Obama's New Rules?

By Big Tent Democrat

"I just have to mention this because I don't want anybody here to be confused," Mr. Obama said. "I was opposed to this war in 2002. If it had been up to me we would have never been in this war. It was because of George Bush with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war." Under Mr. Obama's rules, the attack does not violate his pledge to wage a new type of politics because it revolves around a specific issue, like Iraq.


I want to be clear on this - I understand that pols have to engage in "negative" attacks. Because they work. Pols do what they do. But I can not stand the false conceit that any pol, including Obama, is going to usher in an era of "new politics." They can't. He can't. He is just mendacious about this. Heck, how about this from the same article: [More...]

The Obama campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters that Mrs. Clinton was "one of the most secretive politicians in America today."

(Emphasis supplied.) Is that ok under the Obama rules? But of course that is nothing new for the Obama campaign who went negative before Hillary in this campaign. Not surprising as he was the underdog. The Clinton campaign compiled these personal attacks on Clinton from NOVEMBER 2007:

Obama called Hillary 'disingenuous.' Sen. Obama: "Her response was certainly inadequate…She can release these papers…I think she was being disingenuous." [Newsweek, 11/12/07]

Sen. Obama told reporters to ask Hillary 'the difference between disingenuous and dishonest.' Q: "What's the difference between disingenuous and dishonest?" Obama: "You'll have to ask her." [Newsweek, 11/3/07]

Sen. Obama said Hillary has not 'been truthful to voters about what she would do as president. NYT: "Has she been truthful to voters about what she would do as president?" Obama: "No." [New York Times, 10/27/07

Sen. Obama accused Hillary of 'not being straight' with the American people on many issues. Sen. Obama: "Hillary's idea is that we should force everyone to buy insurance. But this is yet another issue where she is not being straight with the American people because she refuses to tell us how much she would fine people if they couldn't afford insurance." [AP, 11/25/07]

Sen. Obama accused Hillary of not putting 'honesty first.' "The real choice in this election is between conventional Washington thinking that prizes posture and positioning, or real change that puts judgment and honesty first." [Politico.com, 11/20/07]

Sen. Obama said Hillary is more concerned 'about getting through an election than actually solving the health care problems.' "The Illinois senator said it is another instance of political maneuvering on Clinton's part. 'So unless she can answer those questions this is yet another calculation that's more about getting through an election than actually solving the health care problems,' he said." [AP, 11/25/07]

Sen. Obama said Hillary is only about 'winning elections,' isn't concerned about 'solving problems,' lacks 'principles.' "On the stump, Mr. Obama calls Mrs. Clinton a skilled politician and a friend, but says she is running her campaign from a flawed 'textbook' that is 'all about winning elections, but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems.' 'As we saw in the debate last week, it encourages vague, calculated answers to suit the politics of the moment, instead of clear, consistent principles about how you would lead America,' he said over the weekend." [Washington Times, 11/8/07]

Sen. Obama: Voters should be concerned that [Hillary] is 'running the textbook, classic Washington campaign, which is to avoid clear answers.' Q: "But do you think that voters should be concerned about whether she's telling the truth?" Obama: "I think that the voters should be concerned that she is running the textbook, classic Washington campaign, which is to avoid giving clear answers and getting pinned down, for fear that somehow you're going to be tagged, either in the primary or the general election. I think that's an old way of doing business. I think that's the kind of politics that has lead to gridlock and an ineffective Washington. That's the kind of politics I want to change." [MSNBC, 11/8/07]

Sen. Obama said Hillary doesn't stand for anything. "Obama has criticized rival Hillary Rodham Clinton on both issues, and he said not taking strong stands ultimately doesn't work. 'People want parties to stand for something,' he said." [AP, 11/7/07]

Sen. Obama said Hillary's positions are all based on 'what's popular or politically convenient.' "Now, Senator Clinton is certainly not the only one in Washington to play this game. It's gone on for years, and I understand the reasoning behind it. It's a game that usually gets politicians where they need to go. But I don't believe it gets America where we need to go. When it comes to issues like war and diplomacy, energy and health care, I don't believe we can bring about real change if all we do is change our positions based on what's popular or politically convenient." [Barack Obama, 'A Change We Can Believe In,' 11/3/07]

Personally, I deplore character attacks on either of our candidates from whomever it comes from. I deplore adopting GOP talking points, as Obama did regarding Hillary Clinton's character and honesty and her health care plan, when he went Harry and Louise. I deplore when he disses Dems to ingratiate himself with Republicans.

I deplore Hillary Clinton's attacks on Obama as not being ready to be Commander in Chief as compared to John McCain. It bothers me and pushes me to be against her.

But I am no fool and realize that until more people deplore these tactics FROM BOTH CANDIDATES, and pols pay a POLITICAL price, it will not change. And when some folks pick and choose when to be outraged, no one will listen to them. That is the Crying Wolf Syndrome.

< Our Absurd Nomination System | Canada Only Got NAFTA Briefing From Obama Advisor >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If we could drop the new politics schtick (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:54:08 AM EST
    we could get a few things tended to other than having to tend to the new politics schtick.  That schtick is just a time and energy eater ;)

    These folks are funny (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:06:34 AM EST
    in that they do not realize how ridiculous they are.

    Who will read Marc Cooper seriously now? I know I won't.

    This is another (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:34:19 AM EST
    version of the Obama Rules.  Watch for it and you'll see.

    Any statement by Obama is parsed according to its literal meaning, regardless of how obvious the implication might be.

    Any statement by Clinton, on the other hand, has to be stretched out to the harshest interpretation possible.  It's like the game of "What Hillary Really Meant," except the media plays it instead of her campaign.

    The result is that Hillary can't even make a positive statement about herself without it being turned into a negative attack.  If she says, "I understand the problems of working people," legions of deranged Obama supporters will swoop down to demand that she apologize for suggesting that Obama doesn't care about working people.  This happens constantly!


    Just took a quick peek (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    at the front page at Big Orange. The rec list includes

    1. yet another diary explaining why the holier-than-thou author will not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee, and

    2. a diary reporting that Tom Daschle has said that Wolfson's "Ken Starr" comparison was as bad as Powers' "monster" comment, and that Wolfson should resign.

    The sanctimony of Tom Daschle is particularly galling given that he was one of the first Dems to capitulate to Bush on the Iraq war, and made it his business to persuade as many members of the Dem caucus to "rally 'round the President" as possible.

    Ken is funny in his earnestness (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:24:56 AM EST
    I like him though.

    Yep (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:48:17 AM EST
    But it is reaching critical mass. We are at the Crying Wolf Syndrome in that no one pays attention to any of it anymore.

    Clinton may be in a very favorable place now on this score in the primaries.


    That's why the false "race card" (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:02:47 AM EST
    accusations by Obama were stupid and short-sighted.

    Of all the things that the Clintons have been accused of over the last 16 years, racism wasn't one of them.  But Obama (through surrogates and with the help of the media) used the race card to win in South Carolina.

    But when real racist attacks come from the GOP (assuming Obama wins the nomination) the media will just say "Obama's playing the race card again."


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:25:40 AM EST
    But some things that were said truly were horrible.

    you don't understand (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:09:14 AM EST
    when she attacks him, she's being sleazy and mean. when he attack her, he's just telling the truth...

    Hell (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:11:46 AM EST
    they both are telling the truth really.

    What is funny is the "truths" Obama tells about Clinton the Pol are true about Obama the Pol as well.

    But telling the "truth" is not the standard, what is good for the Dem Party is.


    i hate negative campaigning, in primaries (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:14:58 AM EST
    but it is the way the game is played. but what's fascinating is that obama has successfully negatively campaigned by portraying clinton as the only one who negatively campaigns. of course, he has help from the corporate media and the shrillosphere.

    Until enough folks hate it (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:20:20 AM EST
    that it costs the pols what they care about, votes, it will never end. Sanctimonious hypocritical railing against Clinton while cheering it when Obama does it will change nothing.

    The Crying Wolf Syndrome takes hold.


    they've been saying it (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:23:17 AM EST
    since i've followed politics: everyone claims to hate negative campaigning, but it works; if people would stop responding to it, candidates would stop doing it.

    Negative campaigning (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:30:36 AM EST
    Distinctions have to be made.  As BTD says, when the opponent points out a failing, it's called negative campaigning vs. manufactured and strategic destruction of the other candidate.  This is where the press and blogs had a duty to educate readers and voters with what is true and what is not:  

    Iraq, the press should have distinguished that Obama voted to support the war, he was not in the Senate to vote for or against and supported Kerry for the same vote Hillary had  Now, if Bill tried to do it, the press distorted Biill's comments that Obama's opposition to the war was a fantasy.  Well, it was and is a fantasy, look at what Powers said ultimately about the reality of what he will do.  


    yup, take the time to listen to her (none / 0) (#84)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:26:38 AM EST
    interview. speaking only for myself i found it to be quite interesting. i can see this lady in a position to help people, but frankly i don't see her in a foreign policy position.

    Indeed (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:12:57 AM EST
    as in the comment thread here.

    Some people have little intelligence and even less perspective.


    mizner (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Turkana on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:18:08 AM EST
    has really impressed me, these past couple months or so. the diarists he linked, otoh...

    You know (5.00 / 5) (#35)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:37:32 AM EST
    I lost a ton of respect for Bob J a long time ago. He has Hillary Hate dripping from every pore.

    But kid o is a HUGE disappointment. This is what it's come to now? Arguing that the liberal blogosphere was founded on a platform of censuring Bill Clinton so we're just being true to our roots by continuing to sling mud at him today? Wow, just wow.

    MoveOn wasn't founded for the purpose of censuring Bill Clinton. It was about ENDING the impeachment fiasco by finding a face-saving compromise that  would keep Clinton in office. But way to revise history, left blogosphere!


    I can't say what I think of k/o these days. (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:38:58 AM EST
    Mizner mentioned Kool Aid (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:45:10 AM EST
    drinking in that thread.  I know it's been declared trollish  in general to mention the whole "cult" meme (Jeralyn is bashed all the time for one post that touched on the theme), but I have to say it resonates with me.  The blogosphere does not feel "reality-based" anymore, particularly the umber-orange parts.

    For me, it started to become apparent in the response at DKos to the McClurkin matter.


    sorry to say i don't see kos being (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:29:24 AM EST
    that important or a king maker anymore. other blogs will come along and take its place. i will point out though that it served an important function as a place for us during the bush years, and that can't be discounted in looking at blogs in the years to come.

    I have to say I'm moving on. (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by Joelarama on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:38:57 AM EST
    I don't yet see a replacement site (or sites) that have the potential to be what DailyKos has been at its best.

    i don't see it either right now. (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:52:01 AM EST
    ok, i really think btd could have such a blog down the road. (not trying to suck up here honestly). he is honest and states his opinions but doesn't buy the spin. that is very important to me. i don't expect to always agree with the blog but i hope to have a level of honesty i can trust.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:46:36 AM EST
    Bob Johnson is not olds barred will say anything for his candidate person and anyone expecting something different from him was a fool.

    I love Bob Johnson. He is honest about what he is.


    K/O is a joke now (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:46:53 AM EST
    Full of false earnesty (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    it's sad.

    I do enjoy ridiculing him (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:51:44 AM EST
    It's wrong of me I know.

    I may be a fool (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:49:00 AM EST
    but I don't respect people who will say anything for their candidate. Sorry.

    He ALWAYS would say anything to support his candidate.

    I started reading him (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:02:44 AM EST
    before the primaries but after 2004. Mostly I found him funny. Not sure that I ever had much respect for his political views. But whatever I did have is long gone.

    I always like him (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    and like him still. I understand what he is doing. Does not bother me.

    I like Bob Johnson, humorist par (none / 0) (#109)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:58:02 PM EST
    excellence.  This one, not at all.

    Unless of course... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kredwyn on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 06:06:10 PM EST
    he becomes part of the brunt of the joke. Remember Frank's diary. It was snark bar none...and BJ went ballistic.

    I missed Frank's diary. (none / 0) (#120)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 07:06:09 PM EST
    Iraq (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:20:13 AM EST
    Clinton has said the Democratic Party deserves to lose unless it nominates her. By saying that she and John McCain are qualified to lead the county, Hilary broke the most important rule of all.

    "Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party."

    If Clinton loses the nomination it will be traced to the date she voted to enpower Bush to invade Iraq.


    CLinton Said (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by plf1953 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:26:08 AM EST
    Clinton has said the Democratic Party deserves to lose unless it nominates her

    I'd like to see the quote .. please post it in reply here so we can all see it.


    lady, your candidate has supplied so (none / 0) (#88)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:33:27 AM EST
    much ammo for the republicans, i don't have the time or patience to list it all here. please go do your homework before coming on here. all you are doing is negative campaigning for your candidate. and in reality all you are doing is turning off folks even more to senator obama.

    In my opinion, this particular (none / 0) (#110)
    by oculus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:00:19 PM EST
    commenter's input has absolutely no ability to sway anyone.  

    well put oculus! (none / 0) (#116)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:14:51 PM EST
    Dem ideology (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:10:09 AM EST
    is why I'm am Dem.

    I deplore when he disses Dems to ingratiate himself with Republicans.

    The single most problem I have with Sen Obama is that I FEEL he has abandoned the Dems for the Indies and Repubs.

    That said, I beleive if he wins the nomination, he and his supporters have a HUGE job ahead of them to bring the Dem base back on board. I'm not seeing any treand towards this. I beleive he will just expect them to vote for him.

    Under Obama rules .... Hillary will be blamed for the lose of the GE should Obama lose.... the media is already setting that one up.

    AND it is the Dems that are losing!! The system has not be very productive in getting Dems into the WH.... this system has to be changed.

    DNC needs to design a system where smaller states and caucuses are weighted.

    All Pols Spin (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by pluege on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:11:57 AM EST
    I don't begrudge Obama being a lying deceptive hypocritical pol - the system won't have anything else. What bothers me is the average schmo dups that buy the spin. And in Obama's case, the mass of dolts that have projected saviorism onto him are really annoying.  

    I know Obama lies and deceives, I know Clinton does also. My job is to detect, measure the severity, and assess the implications of their lying and deceptions and determine which pol represents the more acceptable risk.

    What was so unsettling from 1999 thru about 2005 was that the majority of the population could look at bush and not have their lie detection meters pegged. And to this day have 25%-30% of the population still backing bush, well these are seriously scary people walking among us that find massively destructive lying OK.

    I do not begrudge it (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:14:19 AM EST
    I comment on it and the blind fools who believe this transformative BS.

    Obama is a Chicago (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:31:40 AM EST
    "machine" politician.  I don't mean that in a bad way, because I expect politicians to be, well . . . politicians.

    He is a lawyer with the gift of gab and he's smart, talented and ambitious as hell.  His rapid rise in the Democratic party shows that he has connections within the party establishment.

    Expecting him to be some apolitical leader who has "transcended politics" is like expecting to find a virgin in a whorehouse.

    That's what makes the Obamaniacs' "holier-than-thou" attitude so annoying.


    It makes them seem like fools (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:34:14 AM EST
    yup, it makes me even angrier to also (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:34:38 AM EST
    see the media playing us for fools too.

    Obama's biggest advantage (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:21:12 AM EST
    has been his ability to be the most negative while being perceived (by some) to have "transcended" politics.

    But he's not getting away with it anymore and his whole campaign seems stunned.  If he can't handle the mild stuff that's being thrown at him now, he will never survive the GOP Slime Machine.

    good point. those karma chickens (none / 0) (#91)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:35:10 AM EST
    always come home to roost.

    Not stunned, but kind of trapped (none / 0) (#118)
    by Camorrista on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 04:40:40 PM EST
    Obama is stuck with his self-invented reputation as the New Politician, and if he strays too far from that, even his admirers in the press (see David Brooks in yesterday's NY Times) will turn on him.  

    On top of that, the campaign has convinced his supporters that anything said about Obama that isn't 100-percent positive is 100 percent negative.  This, combined with a scary level of ignorance among Obama-philes (many are new to politics and simply don't know how rough it can get) has put him in an awkward spot.

    It's not as if Obama doesn't know how to go negative--in fact, he's adept at it, in a slippery fashion--"You're likable enough, Hillary"--but because his supporters now see every negative he utters (or his surrogates utter) as the truth about the demon Clinton, they cannot comprehend it when she is negative about him.  Especially since she's more blunt.

    To paraphrase their lament: "But all Samantha did was tell the truth; everyone knows Clinton is a monster.  It's not the same to compare Obama to Starr.  It's not the same, it's not the same!"  (The sound you hear is of their feet stamping.)

    For nearly 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been the target of Republican hatred; lately, she's been the target of "progressive" blogger hatred.  There are no accusations that haven't been made against her--up to, and including murder--and no names she hasn't been called.  (For example, Roger Stone's 527, Citizens United Not Timid; just form the acronym.)

    Are Obama and his supporters ready for a GOP 527 named Citizens Organized One Nation, or whatever other cute little acronyms the party of the Southern Strategy will design?

    Let's hope so.


    Clintons as Secretive Politicians (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:35:15 AM EST
    This was all over the cable news last night as we skimmed through the shows.

    All the guys were talking about it. But does it make ANY sense?  

    Could we possibly know more about that couple than we know? For God's sake, I don't want to know anything more about them.  Do you?

    Does anyone?

    Not very good at being secretive (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:45:26 AM EST
    So how can the be accused of (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    being the MOST secretive?  It seems like an especially silly accusation to me.

    The Clinton Rules (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:50:35 AM EST
    You are familiar with them I am sure.

    Well yes. I am (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:00:57 AM EST
    But the reason I think this is actually a silly issue (secretiveness) for Obama & the talkers to push is that it takes away from his message.

    I might want to know about their taxes & foundation records.

    But the second they talk about White House secrets, I think -- "Too much information!" And I can't be the only one.  Please, don't tell me anything more about the Clinton White House.

    And Obama pushing for it just makes me think, "shut up."  As a candidate, you don't want people thinking "shut up" when you speak.


    OK, I'm flipping.  Is he pushing this issue for exactly that "Too much information" issue?  The, "Just Imagine Bill in the White House with nothing to do" issue -- without actually articulating it?

    I'm an idiot -- that didn't even occur to me until just now.


    I'm willing to bet (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Warren Terrer on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:05:59 AM EST
    a large sum that not one single Obama supporter screaming for HRC's tax records has EVER bothered to look through the tax records of any politician. Nor will they look at HRC's tax returns once they have been released. Are they looking at McCain's? Nope.

    No once cares about tax returns (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    Never have and never will.

    I wanna see them (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:37:00 AM EST
    because I am nosey about how their royalties are shaking out on their books.

    And I meant to add (none / 0) (#69)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    That I'm NOT actually interested in their Foundation or Income Tax records.

    Isn't it true (none / 0) (#104)
    by blogtopus on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:35:39 AM EST
    that when it comes to contributions, Obama is more secretive than Hillary?

    Look at the disclosure numbers. He keeps his cards closer.


    I'm confused (none / 0) (#55)
    by MMW on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM EST
    I thought you said they both basically speak the truth? If the Clintons aren't the most secretive -isn't that a lie?

    Yeah that one is a lie (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST
    like in a world with Cheney (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by katiebird on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:04:47 AM EST
    ANYONE could be considered secretive.

    It's a joke.


    This sort of hypocritical (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:56:50 AM EST
    defense of "truth" is what drove me -- and I suspect others -- from Daily Kos.

    But Olbermann, whom I used to admire, has become just as bad. I posted about this last night, but it is worth repeating.

    Last night, Olbermann was covering the Power's "monster" comment, making all sorts of excuses -- she's a political neophyte, it was accidental, it was off the record, she apologized, she resigned -- and then, in a colloquy with the equally hypocritical Dana Milbank, concluded that the Powers' matter was going to work to Obama's benefit because (1) Obama acted quickly and forthrightly to denounce and reject Powers' comment; and (2) POWERS WAS ONLY GIVING VOICE TO WHAT MANY OBAMA SUPPORTERS BELIEVE ANYWAY.  

    But that wasn't the worst part. No, it got much worse.   Not content to tacitly condone Powers' statement, Olbermann made the approval of Powers' remark explicit, as he said, with a chuckle, "Isn't truth a defense?"  


    Seems to me (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:10:00 AM EST
    Ever since KO started posting at DKos he seems to have been channeling their message.

    I honestly think he realized it is his ticket.


    I keep trying to remember and remind (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Anne on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    myself that people like Olbermann and others of his ilk - those who are not "reporters" - are not paid to report the news, they are paid to opine - no one says they have to be fair, or objective, or hold to any particular standard; they are the video version of blog posts, and nothing they are saying is particularly distinguishable from anything you will read from some of the A-list bloggers' posts.  The difference is that the viewer can only resort to e-mail to respond to the drivel that is delivered via their TV sets.

    The problem is that there is a perception that the pundits are on equal footing with reporters, and in fact, I think the prevalance of pundits, and the decline in the quality of reporting, has blurred the line between entertainment and news, to the point where most people are not consciously aware of the difference, and the media outlets themselves do nothing to correct that impression.

    And Obama is workin' it - or has been - to good effect, knowing that the media has no love for the Clintons and has kind of missed being able to skewer them on a nightly basis.

    I saw that clip of Obama in WY reminding the audience not to be fooled by Hillary Clinton and telling them that he was against the war in 2002, and it was George Bush, with the help of John McCain and Hillary Clinton who took us to war...I just think that meme is getting thinner by the day.  His delivery of those lines even sounded like he knows it isn't much to stand on, and the crowd didn't seem all that jazzed up by it.

    Obama has, I think, been considerably weakened - he hasn't had a news cycle in his favor since before Tuesday's election returns, and that's a looooong time - and I like to think that the continuing inability of people like Olbermann to bring any objectivity to the table is likely to have the effect of turning people off to Obama - it may not necessarily turn them on to Clinton, so there might be an argument that the Olbermanns of the world are working at cross-purposes to Obama's stated message of unity.  I'm quite confident that is an irony that completely escapes them.


    what a shame to see ko turn into a (none / 0) (#74)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    suckup! how short sighted can he be! for me, i won't go back to countdown once this is over. he will be a long term loser here. the obama supporters will go back to whatever they do, but for the most part they won't stay.

    keith left msnbc once due to the repub hate campaign over the clintons only to cave in now.


    So KO called Hillary Clinton a monster... (none / 0) (#76)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:22:52 AM EST
    ...playing by his own Obama rules that's what I deduce.

    KO didn't do anything wrong (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by litigatormom on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    after all, "truth is a defense." </snark>

    Will KO report that calling Obama a hypocrite will benefit Clinton because she is only giving voice to what her supporters already believe, and besides, truth is a defense?

    Don't hold your breath.


    clammyc diary yesterday on kos - LEAD (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by seabos84 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    do something, stop crapping on each other and fight the thugs on issues that matter ...

    all this is my paraphrase.

    this is the real title:

    "What if Clinton or Obama took the lead on a major issue?
    by clammyc [Subscribe]
    Fri Mar 07, 2008 at 02:00:51 PM PST"

    I was only an edwards supporter late - I really distrusted him after all his crap senate votes.

    so, if I was an edwards supporter, guess how interested I am in DLC Hillary and Barack's incredible lightness of oratory?



    Why isn't Kerry included (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Saul on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:49:20 AM EST
    when he states "I was opposed to this war in 2002. If it had been up to me we would have never been in this war. It was because of George Bush with an assist from Hillary Clinton and John McCain that we entered into this war." Plus why aren't all of his endorsers that voted for the Iraq Resolution not included in this statement.  If his judgment was so right on Iraq, during the 2004 convention he did not use it by telling Kerry and Edwards they were wrong for voting on the Iraq Resolution right before they were nominated. Politics as usual. He voted for funding the Iraq war against his better judgment which IMO is just a wash of his strong stance that he was against the war from day one.  To have any creditability to such a stance you would have to stick your neck out all the way and vote never to fund the war.  Once he voted and it was probably mostly due to the fact that he already decided to run for the presidency and by voting for the funding he would acquire that base that is for the war.  That again is politics as usual.  IMO he has on more than one occasion already contradicted his pristine way on how he going to run his campaign.

    I feel very confident (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:17:13 AM EST
    that if it had been up to Hillary we would not have been in this war either.

    Only a somewhat unhinged minority believes otherwise.  This is probably not the best formulation for Obama to use.


    Really? (none / 0) (#105)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:40:38 AM EST
    What do you base that on? Here is a quote from her 2005 speech to AIPAC:

    You know, it is on trips like that -- despite the often dangerous circumstances, I wish I could bring every one of my constituents -- all 19 million of them and any others who could come -- to see firsthand. I flew from Baghdad to Fallujah in a Blackhawk helicopter; met with the Marines who had liberated Fallujah from the insurgents and terrorists.

    I met with many others of our Marines and soldiers who are committed to their mission to try to bring freedom to the people of Iraq. They, as well as the troops I saw in Kuwait and in Afghanistan, are committed to this fundamental belief that people deserve the right to be free, deserve the right to select their own government, deserve the right to plot and plan for a better future for themselves and their children.

    Look (none / 0) (#106)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:50:47 AM EST
    You might be a member of that minority.  That's fine.

    Nothing in that quote suggests she would have started the war if it were up to her.  I read that quote and can't even imagine what your thought process must be.


    OK, Fair Enough (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:57:44 AM EST
    It is a GOP war supported by many Democrats, whatever they may say to the contrary. Her AUMF speaks volumes, and I think Obama would have voted the same.

    I do not think that either she or Obama will question the insane hypocrisy when it comes to ME policy. The pressure to maintain status quo is too great.


    Bottom Line (none / 0) (#108)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 12:24:36 PM EST
    When it comes to the Military she is a right wing Hawk. Not a radical right winger like Bush & Co. though. She was very vocal against the Military Commissions Act and gave a great speech quoting George Washington. IOW she is adamantly against torture.

    Based on her consistent position as an aggressive advocate of military muscle it is no wonder that the Defense Industry has given more to her than the GOP this time around.


    IOKIYAOS (none / 0) (#115)
    by jawbone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:14:44 PM EST
    It's Ok if you are an Obama Supporter?

    oh, this is rich! (4.83 / 6) (#2)
    by Kathy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:52:56 AM EST
    she is running the textbook, classic Washington campaign, which is to avoid giving clear answers and getting pinned down, for fear that somehow you're going to be tagged, either in the primary or the general election.

    It seems to me that a lot of Obama supporters don't find what he is saying wrong because they believe it's truthful.  Somebody called Clinton a monster?  Well, yeah, she is, so what's the problem?  Even Oberman got on this train and is still riding it down the track.

    And Obama is running the (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:01:29 AM EST
    textbook I'm an unknown entity Bill Clinton campaign ;)

    If you really disect it (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:59:13 AM EST
    he is running the best parts of a Clinton '92 campaign and a Bush '00 campaign...

    This should be a huge credit to Axelrod (not Obama, necessarily)...he's not wasting time burning his own trail, he's taking what works from everyone else's and streamlining it through an amorphous candidate...very very smart.


    love that analogy! (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:48:40 AM EST
    beep beep

    Tweety and Wiley Coyote (none / 0) (#59)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:59:23 AM EST
    The only problem is that Tweety was smart...how do I make that work in my mind.

    Beep Beep... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:31:43 AM EST
    ..that's my new nickname for KO.

    Yes (none / 0) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:54:11 AM EST
    It seems to me that a lot of Obama supporters don't find what he is saying wrong because they believe it's truthful.

    And isn't it strange that the same can be said for a lot of HRC supporters about what she says?


    I am not sure they are collectively that (none / 0) (#62)
    by Virginian on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:02:45 AM EST

    I think its is more about peer pressure (that results in cognitive dissonance).

    It reminds me more of fashion...you have a designer or celebrity their brings out something hideous, then you have a section of the population that HAS to have and wear it because it is promoted by the designer or celebrity, and it trickles down. People will wear it, knowing "its not them" but because others find it so fashionable...in the end, they have convinced themselves that it makes them look good


    i agree. i will say up front that i have (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    sent some emails to hillary in the past taking her to task. some of her positions worry me and i don't pretend she is the perfect politican. i think in most part the degree of angry and bold support for hillary is due to the negative campaigning of senator obama and the often ugly comments that are made by his supporters.

    Obama Supporters Collectively Naive? (none / 0) (#117)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 03:25:31 PM EST
    Sounds like you are naive and have swallowed HRC talking points whole. It is hard for me to imagine that HRC supporters are any different than BHO supporters.  Many HRC supporters on this site have repeated bad things about Obama that have no basis in reality saving the fact that they do correspond to HRC partisan talking points.

    I am never sure how much ardent supporters on either side actually believe. Shills care about winning, and are not required to believe that what they are saying is truth. They just have to keep on shilling. Nothing new.


    I'm not worried about this stuff ... (4.66 / 3) (#94)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:40:02 AM EST
    Hillary, and her husband before her, has a ability to speak over and around the the press, the pundits, and the blogs.

    She doesn't care what the press or the blogs think of her.  And she never will.

    In fact, she communicates to the public in a way the press doesn't understand.  Look at their puzzlement over almost all of her victories.  How they misread how people would react to her in debates.  And so on.

    Recent case in point:  In the "3 AM" ad a lot of bloggers had fun with the fact that Hillary was dressed and wearing make-up in the ad.  "Did she sleep in her clothes?" was the type of comment you heard.

    But what they didn't notice was that the mother in the ad was also dressed and wearing make-up.  The clear suggestion here was that the mother was a shift-worker.  And the further implication was Hillary was allying herself "shift-workers."

    I think the intended audience got that.  But the press and the blogs missed it.  

    Throughout the cycle the press has continually misread how Clinton's statements would play.  The McCain comment is another they're wrong about.  You may not like it.  But it is playing very well with a certain audience.  And it will get her votes.

    Well, speaking of this new (none / 0) (#1)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 08:52:30 AM EST
    she's secretive meme--and the (I think foolish) tax returns issue, see this article by Joe Conason at Salon.

    The reason I think this tax release thing is nonsense, beyond the fact that it's entirely plausible the paperwork isn't ready (not to mention  that no one seems to care McCain hasn't released his), is that this is the only thing the BO camp is swinging back with, building it up like it's a big deal.  So when they're released and there's no story, as I assume, HRC will actually come out looking even better!  

    No, (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ghost2 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:13:44 AM EST
    the point is to go for a fishing expedition.  The state of US press really, really boggles the mind.  I mean, are they as much of idiots as they pretend to be?  I guess D-Punjab has gone down the memory hole.

    When Bill and Hillary were required by law to disclose all their assets and stock holdings (which were until then in a BLIND trust) last year, they went ahead and at significant cost to themselves, liguidated the whole stock holding, so there is NO appearance of conflict of interest.  

    You think that would be good enough?  No, obama campaign attacked them on the stocks they held (I repeat: BLIND TRUST), and I believe, Patrick Healy wrote another one of his useless articles, making it look like Clintons were agains corrupt.  

    The same pundit crowd who has seen all of these, now comes to you and says, "Oh, he is running such a pure and spotless campaign, how could he win against the witch?"


    Yes, a fishing expedition.... (none / 0) (#89)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    ..that's what the whole Ken Starr investigation was so whether it's offensive or not(and frankly I think anyone should be offended to be compared to Ken Starr) sometimes if the shoe fits you just gotta wear it.

    Patrick Healy article: (none / 0) (#113)
    by jawbone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:08:44 PM EST

    Concerned that their personal finances might become a political liability once again, Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton in April sold the millions of dollars of stocks held by their blind trust after learning that those investments included oil and pharmaceutical companies, military contractors and Wal-Mart, their aides said Thursday.

    The Clintons liquidated the trust -- valued at $5 million to $25 million -- and are leaving the proceeds for now in cash in an effort to eliminate any chance of ethical problems or political embarrassment from their holdings as Mrs. Clinton runs for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, their advisers said. By disposing of all their stocks, Mrs. Clinton was seeking to avoid potential conflicts of interest that might arise from legislation that she votes on in the Senate, as well as avoid holding financial stakes in companies and industries -- like Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, the owner of Fox News -- that could draw criticism from some Democratic voters.

    Mrs. Clinton automatically became aware of her investments because of a government directive this spring that she, as a presidential candidate, had to dissolve her blind trust and disclose all of her assets to the public.

    The decision by the Clintons to sell their stock carried a financial cost, according to their advisers and new personal financial documents made available Thursday. The couple will owe "substantial amounts" in capital gains taxes, an adviser said, and are giving up the potentially higher returns from stocks for the safety but generally lower returns of holding their money in various forms of savings accounts.


    Here's what Obama's campaign did w/ the info: (none / 0) (#114)
    by jawbone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 02:11:51 PM EST
    Shortly after the Clinton campaign released the financial information, the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, the Illinois Democrat, circulated to news organizations -- on what it demanded be a not-for-attribution-basis -- a scathing analysis. It called Mrs. Clinton "Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab)" in its headline. The document referred to the investment in India and Mrs. Clinton's fund-raising efforts among Indian-Americans. The analysis also highlighted the acceptance by Mr. Clinton of $300,000 in speech fees from Cisco, a company the Obama campaign said has moved American jobs to India.

    A copy of the document was obtained by Mrs. Clinton's campaign, which provided it to The New York Times. The Clinton campaign has long been frustrated by the effort by Mr. Obama to present his campaign as above the kind of attack politics that Mr. Obama and his aides say has led to widespread disillusionment with politics by many Americans.

    Asked about the document, Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said: "We did give reporters a series of comments she made on the record and other things that are publicly available to anyone who has access to the Internet. I don't see why anyone would take umbrage with that."

    Asked why the Obama campaign had initially insisted that it not be connected to the document, Mr. Burton replied, "I'm going to leave my comment at that."

    And Healy, iirc, used the subject to remind readers at least twice of the Whitewater landholdings investigation.


    asdf (none / 0) (#121)
    by ghost2 on Sun Mar 09, 2008 at 05:19:19 PM EST
    Whitewater, a deal in which Clintons lost lots of money, but the right still found a way to paint it as evidence for their corruption.  

    Sometimes, I think that peer pressure, kool kids, high scholl mentality, stupidity, and a host of other things are not enough to explain the state of American press.  Sometimes, I honestly fear an outright conspiracy.  


    This is the Ken Starr angle (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by MMW on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:44:20 AM EST
    They're creating the impression there's something there and HOPING for an investigation into a typo.

    Mendacious is a word. . . (none / 0) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:02:01 AM EST
    that I predict is going to see a lot of use between now and June.

    The Audacity of Mendacity (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:10:25 AM EST
    Look at the words and how they stick.  Read at a glance today the columns in the blogs and MSM:  

    Brooks in The Times:  Hillary knows hot to provoke
    King:   WAPO, The Hypocrisy of Hillary
    Huff Post:  Secretive Politician,
    Various: Monster, will do anything to win, stoops to anything.  

    It's quite a collection of epithets.  Obama would have melted if anyone was used against him.  


    If the word fits (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:05:27 AM EST
    I use it.

    BTW all pols are liars (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:05:54 AM EST
    ALL of them.

    I'm not objecting to it. . . (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:12:01 AM EST
    in fact, I used it yesterday or the day before right here to describe what's happened to Markos and some of the other front pagers at Daily Kos.

    I'm only establishing my precedence in order to claim royalties on it's future use.


    Get in line (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:13:24 AM EST
    If all is fair in love and war, (none / 0) (#21)
    by white n az on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:15:17 AM EST
    why not politics?

    Why this fear of speaking one's minds?

    The problem is that there is actually not a lot of difference in their platforms, advisors, etc. which leaves the issues of identity / character squarely in the target zone.

    The simple reality is that the Obama rules no longer exist as the media has essentially leveled the field between the candidates.

    It seems as though a level playing field does not necessarily favor Obama, at least that's been the uptake on the events this past week but I suppose they have an opportunity to fix this.

    BUT all is NOT (none / 0) (#25)
    by PlayInPeoria on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:20:20 AM EST
    fair in love and war.... detainees with out rights in not fair. As for love... I have rules, that is why I've been happily marries for 21 years.

    Politics has rules.... Sen Obama made his own rules and is not holding to them.


    Man... (none / 0) (#22)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:16:13 AM EST
    did Marc Cooper just jump the shark or what!  In this past week people have really started to unravel, it's kinda sad.  Kinda.  

    nit picking (none / 0) (#33)
    by judyo on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:35:12 AM EST
    Considering the shape of the U.S. under the yoke of Republican rule; don't you think it's time to come out from under the minutia??

    Make them pay (none / 0) (#37)
    by bob5540 on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:42:04 AM EST
    But I am no fool and realize that until more people deplore these tactics FROM BOTH CANDIDATES, and pols pay a POLITICAL price, it will not change.

    I think I see where you're going with this. Vote for John McCain, right?

    Um no (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:44:46 AM EST
    I did not say make US pay.

    Howard Wolfson's Rules (none / 0) (#54)
    by 1jane on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:55:02 AM EST
    Wolfson, who invoked Ken Starr into the race reminded Democrats of the sleazy side of Bill's administration while foreshadowing what could come under Hilary.

    Quote:"I for one do not find that imitating Ken Starr is a way to win a Democratic primary election for president."

    Who's side is Wolfson on?

    What sleazy side? (none / 0) (#68)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    After several years and about $70 million Ken Starr proved that Bill Clinton lied about a sexual affair.

    All the other things that Starr investigated?  Like Whitewater and Vince Foster?  Nada, zilch, nothing.

    How many people (especially politicians) could survive the scrutiny the Clintons were subjected to with so little to show for it?


    that's a good point. i find this (none / 0) (#71)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:17:31 AM EST
    faux outrage by the obama campaign so funny. you'd better leave us alone or we'll talk about white water. duh! the american people didn't buy it back in the 90s, and it will be a story now. naw, not going to happen. i am beginning to think macberry machivelli two here.

    A different tack than Hillary (none / 0) (#58)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 09:59:16 AM EST
    "You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate."

    -- Sen. Barack Obama, quoted by ABC News.

    Negative politics (none / 0) (#67)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:07:28 AM EST
    It would seem there people define negative politics to suit their purposes.

    I don't give a whit whether a candidate attacks the other candidate.  Go for it.  What I care about is deceptive and misleading attacks.  I think both candidates have engaged them but, IMO, Hillary has been worse particularly on the health care issue.  I have no idea why you think that Obama can't attack Hillary's health care plan while Hillary is free to simply make stuff up about Obama's plan.

    Obama's rules are that he wants to frame the debate to his advantage just like every other politician.     It seems you are criticizing him for being able to effectively frame the debate.    

    If you read carefully (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:22:25 AM EST
    You will see that my complaint is against the Media and the blogs. Not against Obama.

    Indeed, Obama's Media Darling status is why I support him.


    ok, but how much longer will he be a (none / 0) (#96)
    by hellothere on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:48:49 AM EST
    media darling? not long if he is the candidate in the ge i suspect!

    This is really good advice blinders wont help in a (none / 0) (#99)
    by Salt on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 10:59:28 AM EST
    GE, this fragile transformation theme is a marketed manufactured need for the Dem Primary consumption with no back up plan for the GE and tailor made for demographics you will only find  in mass in the Dem base or a liberal stronghold like Mass.  But that's not the need of the Country and no they are not similar candidates or at least I believe most Americans will not buy hope a very weak non action sentiment as the end all requirement come Nov. and there is lots of time to further dismantle that marketing program until its only late night fodder..  The Party look incapable of objectively presenting a candidate that can be an Executive an effective Leader in the interest of the country before Party ideology, the appearance of a DNC with the thumb on the scale attempting to cram a candidate down the Peoples throat is what will damage the Party throw the election if it happens.

    I am just amazed at the vitriol attacks on the Clinton's as they are highly respected and beloved by many you have to get to the wacky right and I guess the wacky left now for someone to believe Hillary Clinton is a monster who would not care about Katrina victims because they were black.  So this I don't get I see the appropriate sensitively about attacking a black man, I don't see the sensitivity about attacking a women or for that matter a Dem Icon and the harm that dose, very confusing this.

    In 2006 Dems won the Senate on a Schumer Platform of Positively America the new Party platform supposedly it wasnt just anti Bush, and now all that's been on display by the DNC, Ted Kennedy, the punditry class and bloggers is a desire to return to a social justice identity politic platform which carries a big price tags for a country that belives they already gave.  

    Clinton's CIC attack is NOT a character (none / 0) (#103)
    by MarkL on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:22:38 AM EST
    question. It is a legitimate question about qualifications.

    About those tax returns (none / 0) (#111)
    by caseyOR on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:37:20 PM EST
    I know this really dates me, but in the 1984 campaign Geraldine Ferraro (remember her?) was pushed into releasing her tax returns. Then, much like now, was really about her husband. Nothing was found, but an enormous amount of time was eaten up with this. The press, once again doing the work of the republicans for them, grilled her almost line by line. Her husband, a New York businessman, was shredded. They went after her because she was a woman. It ate up press cycle after press cycle. Don't think this isn't a big reason we haven't seen a woman on a national ticket since. It may be that Obama just wants to slap Hillary down, but it is not beyond possibility that the press and some party elders want to make sure a woman does not try to run again.

    The Left Coaster has post about Obama attacks (none / 0) (#112)
    by jawbone on Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 01:54:17 PM EST
    on Clinton. Actually both Clintons. Beginning very early on.

    Lots of links to contemporaneous posts.


    I'd forgotten some of these things--good reminders.