who doesn't know what to listen to, but desperately needs hipster content. (Clue: it's not Alternative Music if it's in Billboard's top ten.)

    The initial whoosh was helped along by the bored, ever lazy media wanting not to be left out of the next big thing. Let's see where Obama goes on merit and actions.


    Speaking for me only (5.00 / 5) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:20 PM EST
    I think you speak for many of us.
    and thank god for that

    trojan horse strategy (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sancho on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    Perhaps this has been said before but the Samantha Power thing gives the media another chance to discuss whether Hillary is a scary monster. The AP version of the story repreated all of her negative comments about Hillary. I don't know if she was acting on her own or had been encouraged to say this to an out of the way Scottish paper so it would "seem" like she just "happened" to get caught talking out of turn saying what "everybody" knows anyway. They apologize but the negativity somehow sticks to Hillary: the essence of a trojan horse move. Thus, speaking just for me, I think that the Obama campaign is getting from the controversy what they want and it was probably authorized in some way. Whether it works for them, we'll just have to see.

    The double standard of the blogs has befuddled and depressed me as well. If we take this double standard as being representative of the democratic party as a whole, I don't see how they can win in November. Too much self-deceit to allow for consensus building.

    Anyway, combine this flap with the race darkening thing, and it is clear the Obama campaign is ratcheding up its negativity. I wonder if they can go much further with success--b/c who at this point is left to be persuaded?

    I don't think so. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:17 PM EST
    Power is an incredibly strong advisor to 'sacrifice' for the cause.  

    I doubt (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:46:44 PM EST
    she will go far

    She can still be an adviser, just not on staff (none / 0) (#74)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:54:45 PM EST
    I had wondered about that (none / 0) (#125)
    by Foxx on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:30:16 PM EST
    trojan horse thing, but the full quote was pretty ridiculous. Ohio is the only state Clinton can win? Ohions are "obsessed"?

    It was a window on the state of delusion in the Obama campaign. And the sexism ("look at her ergh").

    I think probably it was a very smart interviewer who buddied her up.


    the British press (none / 0) (#144)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:50:55 PM EST
    is used to demanding answers, and they don't let you tap dance around.  They cut you off when you're spouting talking points and tell you to cut the crap.  Have you ever seen any of the old footage of Tony Blair being interrogated by Parliament?  Bush would've huddled into a corner and cried like a baby under that kind of scrutiny.  The press is even more fearless.

    The British press has ... (none / 0) (#194)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:58:53 PM EST
    higher journalistic standards.  So even when they show bias, you can ferret out the facts.  Because the facts are usually there.

    In large part, the American press has given up on journalistic standards and facts.  There are some notable exceptions, but they're becoming harder and harder to find.


    Clinton Rules (5.00 / 7) (#30)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:36:24 PM EST
    Any attack on the Clintons is fair game.  The Republicans set this precedent in the 90s and the blogs were happy to pick up where they left off.

    Power's resignation is the exception rather than the rule.  Anyone remember what happened to Axelrod when he suggested Hillary bore responsibility for Benazir Bhutto's assassination?  Oh yeah, Obama defended him by saying he hadn't claimed Hillary was "directly" responsible.  Ah, the Clinton Rules.

    Why was saying that Clinton wasn't (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:21:05 PM EST
    "directly" responsible okay, when Clinton got slammed for saying that she took Obama at his word that he was a Christian -- which was immediately followed by a comment that she understands how awful it is to be hit with baseless smears?

    Clinton's statement that McCain has passed a CiC "test" that Obama hasn't was both inappropriate and counterproductive -- I am very disappointed that she did that.  But virtually every time Clinton makes the case that she is more experienced, or has better credentials than Obama, this is taken by his supporters (if not him) as "negative" campaigning or a "smear."  After a while, it makes those words meaningless.

    That doesn't excuse the CiC statement.  But Obama's insistence that Clinton DOESN'T have the judgment to be CiC in light of a vote that several of his own prominent supporters -- John Kerry, Tom Daschle -- also made reflects both arrogance, and hypocrisy, IMHO.    


    Judgement (none / 0) (#166)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:24:59 PM EST
    He also said Mccain didn't have the correct judgement. See the difference...

    Well (3.00 / 2) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:38:00 PM EST
    Axelrod's comment was not quite as blatant and he is more important to the campaign.

    I think you can defend both though Axelrod should have regretted the remark at the least.


    Well (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:51:10 PM EST
    I'm not saying he had to resign, but it was stunning to see Obama actually DEFEND him.  Why stick your neck out for your big-mouthed strategist?  They should have apologized and moved on.

    One artifact of the Clinton Rules is that if you attack Hillary, the media simply doesn't descend on you like a pack of howling banshees demanding a retraction.  It leads the Obama folks to think they never have to back away from anything.  Do you remember when Obama supporters ran that Spanish-language ad saying "Hillary doesn't respect our people" - and Obama's spokesman FLATLY DECLINED to denounce it?

    Hillary, by contrast, is forced by the media to apologize for something practically on a daily basis.  Both candidates have supporters and surrogates who say stupid things, but whether you have to apologize and take a PR hit for a news cycle is a function of whether the media decides to focus on you, not a function of how bad your statement was.


    BTD (none / 0) (#190)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:55:56 PM EST
    you cannot have it both ways. That's a double standard right there.

    Powers (none / 0) (#96)
    by 0 politico on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    seems to have left another nugget for everyone to ponder before her resignation came through.

    Taylor Marsh (http://www.taylormarsh.com/) has picked up on an interview that Powers gave the Politico, that was noted by Halperin, and again there seems to be video (BBC, but, I can't run RealPlayer in the office).  

    "She recently said in an interview that Obama's Iraq war plan is not a sure thing. Via Mark Halperin, who has the video portion, we get the full effect of what an Obama presidency would be and it's not what he's campaigning on."

    The Halperin page is at:

    After the BO supporters roundly acuse HC of doing or saying anything to get elected, this does seem rather hypocritical.  It certainly undermines the "honesty" and "new politic" espoused by his campaign and supporters.

    "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009. . . . So to think - it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, `Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

    I am a bit dumb founded.  Perhaps this is a continuation of Amatuer Hour.

    Perhaps, we should just start over and have a complete "redo" with everyone's cards, straight up, on the table.


    Well, technically that's true (none / 0) (#180)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:43:54 PM EST
    Especially in matters of war, you can't absolutely tie yourself down to statements you made in a campaign if things have subsequently changed. It is why neither Obama nor Clinton would pledge to have ALL U.S. troops out of Iraq by the end of their first terms, rightly so.

    But if Obama decided to pursue a significantly different policy than the one he's been running on, he'd have some 'splaining to do to the people who had just elected him, and I would think he would need to make a case as to why things were much different than he'd expected them to be (assuming it wasn't something obvious that was already public knowledge).

    I find the whole NAFTA thing more troubling (albeit on a topic not quite as serious) because it suggested a deliberate misrepresentation of position rather than a "reservation of options."

    Having said all that, Obama's signature issue, other than his general inspirational being, is his early opposition to the war.  That opposition has masked what is probably a more centrist position on other issues, making him rather than Clinton the progressives' darling. If the Halperin video (which I have not seen) is more than a reservation of options, than that ought to be highly relevant to the entire blogosphere -- let alone the entire electorate.


    Precisely ! (none / 0) (#182)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:50:02 PM EST
    why did this appear here? (none / 0) (#185)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:51:55 PM EST
    I replied to another comment...

    Precisely! (none / 0) (#188)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:54:01 PM EST
    Where was Obama's statement about clean campaign?
    That comment  from Axelrod was outrageous

    my favorite (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:37:06 PM EST
    was in one of the "Clinton campaign Blackens Obama!" discussions, where somebody unironically put up a photoshopped piece of Clinton in a beauty queen outfit complete with USA sash, and nobody said boo.

    its a sort of universal thing (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:41:18 PM EST
    not at all limited to blogs or even the MSM.
    one of my passions is political cartoons.
    if you check out the latest crop of political cartoons they are absolutely brutal to Clinton.
    I literally could not find ONE cartoon sympathetic to her.
    and could not find one that was even critical of him in anything but a power puff way.
    its strange.

    Unfortunately, (5.00 / 4) (#90)
    by Boston Boomer on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:02:25 PM EST
    blatant sexism is apparently still acceptable in American culture.  As a woman who was inspired by Betty Friedan's writing when I was in high school way back in the early '60s, it makes me very sad to realize that I will probably be dead before sexism is actually rejected by "polite society."

    I very much appreciate BTD writing about this topic, because many of the "left" bloggers refuse to even admit that Hillary has been subjected to sexist attacks.


    seriously (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:09:26 PM EST
    if you want to see some really sexist stuff that passes itself off as funny check out MSNBC 'week in political cartoons'.
    doesnt matter much which week.  take your pick.

    Linked text


    you know what (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:12:51 PM EST
    they updated the lists.
    they are different than they were yesterday.
    clearly I was not the only one who thought it was a bit one sided.

    Boston Boomer (5.00 / 2) (#181)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:47:00 PM EST
    Inspired by Betty Friedan? Are you one of those "shoulder pad feminists" that Maureen Dowd was excoriating yesterday?

    Apparently I am too (early 50s, never burned bras or hated men but wore big shoulder pads in the early 80s, like all professional women of the era). Apparently, the fact that I saw sexism, then and now, was due to my own warped perception ("I see dead people!") rather than the existence of sexism.


    Not to mention the Hillary Clinton (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:22:29 PM EST

    Can you imagine uproar over the Barack Obama equivalent?  I can't even write down what it would be because it is so repugnant.


    One thing to remember (5.00 / 4) (#54)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:45:51 PM EST
    Obama said he would like Lugar/Hagel in his cabinet.  Basically, he's implying that he's rejected the Democratic field for defense and would have to hire...Republicans? in fact, ultra Conservative Republicans?

    How is that so hugely different than Clinton praising McCain, based on realities that he's been to war, that he's been in government for quite some time.

    I don't see the huge difference, or if I do, I'd say Obama's throwing all Democratic defense experts under the bus while Hillary is only throwing Obama under the bus.

    I can think of at least (none / 0) (#60)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:48:31 PM EST
    one recent example of a Dem President appointment a  GOP type as defense secretary

    No one is saying what is right or wrong (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by SarahinCA on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:22:16 PM EST
    you missed the argument....why can Obama openly say he'll appoint a Republican to DOD, but Clinton can't say McCain has experience?

    Double standard is right.


    no... (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:29:06 PM EST
    Obama appointing a republican on his cabinet is nothing compared to endorsing a republican PRESIDENT.  Clinton has also said she could easily have republicans in her cabinet.  Obama has NOT said the McCain will make a better candidate than Hillary.

    No one endorsed a republican President (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:04:39 PM EST
    Clinton said that McCain was qualified on experience. It wasn't an endorsement for President. It was an acknowledgment that attacking McCain on experience is stupid and counterproductive. And it was also a way to mute or redirect any possible general election attack on her.  Presidencies are decided on many other issues besides experience. Admitting your opponent has a strength is not admitting defeat. The Obama campaign needs to learn that.

    no... (none / 0) (#157)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:10:43 PM EST
    She said McCan passed the Comander in Chief threshold, that he is ready to be president, and that Obama is ready to give a speech.  She didn't try to defend McCain, she openly put him above Obama as a Comander in Chief.  Period.

    A liberal Republican (none / 0) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:57:37 PM EST
    and it was at least the second apointee.

    And besides that, it doesn't excuse Obama.  Maybe when Clinton did it, it was wrong too?


    Ah, a liberal Republican (none / 0) (#94)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    now I see

    And until he actually does it, it would only have Bill Clinton who made that mistake


    Second? (none / 0) (#170)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:29:27 PM EST
    If you're talking about Bill Cohen, he was the third Secretary of Defense, following Aspen and Perry.  And that was in Clinton's second term.

    I believe that's the only Republican in a key cabinet position during the entire eight years.

    He did have some Republican advisers David Gergen and Dick (yikes!) Morris. And he held onto some of the Joint Chiefs who's political affiliation is always murky.  And the DCI for a while, right?


    I don't think you can compare (none / 0) (#168)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:28:17 PM EST
    Bill Cohen to Chuck Hagel or Richard Lugar.  With the exception of Hagel's opposition to the war, Hagel is an extremely conservative Republican. I don't even know what Lugar's position on the war resolution was, but I do know that he's only slightly less conservative than Hagel, and in all relevant respects he has been a loyal supporter of the Bushie agenda.

    It ties into the Obama meme that all that is required to be "progressive" is early opposition to the war.  And it continues to confuse, I think, true bipartisanship with validating or excusing Republican partisanship of the past.

    Yes, it would be great to move beyond partisanship, but the fact is that our system of government is based on parties.  Meeting in the middle is not only impractical in many cases (particularly with a president whose idea of bipartisanship is "capitulate"), but it is sometimes absolutely wrong on principle. This is something that the Democratic Party has had a hard time coming to grips with, preferring instead to keep capitulating.


    Hagel and Lugar are extremely conservative (5.00 / 2) (#198)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:10:10 PM EST
    on numerous levels and frankly this habit of Democrats running to Republicans to fill Defense and Foreign Policy positions is a tacit admission that there are no Democrats good enough to serve in those positions - which I don't think is true.

    I think Obama has a long record of propping up Republicans whilst similtaneously dissing Democrats.  It is a key element of the "post-partisan" campaign strategy.

    I found Clinton's comments about McCain no more problematic than what Obama has been doing all along in his campaign.


    "New" politics? (5.00 / 9) (#55)
    by dk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:46:33 PM EST
    I don't buy Josh's take away message (that even though Obama is all about "new politics," he has to play "old politics" to beat Hillary).

    Obama and Hillary are both playing the same kind of politics.  Politics is politics.  It's fine to support one candidate over the other for a whole host of reasons, but if you think it's because one has a "newer" kind of politics than the other one, you are deluding yourself.

    To me, the obvious answer to the strange behavior of the A-list bloggers is that they actually believe that Obama practices some sort of "new politics."  I think they are wrong, and the proof is in all the contortions they have to wrap themselves up with in these kinds of situations.

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:48:35 PM EST
    I don't buy Josh's take away message (that even though Obama is all about "new politics," he has to play "old politics" to beat Hillary).

    Therein lies the proverbial slippery slope.


    and yet (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Kathy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:40:39 PM EST
    it's still all Clinton's fault.

    If she has so much power over him, why doesn't she use it for more evil?


    Pick one Projection or Denial (none / 0) (#71)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST
    either defense mechanisms definition would fit.  

    meet the new politics (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:49:00 PM EST
    same as the old politics

    Did you read Brooks (I know, I know) in the NYT (none / 0) (#73)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    this morning?  Calls it playing by Clinton's Rules, saying BO has to get nasty to win but if he does he's toast because it's not the New Politics, and he's all about the New Politics.  Ha!

    But Obama isn't selling "new politics," (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by dk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:14:45 PM EST
    he is selling the idea that he believes in "new politics."  And I don't think he does.  That's my point.

    And to be clear, does that make him a Monster?  Absolutely not.  It makes him a politician, just like Hillary Clinton and all the other ones.


    Granted. (none / 0) (#112)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    I may not know as much about the world as you.

    But a country who believes in its President hardly seems like a bad thing to me.


    They have blown their credibility (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Salt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:48:43 PM EST
    I do believe TPM did do a pretty good job on the USA's firings but once the Primary started and Edwards lost they went sillyballs Josh started crowing about Zogby polls dancing on Clinton's first progressive bloggers grave.  I only visit to see what the angry militant wing might be up to but never for information. I dont believe its a concern though they cant hurt the Party or Senator Clinton now that people are on to their hate Clinton at all cost agenda, they I believe have broken off into a movement instead.  And what about Huff Post a ghost town Im not watching the cable talking pundit Clinton haters but it appears as if they also have been moved left of even the left MSM and banned. KOS is just sad very angry very male to bad that.  but good news new blogs are starting up and will replace those, so thats good stuff.

    They need to prepare themselves Senator Clinton will I believe likely be the nominee they jsut become Rush L types then.

    BTD can you explain (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:54:14 PM EST
    your point again about C-i-C?

    I watched Clinton talk about it several times now. My impression has always been that she insists (consistently) that with McCain being the nominee he will compete on national security. Which makes her argument about her own credentials to the superdelegates and the country only more relevant and necessary.

    Without making that argument she would be effectively protecting Obama during the nomination process, and therefore helping him win the nomination.

    Why should she be helping Obama? A Democrat strong on the C-i-C would always have better chance to win the GE then a Democrat who's weak on national security.

    I absolutely (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:58:56 PM EST
    agree with your assessment. BTD is taking Clinton's comments out of context. You are correct that was the context in which they were made. And she is absolutely right. She has a valid point.



    She might not win. (none / 0) (#83)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:58:48 PM EST
    And giving the other party ammunition for the General Election is why candidates don't attack each other on personal levels in the primary.

    Well, why they didn't.  Or shouldn't.


    I disagree completely (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:03:23 PM EST
    • Assumption #1 is that avoid this point will remove it from GE debate. In my view, that's a ridiculous assumption

    • Assumption #2 is that McCain will win the national security argument against Clinton.

    What happens if she wins this argument against McCain? We've seen her come back from the dead against all odds before. I have no doubt that she can win national security against anyone.

    The surge is (none / 0) (#147)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:55:30 PM EST
    working militarily....There has not been a U.S. combat death in Iraq for two weeks--the last one was 24 Feb.....

    Since then, there has been one fatality caused by a vehicle accident, and a soldier who died at Bethesda from wounds suffered months ago.

    McCain was right about the surge militarily.....Hillary supported the war, only supported the troops halfway, opposed the surge, called Petraeus a liar in front of the world ("willing suspension of disbelief"), and will be tied up in knots trying to explain her Kerry-like flip-flopping and grandstanding for the cameras....

    On the other hand, if we end up with fewer than 10 combat deaths this month (which seems likely) and that trend continues for months, the national security issue may go away entirely.


    WTF? (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:27:33 PM EST
    I know that you have been a Republican but to mouth GOP talking points here at TL is over the top.

    The surge doesn't exist anymore, is a festering bulge at this point.  We need to withdraw our troops ASAP. Lip service to GOP talking points is absurd.


    Dems are saying (none / 0) (#174)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:40:54 PM EST
    it too....militarily.....How is my analysis wrong?

    I am an Independent who likes anti-war Lincoln Chafee.....I have no illusions Hillary would remove any troops that were not already coming home under Bush....


    Wrong Because (5.00 / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    The surge was an utter failure, except if you were mouthing GOP talking points. It has been long over and now we are back to basic occupation again.

    There have been many Iraqi deaths this week. The fact that the US is staying in safe quarters behind the green zone does not mean that Iraq is any safer. It just means that the US are not exposing themselves to risk. The surge was suppose to make Iraq safe. It hasn't.


    Here are the numbers (none / 0) (#197)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:00:54 PM EST
    This link is quite good....Under any analysis, the violence in Iraq has gone down....U.S. combat deaths down from over 100 to probably under 10 this month....Iraqi deaths down from 3000 to about 500-600....

    If you have a link to a different military analysis, I'd be happy to look at it.....

    I opposed the war, still do, but it's hard to deny facts like these....That is why I think Obama's position on Iraq is better than Hillary's--it is not dependent on things going badly on the ground in Iraq.  


    Surge isn't working militarily (5.00 / 0) (#192)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:57:32 PM EST
    The ethnic cleansing and arming folks previously considered bad guys is working, short-term.  But the point was political.  It's like saying a baseball team's outfielders aren't crashing into the fences any more, so the pitch-wrong-handed strategy is working.

    So... (5.00 / 0) (#189)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:54:43 PM EST
    Obama saying she lacks "judgment" because of her AUMF vote doesn't hurt her in the GE?  I realize McCain voted for it to, but just the sound byte that "she lacks judgment" doesn't play well.

    He also has publicly said that "she will do anything to win" (like he isn't).

    How is this helpful?


    Everybody says that (none / 0) (#109)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:15:14 PM EST
    But it never happens.

    True (none / 0) (#121)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:26:28 PM EST
    but everybody also said Clinton would lose NH, etc.

    I really don't think (none / 0) (#155)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    McCain is going to start quoting Clinton in his ads.

    The only thing I can compare it to is moveon trying to quote Hagel in an ad during the 2004 election.  Hagel released a statement the next day saying "That's not true, I support Bush 100%."

    Then the ad is nullified and you spent the money on it for nothing.

    Nor is McCain going to quote Obama's Team (calling the Clintons liars) in his ads if she wins.

    Everyone complains about it.

    It never happens.


    I know TPM is the devil. (none / 0) (#183)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:51:32 PM EST
    An October interview (none / 0) (#91)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    Reporter:  Senator Clinton, back in March you said that you believed that John McCain had the experience to be CinC but that Senator Obama did not.  If you feel that way why did you choose to (accept the VP position/ask Senator Obama to be your running mate)?

    Senator Clinton: That comment is being taken out of context.  I, errrrr, didn't mean that.


    She could use Obama as VP (none / 0) (#95)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:04:46 PM EST
    for many other reasons. VP is not a C-i-C.

    But what if she loses.... (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM EST
    And she still might.  What then?  I would like to assume that she will suppport Obama in that case, but this will undermine that argument.

    Please (none / 0) (#104)
    by Polkan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:13:33 PM EST
    Here is a translation of some have said here:

    "Since you can't be sure you will win, then don't use the argument that your Dem opponent will surely lose"

    How on earth does that make sense??


    It doesn't make any sense at all (5.00 / 0) (#136)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:40:30 PM EST
    and you shouldn't expect that.  It's basically "Clinton did blah".  

    If anyone thinks McCain needs Hillary to verify his CiC qualifications, they need a long rest.


    Cause (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:05:15 PM EST
    If you believe the other person is not qualified and is risking the GE, you have a responsibility to speak up.  That is ridiculous.  You think McCain is not gonna use it or that he did not figure it out?  All we need a tank picture with Obama.  

    VP has to be (none / 0) (#149)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    qualified to be CINC....

    If she is going to leave Obama out of national security issues, why would he take VP?  Governor of Illinois would be much more attractive....He could still come back as a Presidential candidate complaining about Wsshington insiders....


    She didn't say Obama wasn't qualified (none / 0) (#161)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:19:31 PM EST
    Again, he's more qualified than WJC in '92, and she can say so if he's the VP.

    Yeah, it looks to be working out (none / 0) (#123)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:28:01 PM EST
    real well for the Dems

    "The commercial was credited as one factor enabling Clinton to turn her campaign around in Texas last week. But, 42% of all voters said the person they'd most want to answer the phone was John McCain. Among all voters, 25% picked Clinton and another 25% named Obama as the person they'd want in the White House when a foreign policy crisis call arrived.

    Among Democrats, 46% said they'd like Clinton to take that call while 36% named Obama.

    Among Republicans, 79% named McCain while neither Democrat reached double digits."


    Seems the problem here is with reality (5.00 / 0) (#139)
    by RalphB on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    not with Clinton.

    the hyprocisy of lefty prominent blogosphere (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by toddy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:06:57 PM EST
    i have no problems with website owners doing
    what they want with the sites. if you don't
    like it just click and go somewhere else.

    not the hypocrisy.

    josh marshall with his daily anti-hillary
    framing and with the chutzpah to say he is " unbiased and neutral ".

    Keith Ohlberman with his, " no beef with either
    Democratic candidates "

    do they think viewers can be that stupid and dump?

    There's nothing extraordinary here (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by esmense on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:24:54 PM EST
    Obama used praise of Reagan to trash Bill Clinton's administration (and appeal to Republicans) before the Nevada caucus.

    Putting aside the fact that the Clintons were personally and understandably offended, I thought it was extremely bad strategy because it undermined his ability, in the GE, to, as a Democrat, benefit from the public perception of very real successes -- fiscal responsibility, job and wage growth, new business growth, etc. --  of the most recent and most successful in almost half a century, Democratic administration. It also, of course, created a negative talking point for the GOP -- aimed at besmirching and under-cutting an important association and strength -- to use against Clinton if she ended up with the nomination.
    And, it did all that while most likely angering more Democrats than winning over Republicans.

    For all those reasons, I thought it was really inept campaigning. (One, I think, of the many times Obama's people have let their petty, personal dislike for the Clintons cloud their brains).

    Is Clinton's Commander in Chief statement on the same level as an insult? Maybe. But, in terms of political strategy, it is actually much less damaging all around. It doesn't do any harm to Obama in the GE because he isn't running and can't run on his military and foreign policy experience anyway -- he is, instead, running AGAINST both Clinton and McCain's experience. His argument won't be that he has experience and a record like McCain's, but that McCain's record is the reason he shouldn't be president.

    Does Hillary's statement provide any benefit to her? In the setting in which it was made, surrounded by generals, sure, for some voters it will probably be reassuring.

    And, in the context of her full statement, the praise she gave McCain is really no different than the praise Obama is always sure to make in his statements about his potential Republican rival. Both Obama and Clinton know that they have to compete against McCain within the context of always paying respect to his military history and heroism.

    Talkleft (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by pavaoh on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:01:21 PM EST
    I love this site. It is the only place where there is true discussion that I have found.  You can agree or disagree but you get a chance to see the other side's veiw without all the rage and hate.   I watched the hearings on CSPAN during the nineties and have my own opinions of what was true then and what was lies.  Tuesday I voted for Hillary.  I am a woman but I voted for her because I trust her more.  I voted for her because Obama didn't earn my trust.  I voted for her because she had the strength to handle everything and come through as a stronger person.  Now she is going through some of the same treatment and I know she will handle it just as well.  I think she has worked hard and understands what is needed in today's world and has the strenghth to follow through no matter what.

    Present company accepted ... (5.00 / 3) (#186)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    most "lefty blogs" never struck me as very lefty.

    They rarely discuss civil liberties or civil rights.  Gay rights are almost never mentioned.  And I've also almost never seen the issues of African Americans addressed.

    Other minority groups or interests are pushed even farther to the back of the bus.

    They're certainly not causes of the blogosphere.

    Worker's rights?  Not much.  You have to explain "Taft Hartley" to most bloggers.  The word "Unions" usually results in crickets.  

    Forget about economics or any sophisticated discussion of geopolitics.

    Global warming ... maybe ... if you keep it very simple.

    Most of it is tribal.  Bigging up Democrats, and bashing Republicans.  Or chatter about language and strategy.

    There are exceptions to this, of course.  But, over all, I've always eyed the net roots with a skeptical gaze.  Fair weather friends at best.

    For these reasons, their hypocrisy and fawning over Obama isn't much of a surprise to me.  It's just more of the tribalism I've come to expect.

    And, frankly, it's not that different than behavior elsewhere on the Internet. For example, in movie or TV fan forums.

    I am a Centrist (none / 0) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:57:12 PM EST
    FWIW (none / 0) (#2)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:21:48 PM EST
    I think the C-i-C thing isn't that bad.  Clinton said McCain passes the prevailing-standards threshold test [obviously true], that she passes [well, arguable], and that Obama can argue his case himself.  So what?

    She is basically saying (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:26:20 PM EST
    She's saying McCain will make a better commander in chief.  The problem with this is, she still might lose.  Then what?  She just did a huge disservice to the democratic party.  And people on this blog have constantly commented on the fact that Barack has been too friendly to republicans, but this goes above and beyond that since she is practically endorsing McCain over Obama.  

    The fact is, there is absolutely hypocrisy in blogs, but it is on both sides of the isle.  Obama fans are too quick to cry "racism" and Hillary fans are too quick to cry "sexism/reverse-racism".  The fact is, both sides have said some unfortunate things, which have all been amplified by MSNBC aka Tabloid news.


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:33:09 PM EST
    candidate fans will do that. The bloggers themselves should try and avoid it.

    I disagree. Hillary has (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by sancho on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:04 PM EST
    to do the McCain vs. Obama C-i-C comparison. She is better on that issue than Obama is. She can play C-i-C and it is not clear that Obama can. (I'm talking percpetions here, not reality.) If he can't beat Hillary on that issue then he sure cannot beat McCain and the repubs are going to attack him on it whether Hillary does or not. I think it is smart move by Hillary. It allows Obama to be "vetted" on one of his biggest weaknesses while positioning her to run against McCain on that critical issue--one that will be the deal breaker for a lot of voters.

    i agree (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by wasabi on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:01:55 PM EST
    He needs to be vetted on this.  If you look at the demographics of the electorate so far, Clinton gets the 60+ voters by a wide margin.  They are worried about his experience.  It's sure not a given that they will stay in the party if he is the nominee.  It's time for him to make the case for himself.  Can he win that demograpic, because the Democratic party will need them come November.

    What she's actually saying (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:44:44 PM EST
    is, "think carefully before you anoint Obama as ready-for-prime-time, because you know and I know that in a general election contest, McCain is going to hit him as being inexperienced and Obama's not going to be able to close the deal on the basis of having given an anti-war speech in 2002, not when McCain trots out his war service and military background.  I, on the other hand, may not have been in the military, or fought in a war, but I have served in the Armed Services Committee, I've actually shown up to work, I was the only Senator asked by the military to be part of [whatever that task force is or was] and I have 20-something distinguished active and retired high-level military flag officers who believe I'm ready and able to handle the job."

    That's what she was really saying - I'm just sorry that (1) she didn't say it so unequivocally and that (2) it isn't obvious to everyone even if she didn't say it so clearly.


    I has this thought (5.00 / 0) (#196)
    by cmugirl on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:00:12 PM EST
    not nearly as eloquently as you put it, but that's how I took the comment.  He's not ready to be CIC and the Republicans will bury him with it the day after the convention and it will be a long 12 week downward slide from there.

    This has been another edition of (none / 0) (#66)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:51:12 PM EST
    What Hillary really meant

    I took what Hillary said (5.00 / 0) (#107)
    by ding7777 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:14:42 PM EST
    to be the person who faces McCain in Novemember should be equal to McCain's CIC status

    Facing facts (none / 0) (#18)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:55 PM EST
    McCain is more qualified from a conventional perspective than either, and Obama is least.  But she doesn't actually say the second part.  Your interpretation is like JMM's saying Clinton demanded Shuster resign.  If Obama can sell the country on his preparedness to command the armed forces (e.g. by saying he's better qualified than Bill Clinton was - a plainly true statement I think), then he's ok.  If he can't, then Dem voters should take that into account.

    I strongly disagree (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    She is undermining the Dem position while giving McCain a pass. It is deplorable what she is doing.

    Just as it was deplorable when Obama basically attacked Clinton's character and honesty.

    Or when Obama went Harry and Louise.

    Josh was ok with that. That is the hypocrisy.


    The real argument (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    There's no argument in the general about McCain having sufficient experience on this score.  That would just be laughed at by the electorate.  The argument is that McCain has crazy positions on foreign policy and (expressed more subtly) that he lacks the temperament to hold the football.  Saying "Go ask Senator Obama about how he's going to fend off R attacks on this front" seems like fair play to me.

    The Obama stuff on HRC's partisanship and knee-jerk liberalism was wrong because it was in support of a lie.


    That is no excuse (none / 0) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    No excuse (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:45:47 PM EST
    that what she said won't actually help McCain or hurt Obama?  She has to revile every aspect of McCain, even when that will make her look stupid?

    Where's the anger about the Obama campaign putting out a release calling McCain a "straight-talker and independent thinker"?  There's an actual example of pushing a RW frame.


    The problem isn't speaking well of McCain (none / 0) (#78)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    It's speaking well of McCain OVER Obama the other dem candidate.

    McCain is dotty (none / 0) (#152)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:03:18 PM EST
    is a potent issue....He blew his stack today....

    Really really undermining the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:42:28 PM EST
    position and looking silly to this military spouse as well.  The military is all beat to snot but you would never gather anything of the sort as Hillary wants to measure peceived CIC ovary and testicle size.  It's just beyond sad even, but then Obama went all misty eyed future CIC too in his speech Tuesday night as well and I started retching.  Gimmeee a break candidates!  I don't care if McCain did time in the Hanoi Hilton, you don't need to go here to beat him.  Just staying with reality will be enough!

    Deplorable? (none / 0) (#179)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:43:40 PM EST
    Are you kidding? BTD how can you be so naive? McCain doesn't need Clinton to raised these issues: they will raise them on their own. Clinton has every right to ask thes equestions b/c these are issues in the minds of a lot of voters.
    Attacks ar ethings you throw to your opponent that are not true. The questions she are raising are absolutely valid. Do you call an attack to  point out Obama's failure to do his job as the Chairman of the Foreign Relation Subcommittee on Europe that oversees NATO and its mission in Afghanistan?
    He belw an opportunity for real leadership right there. And it was a serious one. He wanted to campiagn, fine. Then don't accept to be Chairman, do take up the responsability only to ignore it.

    If Obama can't handle these discussions (and many people disagree with you that they are "attacks"?)
    and he is not ready to respond then he should not be a presidential candidate. Protecting him by fear these can be used by Reps.is an infantile and ludicrous argument.


    It was bad (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    I support her strongly, but she should not have said this.

    If she contemplates being on the same ticket with him, it was bad strategy for the general election.

    Even if not, it was just a bone-headed thing to say. I don't like Democrats using GOP talking points, ever.


    Yes it was boneheaded.... (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:39:10 PM EST
    ...on par with the Reagan comparisons in my opinion.  Both made me cringe.

    Yep (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by spit on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:43:31 PM EST
    in both cases, I get what they were saying. But that isn't the point -- they both provided arguments to the right.

    Dumb. I'd really like to see both campaigns get smarter about that sort of thing.


    Except that (none / 0) (#84)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:59:18 PM EST
    this is the SECOND time she has done this.  

    Once is a bad choice of words.  Twice is a tactical decision.


    exactly (none / 0) (#93)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:04:32 PM EST
    I think it was always a tactical decision.  it was to goad them into attacking her.  and viola it worked.
    you may not like it, I dont particularly, but if that was a goal it lost Obama a key adviser and got a day or two of, if not sympathetic at least not overtly hostile, press coverage.

    OK, then it's bad strategy (none / 0) (#126)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:30:23 PM EST
    Just as Obama's Reagan comment was bad strategy.  What's your point?

    Obama's comment (none / 0) (#130)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:33:07 PM EST
    was a strategy.  It w as a comment in an interview.

    And do you really think that saying something nice about a dead Republican is the same as praising a living Republican who is currently running for President?


    I meant to say (none / 0) (#131)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:34:25 PM EST
    it was NOT a strategy.

    BS (none / 0) (#140)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:44:33 PM EST
    It was a strategy with several aims: (1) get the endorsement of a conservative paper; (2) curry favor with more conservative voters who adore Reagan; (3) poke at Bill Clinton and see if you can get him to react. The worst part of that interview, to my mind, was that Sen. Obama uttered "Nixon" and "Clinton" in the same sentence. That was not an accident.

    I don't care much (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:59:31 PM EST
    for deconstructing every comment to find the hidden meanings. If that comment was intended to curry favor with Republicans it was about as tepid an compliment as you can give and still call it a compliment.  

    thats your opinion (none / 0) (#138)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:41:03 PM EST
    it might even be mine
    but if my assumption was correct, it worked.
    so "bad" is a point of view.

    I think this is calculated (none / 0) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:37:58 PM EST
    I dont like it much either but I think the goal was always to goad them into attacking her.
    looks like it worked.

    I'd go further than that (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:46:39 PM EST
     For Clinton it's part of the project to convince Democrats that she'll be stronger against McCain than Obama will.

    When she make these comments, she's very clearly trying to make that case.  When Barack said that Republicans have been the party of ideas in the last 10 or 15 years, what case was he making?

    Barack's supporters hate it that she has a case, imo, more than they hate it that she's making it.


    Here's the problem (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:55:15 PM EST
    When Barack talks republicans, he speaks in a general sense, because he is trying to bring republican voters on board.  He never says "Reagan was better than Clinton", he more or less says they both had good and bad ideas.  Clinton here is specifically talking about the republican nominee for president being more qualified and a better candidate than Obama.

    Here's what I see (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by hitchhiker on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:14:08 PM EST
    Clinton here is specifically talking about the republican nominee for president being more qualified than her opponent in the area of foreign policy.

    He is more qualified, in the sense that he's 25 years older and has been in the military of the senate for a very long time.

    Everybody in the USA who is paying attention knows that.

    It's just not going to make my hackles rise to see her trying to climb up on the podium with McCain and leave Barack out.  That's just making the argument.

    (I know y'all disagree!)


    True (5.00 / 1) (#200)
    by hookfan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:27:12 PM EST
    and know what? The more Obama's supporters react to this it keeps the obvious point that McCain is indeed more qualified in experience front and center. The more they complain about it, the more they keep the focus on how weak Obama is on experience and needs their protection. It comes across as a hoodwink and misdirection to avoid the obvious-- McCain does have more experience. Obama needs to defend himself on this, not just make everybody else shut up. That said, Hillary needs to make her case another way.

    Well it should (none / 0) (#117)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:20:33 PM EST
    the point is not to legitimize John McCain.  That is the job of John McCain and the Republican Party.

    It doesn't matter whether point is good or not.  She is implicitly accepting that John McCain is the standard that Obama and Hillary need to achieve.  That is a horrible way of framing the discussion.

    She should be saying that John McCain needs to prove that he is up to the standard of either Democrat.


    Just as an example (none / 0) (#145)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:52:02 PM EST
    of my point. This comes from Streiff on RedState.  an arch-Conservative who has never met a Democrat he has ever liked...

    I've watched a few presidential primaries play out, but I have to say this is the first one in which I've heard one candidate unfavorably compare their primary opponent's qualifications to those of their general election opponent. It is a counterintuitive strategy, at least, on the part of Hillary!

    Even he sees this as a strange argument for a Democrat to be making.  


    He said that Reagan was transformative... (5.00 / 3) (#113)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    ...in a way that Clinton never was. Which is funny cause in many ways he is running Clinton's 1992 campaign all over again.

    Actually, its worse than that (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by litigatormom on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:58:09 PM EST
    Obama has lumped the Clinton Administration into the same "old partisan politics" basket as the Bush I and Bush II administrations, even though the hyperpartisan nature of the Clinton years was due entirely to Clinton's refusal to be run out of office by the Republicans.  The Republicans were after him for "Day 1" and they created a narrative, which the MSM happily picked up, of skullduggery that by today's standards is laughable.

    Vince Foster?  Do you know there are STILL people who think that Bill and Hillary killed Vince Foster?  Whitewater?  Compared to the incredible conflicts of interest embodied in, among others, Halliburton, Blackwater, the DOJ/USA scandal, illegal domestic surveillance, not to mention the Biggie, the Iraq war.

    The MSM's ADHD/amnesia/collaboration on the torrent of Bush scandals is astonishing, especially when you consider how rabid the press was with respect to Bill from "Day 1."


    So what? (none / 0) (#6)
    by magster on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:26:48 PM EST
    She's doing what Obama always gets criticized for -- legitimizing GOP talking points.  She has conceded McCain's claimed superiority to win in a primary, making it harder for either Obama or Clinton to win on this issue in the general election.

    It would be much more legit for her to say I'm the only of us three to have both experience and sanity, and portray McCain as a nut.


    I don't like Hillary saying anything (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by Boston Boomer on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST
    good about McCain, and I hope she stops it.  But from what I read, she has mostly said that McCain will be campaigning on his foreign policy experience.  But it is true that if Obama runs against McCain, the narrative will be that Obama is unqualified in comparison to McCain.  I hope Hillary will start criticizing his experience instead.  

    I agree with BTD that many "left" bloggers have damaged their credibility by their outrage at any criticism of Obama and their over-the-top attacks on Clinton.


    Not ciriticzed by Left bogs ever (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:29:45 PM EST
    Other than this one you mean.

    That will be coming, I'm sure! (none / 0) (#19)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM EST
    Experience, change--and sanity (most likely a better word will be found)in the face of adversity. Who can match that in the group?

    Today I think I read at least two quotes from Repub cohorts of McCain talking about his temper and impulsiveness.


    The CIC thing would have been fine (none / 0) (#38)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:39:23 PM EST
    (at least as political rhetoric, if not fact) if she had not brought McCain into it.  That is where it is over the top in my view.  It would be like Obama saying that it is clear that he has integrity, and McCain does, but as for Hillary, you will have to ask her.  Not good.

    No (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:48:32 PM EST
    It's not clear that McCain has integrity - there's Keating Five, and his flip-flopping, and the latest flap...

    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:56:58 PM EST
    But (none / 0) (#86)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:00:04 PM EST
    McCain does have the conventional threshold experience to command, and Obama will have to make the sale on that issue.  That's the difference.

    Yes, it would be exactly like that (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by wasabi on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:57:05 PM EST
    Those are the very statements he has been making for a long time now.  He praises McCain for his straight-shooterness and criticizes the Clintons for their inability to be truthful.  He just doesn't say them in the same sentence.

    Thoughtful (none / 0) (#3)
    by rilkefan on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    I rather thought JMM gets overexcited here about Obama's situation, which isn't as good as it was a week ago but is still a lot better overall, unless I'm very confused.

    Confused (none / 0) (#4)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:25:01 PM EST
    There was no thoughtful explanation provided for those episodes. The blatant hypocrisy and bias is undeniable. It bothers me and it utterly undermines the credibility of the complaints you hear from those quarters. These folks do themselves a great disservice imo.

    Are you referring to the Clinton campaign's C-i-C & racial comments?  Or something that Josh said -- Or didn't say?

    Who's the hypocrite?

    Josh did not provide a thoughtful analysis (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:27:44 PM EST
    of why those Clinton operatives were good people caught up in the moment.

    I guess I'm not getting the hypocrisy (none / 0) (#40)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:40:49 PM EST
    I guess I'd better have lunch or something.  I'm not following the connection of your post to your link at all.

    I read Josh's post as an evaluation of the Obama campaign & their state of mind; that they're rattled and off-message. And I actually thought he was exactly right -- the first time in several weeks that I've thought that.

    I don't really see where he's being hypocritical in his view.  At least not with THIS (linked) post.  

    But maybe I'll read it differently when I get back....


    That post is not the hypocrisy (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:51:55 PM EST
    The LACK of such a post is his hating of Clinton binges is the hypocrisy.

    I frankly do not  understand your confusion.


    Well it's Friday and I'm tired (5.00 / 3) (#115)
    by katiebird on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:19:30 PM EST
    riverdaughter explained it for me:

    I'm with Big Tent Democrat on Josh Marshall's hypocrisy.  It seems that if Hillary's camp makes a mistake, it's desperation or incompetence or some other damn thing.  But if Obama's camp steps in it, it's because Hillary is getting inside his head and hammering him.  Sooo, according to Marshall, she's the worst politician strategically and she's a brilliant psy-ops mentat.  It's hard to believe she can be both simultaneously.

    I don't know why it was such a struggle for me.  But I get it now....


    mentat, LOL! n/t (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by HadIt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:32:07 PM EST
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#133)
    by Steve M on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:36:08 PM EST
    Hillary runs a negative campaign, you see; Obama is forced by Hillary to run a negative campaign.  It's easy to frame everything in these terms if you try.

    I personally prefer to believe both our candidates are grown adults and that the things their campaigns do are the result of voluntary choices.


    Everyone's equally to blame! (none / 0) (#13)
    by JJE on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:30:19 PM EST
    It's high Broderism, internecine Democrat style.

    It is a political campaign (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:14 PM EST
    I reserve my critiques for things that hurt the Dem position, particularly on issues.

    I have no love of either Obama or Clinton. I do not love them as candidates quite frankly.


    Funny (none / 0) (#16)
    by AdrianLesher on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:32:32 PM EST
    that's how I feel about the pro-Clinton biases on this blog. No matter what triangulation she is involved in, Obama's is always said to be worse. Her big-money connections are routinely ignored. Her Liebermanesque moments are washed away. Obama says he might have Republican cabinet members, it merits an outraged post. Clinton says the same...crickets.

    What? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by eric on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:48:18 PM EST
    I read this blog everyday and have no idea what you are talking about.  Is this place pro-Clinton?  Not really, it just isn't anti-Clinton.

    No matter what triangulation she is involved in, Obama's is always said to be worse.

    Like what, exactly?

    In fact, one of the best things about this blog is that people generally stick to the issue and don't resort to the "but what the other candidate did was worse" excuse.


    If this site isn't Pro-Clinton. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Arbitrarity on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:51:25 PM EST
    Then it is not capable of existing.

    I'm not say that's a bad thing, but let's be honest here.  Kos, TPM, and a number of others are blatantly Pro-Obama and additionally disgustingly anti-Clinton.  But objective dialogue is not what I come here.  

    On the record.


    I feel comfortable here (5.00 / 0) (#165)
    by coigue on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:24:58 PM EST
    and I voted Obama.

    It's not rabidly pro-Clinton on average.


    I think the reason this is happening, (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    or at least that you perceive it happpening, is that we know Hillary Clinton.  We know about her big money connections, we've all moaned and groaned when she's ventured into Lieberman territory, etc.  

    But who is Obama, really?  He has defined himself by the themes of his speeches, for the most part, and that is the lens through which his actual actions and connections - in other words, reality - is being viewed.  He talks about hope and change and transparency, but in three years, the Chicago press has not been able to get all the details on his house purchase.  No one has been able to get the information on how much of a kingmaker TOney Rezko was for Obama.  

    He talks about unity and being a force for change, but he has not applied himself to a committee chairmanship that would have allowed him to make some inroads in America's standing in the world, and provided needed oversight on the forgotten war of Afghanistan.

    He talks about his hard work in Chicago, and we find out that he was not a force for change in the legislature, and in his last year there, was handed legislation that others had worked for years on in a formerly Republican-dominated environment, and he took credit for it to build his resume.

    He talks about "old Washington" like Rumsfeld talked about Old Europe, but he proves in the Austan Goolsbee episode that he is not a new brand of anything - he's just a younger politician.

    He has brought a lot of this on himself, whether because he thought he could win enought soon enough that no one would look past the speeches to see what else was there until it was too late - or because he doesn't see the disconnect there that a lot of the rest of us do - I don't know.

    With Hillary, there's a much greater sense of knowing who she is, and that may be why you don't hear a lot of noise on issues you think should be getting it.


    Can you provide some examples? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:34:04 PM EST
    One even.



    Examples can be provided (none / 0) (#77)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    And they have been provided in the past only to be deleted or dismissed.

    One or 2 new diaries a day on Rezko?  And the rationalization that this blog is about crime.  Fine.  Where are all the other diaries about other criminal prosecutions?

    Where is the diary about Hillary praising McCain in comparison to Barack Obama?  You would think this should be a big thing to talk about but nothing.  

    Even the Power gaffe is covered purely from a "How does this help/hurt Hillary perspective".

    Heck where are the diaries criticizing the REPUBLICANS?  

    This place has created such an us vs them mentality that a lot of the posters really think that Obama is the enemy.  

    And the fact that other blogs are worse doesn't condone that action here.   There are a number of blogs that at least try to be even handed.  OpenLeft, ModerateVoice, and Political Animal to name a few.


    examples (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by eric on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:12:42 PM EST
    What we were looking for would be the anti-Clinton biases identified in the first comment:

    No matter what triangulation she is involved in, Obama's is always said to be worse. Her big-money connections are routinely ignored. Her Liebermanesque moments are washed away. Obama says he might have Republican cabinet members, it merits an outraged post. Clinton says the same...crickets.

    You are pointing out that there are more posts that are arguably critical of Obama than there are that are critical of Clinton.  This is a valid critism, I suppose, and addresses the original commentor's last point.  However, I really don't see any example where Obama was "worse" than Clinton, where big money connections are ignored, where Clinton's comments are "washed away".

    In my view, this blog does not practice any of the types of "bias" or double standards that are alleged.


    correction (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by eric on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:15:53 PM EST
    Oops, first sentence should read: "What we were looking for would be the anti-Obama biases identified in the first comment:

    Because (none / 0) (#122)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:26:39 PM EST
    you agree with the bias.

    One of the favorite hobbies of this blog is to point out the bias of the other blogs for being Anti-Hillary.  

    The 3 A.M. ad is nothing if it is not rehashed Liebermanism.  Attack your own on national security.   It is the QUINTESSENTIAL Lieberman.  

    The attacks on whether Obama is prepared to be President is no different.  

    We see what we want to see.


    It's a litlle ridiculous (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:39:31 PM EST
    to talk about "bias" when people are commenting on blogs to express their opinions.  It's ok to have an opinion and express it, and not everyone is going to agree but that doesn't make people biased.

    I still object, however, to unfounded and often personal attacks, such as when people dredge up GOP talking points from the 1990's. I see a lot more of that on some other blogs, when I can stand to venture over there, than I see on this blog.  But that's why I'm here and not there.

    As an aside, suggesting that Hagel and Lugar would be good candidates for Defense/State, well, that's bashing our own on national security too.


    First off (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:45:22 PM EST
    this particular discussion was about bias on blogs and this blog in particular so I do think that bias is pertinent.

    The "unfounded and personal" attacks started to get dredged up when the Clinton campaign decided to go after Obama on Rezko even though they know that there isn't anything there.  

    I have no idea what your last state means.  Saying that Hagel and Lugar would be SecDefs bashing Democrats?  How?  


    The Rezco deal hasn't been investigated and (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:49:49 PM EST
    BO won't answer our questions about it.  So how can you say there is nothing there?  I think there may be.  Let's investigate if you are so certain there is nothing there.  

    Actually it HAS been investigated (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:55:16 PM EST
    Federal investigators did in fact investigate the matter.  And guess what?  They didn't find anything worth implicating Obama over.

    What SPECIFICALLY is it you want to investigate?   Not let's keep asking for more and more stuff from Obama that has no relevance but will keep him defensive about the entire issue.


    No good Democrats to take those positions? (5.00 / 0) (#143)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:50:23 PM EST
    We're too weak to handle those positions? That's how.

    I was commenting on blog posters and the campaign's supporters, not the campaigns themselves. But I think the notion that Obama's campaign was pure as the driven snow until Clinton mentioned Rezko in a debate (after being provoked) thereby pulling Obama's campaign down into the mud with them is laughable.


    Oh please (none / 0) (#148)
    by flyerhawk on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:57:19 PM EST
    He didn't say that and you need to leap pretty far to reach that conclusion.  He didn't say he would appoint either one.  He said they would be good choices.

    No one is suggesting that either campaign is pure.  You guys just seem to think that Hillary is always the victim of unfair attacks.


    Us guys? (none / 0) (#156)
    by Democratic Cat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:07:45 PM EST
    I don't know who you think you're talking to, but I don't always think that Hillary is attacked unfairly. I try to distinguish between criticisms regarding policy or campaign strategy and re-runs of Vince Foster rumors.

    The 3 am ad (5.00 / 0) (#177)
    by tree on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:43:14 PM EST
    was compared a while back to the Mondale red phone ad in 1984. The Mondale specifically, by name, attacked Gary Hart on national security claiming Hart was unsure, unsteady and doesn't know what he's doing. This kind of stuff happens in every primary. The Bin-Laden-Dean ad was a particularly nasty example in 2004. It was put out by a 527 who's spokeperson has become Obama's communication director

    The 3 am ad was exceedingly mild by comparison, and didn't mention Obama at all, just talked up Clinton. Part of the hypocrisy is the rage at simple politics when its being indulged in by anyone other than your preferred candidate.  



    This blog is fair for the most part (none / 0) (#128)
    by Paladin on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:32:00 PM EST
    What I like about this blog is that for the most part, there is reasoned discussion about the issues being discussed in the post.  I am a very intermittent commenter, but enjoy reading many of the interchanges and don't participate too often.

    I used to enjoy reading TMP, Kos, Huff, etc. for the same reasons, until the tone got really nasty.  I agree with another commenter who mentioned a day or two ago that these blogs have taken on a mob mentality.

    I was particualry disappointed in TMP, as I had always found his writing to be thoughtful.  I did read today's post that BTD refers to, and was glad to see that he appeared to step back a little and look at the situation with a little more perspective.

    But I agree that it's hypocritical not to be as outraged with the unfounded attacks on Hillary as he is with Obama's.


    This was not you doing (none / 0) (#85)
    by riddlerandy on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:59:46 PM EST
    but I thought the rhetoric in the recent post about the Austin Mayor was a little hyperventilated

    BTW (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:35:00 PM EST
    You want top link to the cabinet members post here? I have no recollection of it.

    Can you point to the Lierbmanesque Clinton comment that was ignored?


    Big money connections (none / 0) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:42:07 PM EST
    Money connections are looked at.  In one little clip at CNN today... It lists Obama's big pharma money at $181,000 to Clinton's $174,000.  If he goes after her on money issues, she will come back with his.  It would not be pretty. Neither one of them is clean.

    You are consistent in criticizing both sides (none / 0) (#69)
    by halstoon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:52:57 PM EST
    and I do give you credit for that.

    In this instance, though, you've chosen the wrong link for your argument. Mr. Marshall is not criticizing Clinton at all. He also doesn't really defend Power. He does say that all camps tend to bash rather harshly off the record, but he doesn't excuse it or lampoon it.

    The post you linked to was largely a criticism of the Obama campaign, but not for the remark. Mr. Marshall was making the case for why TeamObama must avoid letting TeamClinton dictate the tenor and direction of this ongoing debate.

    He rightly points out that Sen. Clinton's real victory on Tuesday was not impacting the delegate count, but in making TeamObama and their supporters wonder if their candidate can fight. I myself was horribly disappointed in Obama's handling of the whole OH/TX affair. He came across as ineffectual and weak. That will not get it done, not now and not in the fall.

    Obama has to start fighting, though he needn't do it by endorsing Power's behavior, which he did not do. He also needn't build up McCain at Sen. Clinton's expense, as she has done to him. He does, however, have to do it.

    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    Find me such an understanding post about the Clintons when they are on the attack. This POST is not the point. The LACK of such a post about the Clinton campaign is.

    Powers on "monster" or no real Iraq plan (none / 0) (#70)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:53:23 PM EST
    quote the reason she's gone. Or both? Seems to me she undercut Obama's stump speech and raison d'etre for his campaign by being honest with the BBC, as reported by Halperin.


    "He will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator."

    "You can't make a commitment in March 2008 about what circumstances will be like in January of 2009. . . . So to think - it would be the height of ideology to sort of say, `Well, I said it, therefore I'm going to impose it on whatever reality greets me.'"

    Via No Quarter:

    I forgot to use the link thingy--have I messed (none / 0) (#82)
    by jawbone on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    things up?

    I will remember in future. Promise


    I can't visit mony of those blogs (none / 0) (#111)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    anymore. A few weeks ago Daily Kos got deleted from favorites listing. Their hatred and swift boating of a Democrat is really too much to stand. Thankfully most Democrats don't pay attension to that rubbish. Liberal blogs have potential, but they're hurting their selves with their purist Clinton hating elitism. There's a double standard to the point that some of these sites (I'm thinking Kos and the Huffington Post in particular) have practically become campaign sites for Obama.

    Practically? (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    Kos was beating the poor old dead "picture darkening" horse again today.

    Jebus. Again. I respected him once. (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by HadIt on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    Hope I will again.  But a lot of blood spilt.  And boy does it make him look bad.

    IOKIYAO (none / 0) (#127)
    by OxyCon on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:30:39 PM EST
    It's OK If You Are Obama

    Especially when (none / 0) (#159)
    by Andy08 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:18:43 PM EST
    Obama's raison d'etre as presidential candidate is based on a "different kind of politics"
    I guess this only applies when he is the traget !!.

    Clinton's CIC questions are spot on. (none / 0) (#162)
    by MarkL on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 03:20:03 PM EST
    The onus is definitely on Obama to answer this very legitimate question.

    Clinton has crossed a line... (none / 0) (#199)
    by deleg8 on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 04:23:05 PM EST
    ...with her fear mongering and her nonsensical characterization of having passed some theoretical Commander in Chief "threshold". Her statement is akin to endorsing McCain while undermining Obama, who could very well end up being the Democratic nominee.  You just don't prop up the Republican nominee at the expense of the opponent from your own party. That's just bad form. Further, I find it perplexing that so many here are so readily accepting her statement as fact. Just what is her qualification to be CIC? And, McCain's, for that matter? Sure he was a war hero and honored POW but I'm not sure he has the temperament for the position. Clinton had her chance to show leadership in the run up to the war and she came up short. This is the same person who voted to give Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq which was further damaged by the fact that she didn't even bother to read the NIE. Now she has basically done the same thing with regard to Iran. Gee, I thought the idea was to END the war in Iraq and Clinton is trying to buddy up her qualifications with McCain's in the CIC department. When she had the chance to be "ready" she failed the assignment.

    Also, the "phone ringing at 3am" commercial was nothing but pure Rovian fear mongering taken right out of the Republican manual. What's she going to do next? Name Joe Lieberman as her VP choice?

    I don't like her comments either (none / 0) (#202)
    by ChrisO on Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 05:18:24 PM EST
    but as far as her general tone, I think she realizes that people generally have a positive image of McCain, even if they don't agree with him. The Dems will have to treat him with a certain amount of respect. This is especially true for Obama, because a lot of older votes won't like seeing a young guy ripping into his elder.

    I've noticed that one thing McCain does well is a lot of references to respecting his opponent, etc. He projects a certain courtliness that I think voters like.