home

Clinton Campaign Misfiring

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:25:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

On Monday, during a press conference call, I asked Howard Wolfson about Clinton supporter PA governor Ed Rendell's criticisms of NBC and NBC's inaccurate coverage of the Trina Bachtel story. I specifically asked if the Clinton campaign would ask NBC to correct its false reporting. Wolfson had no answer for me and Hillary Clinton's campaign has had no answer for the unfair media coverage it has received, particularly from NBC.

What happened instead yesterday and today was Bill Clinton reviving the Tuzla sniper fire story. Instead of a going on the attack against a Media that will never give them a fair shake (a strategy that has paid political dividends before for this campaign), the Clinton campaign instead reopened an old wound of its own. It seems that it is intent on being a Media punching bag. If this is the type of "fight" Hillary Clinton will bring to a general election campaign, then she has no chance. Today, more than ever, I am convinced that Barack Obama is more electable than Hillary Clinton. More . .

Instead of focusing on how the Media will unfairly distort and misreport an issue and story, and what Hillary Clinton said about it -- (a paramount issue, indeed, perhaps the central issue of Hillary Clinton's candidacy), the Clinton campaign's chief surrogate discussed a trivial, unimportant and politically harmful issue instead. In a word, this is simply political incompetence.

What if, instead of stepping back into one of Hillary Clinton's lower moments of the campaign, Bill Clinton had instead discussed the Trina Bachtel story. How to discuss it? Look no further than how Paul Krugman did it today. This was a political layup. The Clinton campaign not only did not make this easy attempt, they did not even try.

This is a campaign in disarray and without a plan or, seemingly, a clue. Hillary Clinton's political strengths are her image as a fighter and on issues like health care. (Oh BTW, some of these issues are really important too.) Here was a chance to showcase these advantages. And it occurred to no one in the Clinton campaign to take this clear opportunity. Again, this can only be described as political incompetence.

< Krugman On the Trina Bachtel story | Hillary's Crime Plan: Specifics as to Increased Punishment >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Campaign Misfiring | 182 comments (182 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    When I saw the story in CNN website... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Josmt on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:32:39 PM EST
    I said to myself, what is Bill doing... he's just making this harder for Hillary...

    Bill, Bill, Bill... (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:46:42 PM EST
    You gotta love this guy.  Everyone had forgotten about the Bosnia thing and what does he do in Indiana?  Brings it back up again.  

    Hillary shouldn't have to put a muzzle on Bill, he should know better.  But I think the main problem with Bill, other than the flair for the dramatic political, is that he doesn't realize the strength and speed of the internet world.  

    It used to be a time when a political could say or do something in a small town and the story wouldn't get out there for a few days, if ever.  Now, the story is all over the place before he can finish the sentence.  I'm sure Hillary had to make that phone call to tell Bill to shut up (as Barak as done with Michelle "We-Need-More-White-People-Up-Front" Obama).

    I don't know if it's misfiring as much as not taking advantage of Obama's missteps (the delegate purge, oil company donations, flip/flop on Palenstine and the Olympics Johnnie-Come-Lately).  I will have to quote Howard Ickes again "Hillary is better than her campaign".  

    Someone's gotta put a muzzle on Bill, and I love Bill.  But Bill, please, SHUT UP!

    [ Parent ]

    To her credit: (4.88 / 9) (#30)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:56:46 PM EST
    Responding to the former president's comments, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer said, "Senator Clinton appreciates her husband standing up for her, but this was her mistake and she takes responsibility for it."


    [ Parent ]
    It may be hard for Hillary, but for Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:35:50 PM EST
    Are you kidding me?!!

    Yes, (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    Wright will not be an issue AT ALL in the upcoming election. And Obama has been fighting a hostile media for the past 16 years, so he will know exactly how to hit back!

    Waitaminute...;-)

    [ Parent ]

    yeah because the media loves to be attacked (none / 0) (#136)
    by mscristine on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:33:48 PM EST
    That is plain STUPID! Hillary calling out the media over their bias only causes them to roar back in a very angry manner. She was called a whiner and a victim when she said she didn't appreciate the comments about her daughter being pimped out. And if she even says glass ceiling she is accused of trying to use her gender to her advantage. Sadly, it will the SNLs of the world to call the media out.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary's Problem (none / 0) (#171)
    by 1jane on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    When you vote for Hillary you are voting for a 2 for 1 vote deal. Bill is both a positive and a negative and appears to be more of an encumberance as the campaign progresses. She and Bill agree on economic policy and disagree on trade policy. Her campaign has not been skillful at managing Bill. As BTD metioned, its a drip, drip, drip of one mistake after the other that is making PA Clinton's to lose.

    [ Parent ]
    So, who has more to offer to the country, and (none / 0) (#172)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:55:14 PM EST
    who will do more good if their spouse is elected: Michele Obama or Bill Clinton?
    There's no contest, right?
    As a goodwill ambassador, he has enormous potential.
    Michele Obama? Barack doesn't even want her to participate in public life.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill Clinton (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    has been proven to be an asset to HRC on the campaign trail, despite all the media assertions to the contrary.

    I don't think the public cared too much about the Tuzla story, and they will be inclined to believe Bill, despite his inaccuracies, especially since they lied so spectacularly about Trina Bachtel.

    Respectfully disagree with your POV on this one. But of course, I would. :-)

    Whoops (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:38:16 PM EST
    should have been:

    especially since the media lied so spectacularly about Trina Bachtel.


    [ Parent ]
    From msnbc, bill seems to have made.... (4.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:04:26 PM EST
    ...a little lemonade this morning. At least in my opinion.

    Hope this link still works.

    Here's a snippet:

    The former president said that his wife called him last night to ask him to let the issue lie. "Hillary called me and said 'You don't remember this. You weren't there, let me handle it.' I said, 'Yes ma'am," Clinton said.

    He did, however, say that it was a fact that his wife flew into an area with "some risk," and that others have written accounts acknowledging that which have not been disputed. "I'll let people who actually were there and knew what happened to talk about it," he said. "But I think the fact that Hillary made a factual error in her account and acknowledged it shouldn't obscure the fact that she did go into an area not free of danger and was there advocating for the troops."



    [ Parent ]
    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by nell on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:08:29 PM EST
    he should not have made the remark, but making it clear that Hillary is boss is the right way to handle this.

    [ Parent ]
    Odd (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    You'd think they'd know something about fighting back against the media. And yes, this one seems obvious.

    So this campaign comes down to the question of whether you think media or demography are more important.

    Thumbs up (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by herb the verb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:49:01 PM EST
    This election (like all elections before it) will be decided on demographics and meta-events like the economy. None of these candidates advantages in playing the media will be important. In fact, the only candidate who depends on the media as a component of their general election strategy is Obama. Neither Clinton nor McCain will be negatively impacted by "The Village" being against them since they are already well-known to the public (both positively or negatively). Obama depends on the media darling status since he hasn't been defined yet and has no track record to point to.

    [ Parent ]
    No, the media matters (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    but how much?

    I think not as much as BTD thinks.

    [ Parent ]

    Matters, yes I agree (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by herb the verb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:01:21 PM EST
    that much, no, for Clinton of McCain. For Obama, it is the whole enchilada, raison d'etre, driver, prerequisite.

    Clinton needs to improve her campaign media message, but even with a poor one, she is still in this race and demographics (and a poor initial campaign strategy to give away the small states and caucuses) were the driver. Even BTD admits that.

    Certainly it's a matter of degree....

    [ Parent ]

    Wow! Thanks for your concern (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by goldberry on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:40:26 PM EST
    Actually, BTD, the more voters' attention is called to these seemingly weird fixations that the press has on Clinton's "misleading", "deceptive", "exaggerated" statements, the better, IMHO.  Now, the campaign has a chance to go back and link these feeding frenzies with what was done to Gore on the "I Invented the internet" and "Tipper and I were Preppie and Jenny" statements as well as how Kerry's credibility was shredded by Swiftboaters who said he'd only gotten self-inflicted flesh wounds.  It's about time the Clintons took on the media and REALLY got it all out in the open.  All the ugliness and over reaction should be reopened like an old wound and cleaned out.  How else can you ever expect to beat them?  
    Besides, it looks like the voters are already onto this.  PA is still Clinton's to lose.  Somehow, the voters are getting a clue.  Why not seize the initiative and expose the bastards?  

    Thanks for my "concern?" (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:51:19 PM EST
    You become that you condemn? Disagree with me. But to say I am a concern troll? Weak.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, yeah, kinda (none / 0) (#55)
    by goldberry on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    Hey, if the shoe fits.  According to new reports, Bill's new statements are full of inaccuracies as well, which the NYTimes promptly jumped on to make trouble with.  And he pretty much called her old and forgetful.  I don't know whether they are hlepful or not but maybe they're planned.  The news orgs will go into a tizzy covering them.  Before you know it, people won't remember exactly what she said.  All they will remember is that the media twisted itself into a knot trying to make Bill state, restate, correct some niggly little detail.  And isn't this the way the Freepers have operated for years?  They make a big deal about some little detail, like kerning, and the "journalists" go nuts trying to hunt down every expert who has an opinion on it until people forget the the original issue was all about George Bush going AWOL.  Just watch, this thing is going to devolve into "what BILL said" instead of what Hillary said.  By the time it is over, no one is going to care about it, the voters will be disgusted by the amount of attention it gets and they are going to remember the LAST time the media  made a mountain out of a absolutely nothing.  Yeah, like with Iraq and Gore and Kerry.  Yeah, how did they turn out?  

    [ Parent ]
    If the shoe fits? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:33:03 PM EST
    Nooo, it does not work that way at this site.

    Neither Clinton NOR Obama supporters get to attack me personally.

    the reason is simple. I do not get to attack you.

    Nothing would give me more pleasure that to eviscerate any number of comments I find ridiculous. But I am not allowed to. So you do not get to invite my counterattacks.

    Do not do it again please.

    [ Parent ]

    Touchy (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by goldberry on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:10:00 PM EST
    It wasn't an attack on you.  It's merely an observation.  You seem overly "concerned" with Hillary's chances based on what Bill has said.  You appear to wish Bill would shut up.  You predict imply that misfortune will befall her if he doesn't curb his tongue.  
    Come, come, BTD, we all know that Bill is one of Hillary's greatest assets.  People have been trying to shut him up for months by over-analysing everything he says, trying to spot the precise syllable where he loses it all for her.  But it only makes sense for him to call attention to himself.  Despite his many flaws, his administration comes with the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.  He may be inept or fiendishly clever.  But your concern does seem to be a bit misplaced for an Obama supporter.  The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.    

    [ Parent ]
    Goldberry, (none / 0) (#116)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:19:05 PM EST
    It kills me to admit it, but I think BTD has a point here.  Perhaps not about Bill, I don't know what Bill said.  But BTD's opening paragraph is this:

    I asked Howard Wolfson about Clinton supporter PA governor Ed Rendell's criticisms of NBC and NBC's inaccurate coverage of the Trina Bachtel story. I specifically asked if the Clinton campaign would ask NBC to correct its false reporting. Wolfson had no answer for me and Hillary Clinton's campaign has had no answer for the unfair media coverage it has received, particularly from NBC.

    It seems to me that BTD is suggesting the campaign should have aggressively gone after NBC and the media for their coverage on this issue, and put them on defensive.  That point is valid.  

    Hillary Clinton is an amazing woman, and the most qualified candidate by a mile.  But the campaign doesn't seem to be top notch.  I don't deny the media bias, and there is a chance that no matter what she says, the media will go all out to make her look petty, bitter, and shrill.   It's a valid point to discuss.  

    [ Parent ]

    ghost2 (5.00 / 3) (#142)
    by goldberry on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:37:56 PM EST
    It seems to me that we see all of the flaws of the Clinton campaign but very few of the flaws of the Obama campaign.  As someone has already pointed out, there are no perfect campaigns with the exception of Bush's where he benefitted from the media throwing themselves at him.  He could do no wrong.  
    As much as I regret that Hillary didn't wrap things up on Feb 5, it was no failure for her to win the big states.  And let us remember that the reason why CA, NY, NJ, etc, were even holding a primary then was because we got sick of having no impact by having our primaries in June.  No matter what you might say about her campaign, those states were HUGE victories for her.  She wouldn't even be in this race at this stage if she hadn't gotten them.  
    Now, let's think about Obama's campaign.  Other than Il and GA, he's got nuthin'.  His debate performances have been pathetic (though I expect that he will have crammed for this next one).  His campaign spokesman are every bit as loathesome to me as Penn was to everyone else.  I can't look at Axelrod without thinking of a cheesy rat.  He's disgusting.  Samantha Powers calls Hillary a "monster".  And his claim to foreign policy superiority is laughable to the point of absurdity.  The only way he can win is if he suppresses over two million voters.  That's the ONLY way he ends up coming out ahead after all the primaries.  
    And we're making a big deal over what the Big Dawg said?  Hillary's supposed to defend her Trina Bachtel story?  ghost2, you know I love you dearly but it if the Clinton campaign decided to ignore the media and just let it all out, doing and saying whatever they felt was right, combative and competitive, they could hardly be worse off than they are now when they are persuaded that the only way they can win is to walk on eggshells.  
    I admire the way she's run her campaign to be honest.  She's been a lot less negative than any politician I've seen in many years.  She should be commended for that, not bashed over the head to the point where her campaign advisors must second guess everything they do or say on her behalf.  The good thing is that she is connecting with the remaining voters and that is the only thing that will matter from here on out.  

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks. (none / 0) (#155)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:09:46 PM EST
    I also said below, there are really two sides to this.  Media (remember hours and hours of broadcasting at prime time, how much is that worth?) is all out against her.  Yes, she has run the most POSITIVE campaign, and she is supposed to walk on eggshells, and look good while doing it.  

    BTD can be tough, but he is honest.  I love both of you!!

    [ Parent ]

    If you want to judge (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by sister of ye on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:40:54 PM EST
    by effective campaigns, Bush had the best-run, tightest campaigns around. And he's been an effective president. Of course, everything he's done has been disastrous for the country, but, damn, he had great campaigns.

    Whatever Bill Clinton said (and I haven't seen clips), there is no way to "run a good campaign" if the media are bound and determined to nitpick at anything and everything. Same as with Al Gore in 2000 - as little as I think of Donna Brazille, I'm not sure Jesus Christ could have "run a good campaign" if he had a D after his name. Same with Kerry - I'm sure Rove had a game plan for any way Kerry could have responded.

    On the other hand, it's easier to "run a good campaign" like McCain and Obama to date if the media ignores "trivial" things like confusing Sunni and Shia and purging your delegate crop of anti-war activists.

    Bingo!!!! (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:45:18 PM EST
    Does anyone really think the MSM is going to say "wow, you're right, we're shameful people!" if the Clinton Campaign adopted Krugman's attack on the media?

    [ Parent ]
    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:46:34 PM EST
    But then everyone knows you consider yourself at war with the Media.

    [ Parent ]
    very good points. (none / 0) (#130)
    by ghost2 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:28:35 PM EST
    You know, never mind Obama is ahead in money.  Bush was too (compared to Gore).  But both Hillary and Gore are dealing with a hostile media that amounts to hundreds of millions (perhaps more) in advertising, and is creating memes that money cannot buy.  

    Gore fought like heck.  Hillary is fighting like heck.  

    BTD thinks (and he is honest about it) that it may be worth taking a risk with Obama, and bet that the media won't turn against him in GE.  I personally prefer Bob Somerby's plan.  Somerby has his most scathing critisms for the liberals in blogs and media, and says that they are too comfortable where they are.  Somerby says that's where it should be fought.  Candidates should not have to fight the media, and get in their face.  It should be up to bloggers and liberal columnists, who sadly are sellouts (with the exception of a few, and BTD IS one of the exceptions).  

    Josh Marshalls of this world are either intent on schmoozing and promoting their careers, or intent on joining in smearing of democratic candidates.  Hillary has to single-handedly fight all these.  It's tough.

    BTD, as I said above, I think you have a point.  But then, if you had a sports match when it was a fight between 10 and 1, I am sure the team of 10 could afford to look a lot more professional and organized.  

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary will get past this too... (none / 0) (#151)
    by stefystef on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:06:14 PM EST
    I know Bill is trying to help.  He loves his wife and I do believe he wants her to be President.  Hillary is smart, committed and tough.  She's use to alot of people trying to mess things up for her.

    Bill meant well, but the way the campaign has been going now, he should know better.  Hillary is back on track and has been stronger than ever, since getting rid of Penn in the top strategy seat.  I hope can quietly get rid of him without missing a beat.

    Go Hillary!  

    [ Parent ]

    I agre on the media coverage, but (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by Teresa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:42:29 PM EST
    Today, more than ever, I am convinced that Barack Obama is more electable than Hillary Clinton.

    I have zero confidence that Obama can win in November. He can't put away someone with the most negative, unfair media coverage ever. He doesn't stand a chance against McCain.

    I saw a poll on Hardball last night where the majority of those polled want us out of Iraq. Who do they trust most on the issue of Iraq? McCain, 52%, Obama and Clinton 40% each. We are heading for a loss. People want experience even if they don't agree with the policy.

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:46:37 PM EST
    The Tuzla thing should not have been revived by anyone on Clinton's team, especially Bill.  Really dumb.  I don't know why they don't just take NBC on head-on if that's what they want to do.  An hour in the Daily Howler archives will give them all the good examples they need. They always seem to pick the wrong example, or the wrong angle to emphasize, like her comments in the debate about getting the first questions, or giving Barack a pillow.

    As you said better:

    Instead of focusing on how the Media will unfairly distort and misreport an issue and story, and what Hillary Clinton said about it -- (a paramount issue, indeed, perhaps the central issue of Hillary Clinton's candidacy), the Clinton campaign's chief surrogate discussed a trivial, unimportant and politically harmful issue instead.

    This is what really frustrates me about Clinton's campaign.

    It's not about the Clintons (5.00 / 5) (#16)
    by tdraicer on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:47:33 PM EST
    Your belief that Obama is more electable has never made much sense, and hanging it on this slender thread doesn't help your case. The media is going to treat Obama EXACTLY the same way they treat the Clintons once his opponent is named John and not Hillary. Because this it isn't about the Clintons-it is about the Democrats. (See the press and Gore, Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, Carter, Dean.)

    And Pastor Wright is going to be a much bigger club for the GOP than snipers in Bosnia.

    The difference is that Obama has been coddled by the media (without that coddling he wouldn't still be in the race) so when it suddenly stops, he isn't going to handle it well. As indeed he hasn't handled it well in those rare instances when the press wasn't building him up (to tear him down).

    As for their relative electoral maps, the Clinton map which runs through the key battleground states (OH,PA,FL,MI) is the only realistic one. Obama isn't going to win VA, barring a GOP collapse so complete it doesn't matter who runs.

    So support Obama because you like Obama better by all means. Supporting him because you think he is more electable is, otoh, a huge miscalculation,

    One thing I give Obama credit for (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    is that his attacks and counterattacks are usually a lot more on target then Clinton's.

    I agree with you that the media will come after him just as hard and ugly, but I think he usually has repsonded mnore effectively than she has.

    Ironically, as vague as I think some of his issue positions are, his media policy has been right on target. Seem to be different people in charge of those oerations, or else a deliberate strategy to blur one and sharpen the other.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama is effective with politics & process (none / 0) (#73)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:43:37 PM EST
    but he's also received a big helping hand from the corporate owned media that prefers rockstars to substantial discussions of the issues.

    But perhaps Obama's PR and marketing strategists will organize the al-Qaeda community. We already know - when Obama is president they will bow at his feet at the mention of his name.

    [ Parent ]

    Yes and I'm hoping that the media (none / 0) (#76)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:45:51 PM EST
    ...continues to love Obama so much if he gets elected. I'm hoping that they get so inspired by having selected our next president that they decide to end the war in Iraq, give us universal health care, and fix the economy. They can do it. Yes they can. </snark>

    [ Parent ]
    It was passing strange (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Maggie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:49:44 PM EST
    He didn't just call attention to Bosnia, he did it in a way that added on a bunch of statements that were patently false -- which just amps up the meme.  Moreover, he tried to excuse her on the grounds that people make mistakes when they are 60 and tired.  How does that help her?  (Juxtapose this with the whole 3:00 a.m. message).

    Either it's some serious mismanagement.  Or it's a rather clever ploy to keep the Colombia issue off the radar.  Cause I'm not quite seeing how the fact that he's raising hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby on big issues like trade agreements doesn't raise at least some questions about conflict of interest.  Clinton loaned her campaign money from their joint account -- which includes money he earned supporting a trade agreement she opposes.  I doubt that would play well in PA.  And I'd expect a huge swarm of stories about who else Bill's been taking big bucks from if HRC somehow got to the GE.  Anyway, the calculation would be that it's better to revisit old bad news than to visit new bad news.  But whether it's a mistake or calculated, I don't see how it's not a problem.

    It sounds like he was just taking it personally. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:18:41 PM EST
    It's understandable he'd get defensive, she was mocked when it turned out what she said didn't happen, there are youtube videos on it. It's natural he'd want to push back. But that's not a good way to run a campaign, one can't take things personally, one has to always be looking at the bigger picture.

    [ Parent ]
    This is something that surprises me. (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:53:29 PM EST
    It certainly wasn't the only reason, but one of the reasons I voted for Hillary Clinton was I thought she'd be more effective fighting back against right wing attacks, having had so much experience with them. That doesn't seem to be the case. Certainly Obama has done things that have disappointed me in this regard; he's prone to making gaffes when speaking off the cuff, much like Kerry. But when Wright came up, he pushed back and pushed quickly. It may still be a problem, but at least he didn't ignore it, the way Kerry originally did the swift boaters.

    She seems to handle the right-wing (none / 0) (#181)
    by eleanora on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 07:09:46 PM EST
    attacks just fine, but the left-wing ones have been throwing her for a loop now and then.

    [ Parent ]
    The Clinton Myth (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Manuel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:53:43 PM EST
    All through this campaign season there has been this myth floating around of how Bill Clinton can perfectly calculate the political effect of each and every word he utters.  This myth was used to paint Bill and Hillary as racists.  Perhaps this gaffe can put that myth to rest?  Nah.  Not a chance.

    Sorry BTD (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by angie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:55:58 PM EST
    as much as I admire you (and I really, really do), the only Dem. to get elected for 2 terms since FDR and "political incompetence" just do not go together.  It's not that I disagree about your overall sentiment -- I think the Clinton camp should be screaming from the mountaintops about the Bachtel snafu too -- it is just that I'm not buying their failure to do so as a sign of "incompetence." Proof of their competence can be seen in that Hillary has remained essentially tied with Obama despite the uphill battle she has faced this entire election with the media (as opposed to the love fest given to Obama).  Can anyone really believe that if the situation had been reversed that Obama would still be in this thing?      

    This may be a new plan (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Sunshine on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:59:05 PM EST
    I would just like to know how its supposed to work...  This is sure no time to put another rookie in the Whitehouse, we need time to recover from the last one...  

    Only disagreement I have (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:03:25 PM EST
    which is partially opinion, is with the statement that they are in disarray and without a plan or clue.

    I think they have made many mistakes, but my sense is more of a campaign that is not as tightly scripted and externally polished as Obamas. This can be a weakness, but I also think it is a strength. I think they adapt better than any campaign I have seen recently. I don't think they would still be here if that was not the case. Considering some of the obstacles, media issues and yes their own errors it is amazing that they are still kicking. I don't think if the Obama campaign was faced with 1/2 of the same issue if they would even be around.

    So in the GE, if Obama is running and things don't go so great for him, will he recover? I guess we'll wait and see.

    Press and Obama (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by tdraicer on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:06:10 PM EST
    >I agree with you that the media will come after him just as hard and ugly, but I think he usually has repsonded mnore effectively than she has. Ironically, as vague as I think some of his issue positions are, his media policy has been right on target.

    Um, he has been more effective BECAUSE they haven't gone after him. Period. He hasn't handled the press well-they have handled him with kid gloves. If they had treated him half as badly as they treat the Clintons he'd be gone by now.

    BTD's fundamental error is in thinking the press will continue to hold his hand once he has the nomination. They are going to slaughter him (with the help of the GOP running Pastor Wright 24-7).

    Whereas with Hillary, after almost two-decades of abuse, there is more than a little backlash against the press coverage, with Obama the newly hostile press is going to do nothing but raise doubts about someone who remains a blank to most voters.

    No, Obama's only hope will be that the GOP is so damaged ANY Dem can win. In which case the "who is more electable" debate is irrelevant.

    Yah, what tdraicer said. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:12:49 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Sorry BTD (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:09:34 PM EST
    I don't see how this latest action of Bill's would lead anyone to conclude that Obama is more electable than Hillary.

    After Tuzla, her ankles, and everything else Hillary is still essentially tied and leading in most of the coming primary states. The lead in the coming states alone says he's not gaining any traction, despite his inevitability status.

    The man just said that he was more experienced than Hillary and McCain because he lived in Indonesia as a child and travelled Pakistan to India for three weeks as a young man, his staffer just said he was about Politics not Policy, that's the last few days. All of these things will get played in the General. If NBC won't do it, Fox will and CNN and ABC and CBS will follow.

    You've really got to explain this to me. Because his media fans will turn in a haert beat when the 527s start working. What is he going to do, call Hillary up to ask her to cause a diversion for him?

    I'm really trying to understand this electability argument, but to be honest - I don't get it.

    Me either, (none / 0) (#50)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:19:11 PM EST
    and I never have.

    We must take it as a given that the corporate media will attack the Democratic nominee as soon as he/she is chosen. If we don't, we really haven't learned anything in the past 28 years. They've been doing it since Carter and the rabbit, for Jeebus' sake.

    HRC is still standing after 16 years of media attacks - in fact, she's risen spectacularly. This shows not just guts and skill, but the ability to withstand unimaginable torrents of slime and flourish.

    Once the media gets to work on Obama, there will be nothing left but an empty suit. And John McCain, the media's former, current, and future favorite, will be the President. I believe in my heart and soul that this is the truth, although I know it is only my opinion.

    [ Parent ]

    Got link? (none / 0) (#62)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:33:24 PM EST
    his staffer just said he was about Politics not Policy

    Where can I find this? I need it for a discussion on another forum.

    [ Parent ]

    it's a TL diary today (none / 0) (#86)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:55:08 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#156)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:11:05 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Helloooooo? (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:12:40 PM EST
    The always having to play the victim.

    WTF are you talking about?

    Obama is the one who always plays the victim.

    "Big mean Hillary is attacking me, she's throwing the kitchen sink, I don't know who I'm running against, but they're all racists!"

    "She didn't defend me ..." (none / 0) (#186)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:06:53 AM EST
    He said the above in Mississippi on March 10 to his audiences, the day before the primary, to whip up their Hillary dislike.

    First he complained she "leaked" a photo "of me" in native garb, which by March 10 his Internet-Army had to know was not true and which had been indicated only by a vague Drudge report for which he would not provide proof -- and a couple of us found an open distribution of a newly-scanned version of that photo by conservative-forum members was done 2 days before the Drudge report.  This was posted in most of the Dem forums.

      Then he complained to them that "she" didn't DEFEND him on 60 minutes which, she certainly did.

      His dishonesty was highlighted when he again quoted only the last part of the THIRD answer she gave (her puzzlement about being asked about this the third time).  Then her FOURTH answer on 60 minutes was

    "Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

      But I suspect his grandmother spoiled him, and therefore no one could "defend" him enough! and he would set others against the person who he feels failed him, as he was doing here.  It's no accident that so many of his supporters on the Net are so rabid in their hatred of her.

      This is Mr. Uniter with his Hope and Change though!

      I couldn't believe that he was doing this after accusing her in a debate of 'whining.'

      And, it does puzzle me that any of us should be demanded to defend the validity of someone else's personal faith - not to mention someone who is just a co-worker.

    [ Parent ]

    The Clintons are dammed if they do and dammed (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by Angel on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:16:29 PM EST
    if they don't.  Fight back?  Then the media says they are whining.  Don't fight back?  Then they are rolling over and playing dead.  The public is onto the media and their hatred of the Clintons so I don't think this little thing about Bill will make any difference to the general public.  For people on the blogs who live and breathe this stuff, sure it's interesting to discuss, but nothing more than that, in my OPINION.

    Bill (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by nell on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:39:46 PM EST
    is taking this campaign very personally. He has never really been on the other end the way Hillary has and he doesn't really know how to let her take the shots. In a weird way, this campaign has confirmed for me that Bill really loves his wife.

    I think he has been surprised by some of the vitriol and baseless accusations coming at Hillary from the DEMOCRATS who are supporting Obama, both public officials and private supporters. I bet he has also been surprised by how eager some Dems are to smear his record as President.

    He did misfire, I agree, and I am just going to close my ears and pretend I didn't hear about this. I am glad Hillary released that statement basically saying I am a big girl, I made the mistake, I take responsibility and I am also glad she told him to stay out of this one!

    Question for BTD (5.00 / 7) (#72)
    by tdraicer on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    Fine BTD-Bill Clinton blew it. You still haven't explained why you think Obama is going to get better press once it is Obama vs. St. John, or why you think he'll handle the press turning on him (which they will) better than Hillary. You keep acting as if this is about Bill and Hillary, as if the press was fair to Gore, Dean. Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale and Carter.

    What happns to the Clintons isn't the exception, it is the rule. And you've yet to give a good reason why you think either the rule doesn't apply to Obama, or why you think he'll be able to deal with it when the press rediscovers all the Obama problems they've been willing to ignore in order to get Hillary.

    On a more general note (and NOT about Talk Left or BTD) the real joke to me of the Obama campaign is that supporters are projecting onto him every quality they want to see (and onto Hillary the reverse) with a shocking lack of evidence, or even concern that evidence ought to be required.

    Obama AT BEST will be another Bill Clinton, a competent centrist Democrat, but because he made a statement against Iraq when it cost him nothing to do so, he is the new Bobby Kennedy; and because he is black, the new MLK. Progressives who prided themselves on their attachment to "reality" have turned into teenage girls swooning over a rock star, and speeches that contain not a single line that will be remembered a year from now are treated as historic documents.

    Apparently it has been so long since a charismatic leftist has run for the White House, a mediocre simulation is all it takes to make people's hearts beat faster. It's like mistaking Beatlemania for the Beatles.

    your last 3 paras - right on!! (none / 0) (#87)
    by Josey on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:56:45 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Eh (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    Obama's people have made just as many stupid statements as the Clinton people, it's just that only the Clinton people - particularly Bill - get called on it.

    Of course, Obama got called on it, too, when he hit John McCain over his 100 years in Iraq. Then the press hit him and that will be what will happen if Obama's the nominee.  And folks praising what a great campaign he's running will all say, "Wow, I don't remember his campaign making this many gaffes in the primary!"  

    So I don't think any of this makes Obama more or less electable.  His campaign has been able to spew CDS talking points and leverage media hatred.  What that has to do with his ability to withstand the media onslaught in November, is a mystery to me.

    As for the Clintons, I've been wanting them to hit the MSM over the Bachtel story, but I think Hillary is trying to avoid appearing as if she's at war with the media.  I think they've decided taht as bad as the coverage is, it would be even worse if they declared some sort of war.  I also think Bill doesn't necessarily agree and that's why he goes off the reservation occasionally.  Not to mention, it must be hard to listen to all the crap spewed about your wife.  I remember reading an interview with Steffi Graf where she said it was much more nerve wracking watching her husband play in a Grand Slam final than playing in it herself.  Of course, that may just be because she won more of them.

    Has Any Obama Attack on McCain Worked? (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Dan the Man on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:22:31 PM EST
    So far as I can tell, the answer is no.  Obama's "McCain wants Americans to fight in Iraq for 100 years" was (as you said) immediately disproved because it wasn't true.  This is pretty good proof the view that the media would defend Obama against his critics is just wrong.  If this far into the campaign he hasn't made even one charge against McCain that has stuck, what makes anyone think he can do so in the future?

    [ Parent ]
    No it hasn't, and it won't. (none / 0) (#140)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:36:11 PM EST
    Obama and McCain are just not in the same league. Obama would be a much better President, IMHO, but McCain has a lifetime of experience and is generally trusted on national security matters.

    And unfortunately, BHO loses to McCain on the economy, which may be the key issue in November.

    [ Parent ]

    I disagree, Bill was and still is rather saavy (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by vicndabx on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:17:28 PM EST
    Contrary to what folks think, as someone in health care, noone should really be talking about the Bachtel story.  Even though it's already out there, it's still someone's private health information.  When it was used as an example w/o specifics OK.  Any mention of it at this point because of they way it played out in the media, will draw folks attention to the specifics.  IMO, it's wise for public officials not to talk about it.  They may be exposing themselves to a lawsuit.  Bill should know, HIPAA was passed under his watch.  Back to the topic.  Both the Bachtel and Tuzla stories point to the same issue - focus on the thing that was not the point of the comment in an effort to point up some supposed flaw of the candidate.  OK, so Hillary wasn't running across the tarmac carrying Chelsea on her shoulder firing an AK-47 ala Rambo.  Bill's point is still illustrated nicely by Tuzla.  Rather than discuss the foreign policy experience she may have gained in her role as first lady and how it compares to O's, let's talk about some other nonsense not relevant to the role our president plays.  So I don't get blasted.  I do think truthfulness is important.  I also know we don't always get the truth from our pols and am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.  The media is supposed to be the check that we rely on.  Which, IMO, was another one of his points.

    An Overreach (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by BDB on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:30:40 PM EST
    I think you've over-stated your claim, here, BTD.  I agree that Bill's comments were not helpful, but to go from that to this

    This is a campaign in disarray and without a plan or, seemingly, a clue. Hillary Clinton's political strengths are her image as a fighter and on issues like health care. (Oh BTW, some of these issues are really important too.) Here was a chance to showcase these advantages. And it occurred to no one in the Clinton campaign to take this clear opportunity. Again, this can only be described as political incompetence.

    Seem to be reaching.  There are risks in going after the media.  It may very well have occurred to folks in the Clinton campaign to consider going after the media over Bachtel and they simply decided not to.  

    As for Bill's comments, how many appearances has he made on her behalf in the last year and with the entire media looking on, he's made what, a half dozen comments that have gotten him in trouble?  And most of those were manufactured trouble (fairy-tale = racist).  This one was dumb, I'll grant you.  But I'm also willing to bet that if we go and read Michelle Obama's comments for the past year we can find at least as many "questionable" things said when the Clinton Rules are applied.  And, yet, based on these things, the Clinton has a campaign in disarray and without a plan.  

    You know what worries me about Obama's electability?  That even with the media spending all of its time on this crap, even with the misogyny and the CDS, even outspending Hillary by 4 to one, he can't win Ohio.    

    I don't think it was a mistake.... (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by lookoverthere on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:34:20 PM EST
    And here's why:

    There's great footage of then-First Lady Hillary Clinton with the troops in Bosnia. She looks presidential.

    Getting that footage to roll repeatedly shows her being somewhere Sen. Obama was not. And she looks younger and more sprightly than Sen. McCain.

    These are both good for her. She's addressing the commander-in-chief and experience issues with Sen. Obama and age and health issues with Sen. McCain.

    I wish I could find this great study done regarding perception---I had it but I can't find it. Eddie Izzard uses the same material in DRESSED TO KILL. Anyway, the study had to do with how people decide about you based 60% on how you look, 30% on how you sound, and 10% for what you say.

    My last two numbers don't look right, but I think the first one is. Anyway, to parrot Izzard, that's one reason people fake sing the National Anthem---because it's better to look like you're singing than to just honestly stand there like a dope.

    The weekend talk shows are coming up. If the media reprises this footage, it could work well for Sen. Clinton in that people will catch a glance at her with the troops as they're eating breakfast or going to buy a new dishwasher. They'll pay less attention to what is  being said and more to what they're seeing.

    And what they're seeing is pretty powerful.

    I could be completely wrong here, but I'm not sure. Former-Pres. Clinton and Sen. Clinton are pretty adept and news cycles, and it's hard not to use the footage if you have it.

    And if you turn off the audio when that footage rolls, she looks great.

    But as I say, I could be wrong. I could be reaching. I'm willing to accept that.

    I don't know but... (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by Truth Partisan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:12:43 PM EST
    ...would it be possible that Bill is just reacting, in a normal, regular people kind of way to an attack on his wife? I think your average non-political junkie (none of us would be in this group) might take it that way and see nothing wrong with it.

    I just heard David Shuster on Ed Shultz show... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Exeter on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:43:17 PM EST
    Pretty disgusting and pretty inappropriate. Ed has endorsed Obama and is pretty anti Hillary and then they brought on Shuster, supposedly the "news guy" on MSNBC, but he was once again pundit extraudinaire going on and about how bad the Clintons are... including incredulously chuckling and saying that it was "crazy" that Clinton would say that when you are 60 and tired, sometimes you misspeak, considering that Hillary is saying she wants to the one that SHOULD PICK UP THE PHONE AT THREE AM!  

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:45:57 PM EST
    Bill Clinton completely blew it.

    that is a fact.

    [ Parent ]

    It's your opinion (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by madamab on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:54:44 PM EST
    not a fact.

    In my mind, he was subtly tying the media's coverage of the Trina Bachtel story with the media's coverage of Tuzla. He was trying to defuse the Tuzla effect by saying, "See? They're lying just like they did about Trina Bachtel."

    So to me, he is doing what you think he should be doing, but not in the same way.

    But I guess we will see if the media coverage has any effect on her poll numbers in PA. If those numbers take a dive after today, then I will agree that you are right.

    [ Parent ]

    No (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:50:37 PM EST
    That is your opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    Ok (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    that's true. It is not a fact. Seems obvious to me though. Do you disagree?

    [ Parent ]
    yeah, I do. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:07:04 PM EST
    I don't usually. But Bosnia has not been laid to rest. The Obamanauts are keeping it alive. Say anything about Hillary and the response is "was that while she was dodging sniper fire?"

    I think Bill is not wrong to talk about how absurd it is to negate her entire record and her very real experience in foreign policy based on a misremembered detail of one trip. So, no actual shots were fired - she was still there. It was still dangerous. The snipers were still there, too.

    And don't forget - us old people can relate, and anyone who's actually ever been in danger knows that it's not exactly good for retaining exact memories of the experience.

    Ridicule is a good weapon. IMO.

    [ Parent ]

    That might make sense if what he said (none / 0) (#99)
    by fuzzyone on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:06:55 PM EST
    had not been so totally inaccurate.  This was a bonehead move.  I have not seen much about Bosnia recently but if the concern is that it is still a live issue this is a stunningly ineffective way to deal with it.

    [ Parent ]
    Sure it was (none / 0) (#169)
    by echinopsia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:41:01 PM EST
    Pretty soon no one will remember or care about the original story, because Bill muddied the waters and pointed it out for the ridiculous non-story it really is.

    All people will remember is that Hillary went to Bosnia when it was dangerous and she acted all presidential and sh*t. Look, here's a video. See the sandbags? Those weren't for a flood. See the soldiers in flak jackets with rifles? It was a war zone. See Hillary visiting the wounded soldiers? Eating in the mess hall? Presidents do that kind fo thing. Awesome.

    [ Parent ]

    Opinion now, will be proven as fact in a few days (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:57:24 PM EST
    as the media regurgitates is endlessly.

    [ Parent ]
    This issue (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:13:21 PM EST
    Is less important to me than it is for you.

    I'm sure Bill has his reasons for saying what he says, what happened in Bosnia might have some importance for him that transcends the things you care about.

    Thing is, I don't watch the news.  I just don't. So I don't know what they're saying right now about what Bill said.

    I simply do not care.

    Bill can say what he wants.

    And then people on a blog can criticize it.


    [ Parent ]

    The exact same thing crossed my mind. (none / 0) (#26)
    by MMW on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 01:54:31 PM EST
    What BTD stated was opinion not a fact.

    [ Parent ]
    Not necessarily (none / 0) (#77)
    by goldberry on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:46:56 PM EST
    Consider his audience.  If it is true that most of the Clinton supporters are older seniors, this is something they can totally identify with.  And they ALSO know that at 60, a little lapse in memory wasn't tantamount to alzheimer's disease.  It's more like having less RAM than you need so occasionally something has to be stored in the archives and is a bit harder to retrieve on the spur of the moment.  Heck, most people are still years away from retirement at 60.  It's no biggy and his audience knows it.  
    That's what we are failing to see.  Anyone who's watched her over the past couple of months knows she's got more energy than most 4 year olds.  For all we know, he might also be laying the ground work for her debate performance.  If she's older and slower than Obama, how come she's running circles around him on policy?  And if she's having senior moments and can still perform like that, why is it that a young whippersnapper sounds like just a bunch of prepositional phrases without a direct object?  
    Anyway, I agree with the rest of the commenters who say that the belief that Obama is more electable is misplaced.  He's going to get CREAMED in the GE phase.  And a lot of us Clinton people are going chuckle when you Obama people wonder in consternation why his campaign just can't seem to do ANYTHING right.  And why is that Obama's side of the story never gets attention?  And why is that his policies are torn to shreds?  And why is it that the media always smirks whenever his surrogates are on TV?  yadda-yadda-yadda.  
    We'll be planning vacations in the fall but I'm sure all of Obama's coeds will not be too busy studying for midterms to gelp GOTV.  
    :-)

    [ Parent ]
    so you are saying (none / 0) (#82)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 02:52:35 PM EST
    Clinton supporters will be happy to see a democrat lose? or will take joy in watching the media hand the nomination to McCain? or am I misinterpreting?

    you know what nevermind, on another blog someone said that secretly HRC supporters WANT Obama to lose, so they can say see told you so. and everyday I am starting to think that this may just be true. if Hillary can't have it, then Obama needs to lose so all her supporters can be like we told you so and feel better about her losing.

    I think the media is biased against Hillary, I just have never agreed that the way for Democrats to win against an biased Media is to send someone who the media doesn't like. I know there seems to be an argument that she can handle the media but doesn't the primary actually prove NO she can't? if she couldn't stop the Media against Obama why are you telling me to believe she can do it against McCain?

    just wow.

    [ Parent ]

    On the contrary (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by goldberry on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    Obama's campaign has made a point of treating us like the uncool people they take great delight in excluding.  They take us for granted.  He must think he can depend on his AA's DINKS and young'uns to sing it for him, not to mention the Independents, Libertarians and moderate Republicans he's counting on voting for him.  I'm SURE he will do just fine.  Why are you panicking?  

    As for sending someone out there who the media doesn't like as being a bad idea, hmmmm, does that mean we should let the media dictate the policies of our party?  How about if a lot of the rest of us, you know, voters, prefer the candidate who the media doesn't like because we like what that candidate stands for.  Can we help it if the media won't cut her a break?  What if we vote for her in spite of the media?  If THAT were to happen, that would mean that most of the media's well-aimed missiles would have been complete and utter duds.  It would be like the media was ineffective.  It would mean the end of the media stranglehold on the country's government.  Wow!  That sounds pretty darned good to me.  I think we ought to try it.  It's worth a shot.  Otherwise, we will always be afraid of them and they will become emboldened to continue misbehaving and we will continue to put forward weak candidates like Obama who will become so much quadrenniel cannon fodder.  

    Now, if you really don't want McCain to win, get behind Clinton and make sure the media just reports the news instead of making it.  

    [ Parent ]

    ok but once again (none / 0) (#100)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:07:41 PM EST
    obama is going to win the popular vote and delegate count so that is the voters and once again we are told the supes should still give it to Hillary because only she can win the GE.

    so no when that argument is made then its NOT about voters.

    [ Parent ]

    Only because (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:13:01 PM EST
    Two large states were left out of the process.

    This will never be forgotten.


    [ Parent ]

    he has a 140 delegat elead (none / 0) (#124)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:25:30 PM EST
    she would only get 70 out of MI and FL being seated

    so he still has a pledged delegate lead. so sure lets say we seat them, you tell me why should Obama's delegate lead be over turned?

    [ Parent ]

    I was referring to (none / 0) (#125)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:26:21 PM EST
    The popular vote component of your comment.

    [ Parent ]
    well that goes to the math (none / 0) (#129)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:28:26 PM EST
    and no I don't think she will surpass him in popular vote.

    but for PURE speculation purposes if he wins BOTH the pop. vote and delegate count wont you still think the supes should give the nomination to hillary?

    if so why then (just for speculation purposes) should the pledged and popular vote leader be overturned?

    [ Parent ]

    I have stated repeatedly (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:31:26 PM EST
    If FL and MI were brought back into the fold and Obama still maintained a popular vote lead at the end of the process, then -- even despite what I now know about caucusses -- I'd have to recognize that as legitimate.

    I wouldn't like it.

    I would still view his candidacy as a fracturing of the party, forcing people to make a choice between the Clinton legacy and the future of the party, but at least the legitimacy issue would be dealt with.


    [ Parent ]

    aight then I am not talking to you (none / 0) (#139)
    by TruthMatters on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:36:05 PM EST
    I am talking to those people who even if Obama won the popular vote AND pledged delegates they still think Hillary should be the nominee because Obama can't handle the media.

    these people I ask why do they believe Obama can't handle it but Hillary can't.

    and I dont wanna get called on for being off topic so maybe I should save it for an open thread.

    but its those people I am talking to, why do they believe Hillary can fight the media and not Obama? because her husband did it?

    [ Parent ]

    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:50:33 PM EST
    You seem to be stuck on her being married to Bill Clinton. The FACT is, if she is the nominee, her position will not be affected by the media, because she is already being flogged in it. Obama however, is largely being ignored except for the back patting. It has nothing to do with her being mariied to Bill. She is still standing NOW because she has managed everything. Not perfectly of course. But enough. If she had not, Obama would be trouncing her. He is staying a nose ahead ONLY because of his media and caucus advantages. NEITHER of which will be present in the GE.

    [ Parent ]
    The crux of the matter is (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:59:07 PM EST
    The media wants to destroy the Clinton legacy.

    They tried to while he was president, but things were so on measure good for America back then, they couldn't do it.

    Sitting in a bar in 1998 and Bill was being surrounded, attacked on all sides, the media had their fangs out like they have never had in my lifetime.

    But I looked up and the guy who owns the bar looks across the floor and the place is packed, everyone's leaving 5 buck tips.  And he says, "Yeah, like I want this guy impeached?"

    So the media failed.  They failed because Bill was good at governing.  Lives of Americans, all Americans for the first time in decades started improving.  Bill didn't counter-attack the media so much more than just simply relied on America to make a choice between the lives they had and going back to what it was before Clinton was president.

    Now I understand not everyone in the world prosperred during the 90s, but the majority did.

    Now it's 10 years later, and the media gets a second chance to rip Bill apart.

    So whatever Obama has, he has that.

    The problem as I see it, Obama won't have that in the General Election.   Clinton will be gone then, the Clinton supporting part of the party will be very angry.  And the media likes McCain.   So Obama's strength is making speeches and big promises that everyone honestly want to believe in.  Gosh if I thought it was possible, I'd be all for it.  Who doesn't want a post-racial post-partisan utopia?

    But Clinton will have a legacy to run on.

    Anyway, the main point is it's not so much fighting the media but trusting the public to be able to make a decision between listening to the media and acting out of concern for their families.

    And it's the same thing Obama will have to rely on one day.


    [ Parent ]

    Who are these people (none / 0) (#180)
    by Marvin42 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:51:44 PM EST
    I haven't met any here. Almost everyone says if you include FL/MI and he is ahead he is our nominee (in popular vote that is). So this is a bit of a red herring.

    [ Parent ]
    Not on a 48 state strategy he won't (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by goldberry on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:21:49 PM EST
    None of us Clinton supporters will ever consider him legitimate.  And, NO, we will not get used to it.  
    If you feel comfortable with this scenario, then more power to you.  Otherwise, I would suggest that you try your damdest to get Obama to seat Florida as is and work on a revote in Michigan toot sweet.  
    The rest of us Clinton states want our votes to have impact and right now they are being held hostage because of MI and FL.  I didn't go to vote on Super Tuesday so some newby senator without a full term under his belt, NO foreign policy experience, policies that sound like Republican lite High Broderism, and a bunch of glazed eyed zealots as supporters could sit on two crucial states and make my vote not count.  I am not amused by the inexperienced, exclusionary, arrogant "gentleman" from Illinois.  
    No indeedy.  Not amused at all.  
    I fear that you guys are in for a very rude awakening.  At this point, my expectations can only rise.  But YOU, well, I wouldn't want to be you right now because a little more than half the party thinks you need a good spanking and no dessert.  

    [ Parent ]
    Hate to break it to you (none / 0) (#128)
    by Deadalus on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:28:21 PM EST
    </