Hillary Responds to Obama Saying McCain Would Be Better Than Bush

Bump and Update: Hillary responds to Obama (audio here with audience joining in):

"Sen. Obama said today that John McCain would be better for the country than George Bush. Now, Sen. McCain is a real American patriot who has served our country with distinction, but Sen. McCain would follow the same failed policies that have been so wrong for our country the last seven years.

"Sen. McCain thinks it is okay to keep our troops in Iraq for the next 100 years. Is that better than George Bush?

"Sen. McCain will continue the failed economic policies of George Bush that have brought us deficit and increasing debt. Is that better than George Bush?

"Sen. McCain does not have a health care plan that will cover every American. In fact, we will have more and more uninsured Americans. Is that better than George Bush?


"Sen. McCain has no plans to end the housing foreclosure crisis or cut the cost of gas at the pump. Is that better than George Bush?

"We need a nominee who will take on John McCain, not cheer on John McCain, and I will be that nominee."

Original Post

Obama Says McCain Better Than Bush

Here's Obama at a campaign stop today:

"You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain," Obama said to cheers from a rowdy crowd in central Pennsylvania. Then he said: "And all three of us would be better than George Bush."
The comment threatened to undercut Obama's efforts and those of the entire Democratic Party to portray the GOP presidential nominee -in - waiting as nothing more than an extension of Bush's unpopular tenure. At the very least, it provides fodder Republicans can use to prop up McCain.
Hillary should be able to drive a truck through this one.
< Worst Pollsters On PA: Clinton Comfortably Ahead | Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Whoops! (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by phat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:22:09 PM EST
    Is right.

    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:49:26 PM EST
    What a ringing endorsement.

    Actually, she said that she and McCain... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:01:42 PM EST
    ...both had more experience than Obama. This is demonstrably true. She never, as far as I know, said that McCain would be a better President than Obama, or even that he would be a better President than Bush. She has not said that McCain would be a good President at all.

    She didn't even say that. (5.00 / 3) (#116)
    by echinopsia on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:34:55 PM EST
    She said she and McCain had passed the CinC test with foreign relations experience, but Obama would have to make his own case in that area.

    Which he did by saying he was more experienced than either of them because he lived in Indonesia when he was a little kid.



    and whats more (none / 0) (#139)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:26:49 PM EST
    right before that she said something like

    "Now...while none of us has been the President..."

    and then

    "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. Sen. John McCain has a lifetime of experience that he'd bring to the White House. And Sen. Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

    everyone leaves that first reference to her years as informal de facto counsel to the President on domestic policy, (and now I can't google up the original), but she clearly established her superiority over McCain first.


    this is what she said (none / 0) (#162)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:23:55 PM EST
    "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House and Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."

    "clearly established her superiority???

    no.  you casually left out the "I know" part.


    I don't have access to the original (none / 0) (#185)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:50:28 AM EST
    for the much quoted part you mention, but my point was, she prefaced it with something I will now quote again, and it was that that established her superiority to McCain (and Obama):

    "Now...while none of us has been the President..."

    ...because she has come closest of the three to being just that, as his (informal) council.


    RE: (none / 0) (#167)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:30:16 PM EST
    you forgot the "I know" part too.  well done.

    Yes, in March she said McCain would be (1.00 / 4) (#101)
    by 1jane on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:05:22 PM EST
    a better President 3 times. Stange strategy, bad mouthing a fellow Democrat. Her handlers need to get her back in control.

    Links please? [nt] (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:11:41 PM EST
    1Jane- are you joking???? (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by kenosharick on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:30:47 PM EST
    Get her "in control?" Obama and his minions have been "bad-mouthing" her (and Bill) for months. The Obama campaign started the negativity and have taken the low road since before SC.

    Handlers? (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:44:40 PM EST
    In Control? I think you are referring to a different candidate. Hillary Clinton does not strike me as the kind of woman who lets herself be "controlled" or "handled" by anybody.

    Not what she said. (none / 0) (#119)
    by echinopsia on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:35:33 PM EST
    That is what I was thinking... (none / 0) (#105)
    by Leisa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:12:36 PM EST
    It is hard for either of them to bash McCain on patriotism.  

    If you analyze the debates, I think that Hillary always comes off as more patriotic.  Stupid flag pin and are you more patriotic than Wright questions excused.  She always refers to our constitution and the foundations of our country.  She shows that she loves and values our country in the references she makes to our forefathers and the foundations of democracy.  That never escapes me.  It does, somehow, escape our media however.  Hmm...


    and she said this country is worth fighting for. (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by thereyougo on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:58:25 PM EST
    Given that McCain just called Obama a liar ... (none / 0) (#61)
    by Ellie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:27:19 PM EST
    ... the conversation might go like this:

    Obama: "Either Democrat would be better than John McCain ... and all three of us would be better than George Bush."

    McCain: "Don't believe him!!"


    Yeah, but would McCain be as (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:25:50 PM EST
    good a CIC as Bush? Inquiring creative class bloggers are dying to know.

    Oops he did it again (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:28:41 PM EST
    5-4-3-2-1 - countdown to the WORM explanations by the Obama campaign.

    It Will Be Real Interesting To See What Rationale (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:33:38 PM EST
    Boyz in the Blogs and Obama's supporters come up with to explain how this was really a brilliant move on Obama's part.

    If it didn't have such serious consequences, these antics would be down right funny.


    Can you imagine (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:42:00 PM EST
    the fallout on the blogs if Hillary said this?

    Jeesh, all she did was compare Obama's experience unfavorably with McCain's (which, no matter how you feel about McCain, is undeniably true) and they went batsh*t.  

    I'm sure they'll all be saying this proves that Obama is the ultimate post-partisan candidate.  


    Can you imagine a dem nominee (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:52:22 PM EST
    reeling from one gaffe to the next? OMG

    So far WORM is... (none / 0) (#62)
    by echinopsia on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    He's just telling the truth. (tm)

    I'm late to this game... (none / 0) (#125)
    by mg7505 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:24:31 PM EST
    ... so what is WORM?

    What (none / 0) (#128)
    by superjude on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:31:59 PM EST
    Obama Really Meant

    We don't have to imagine it, (none / 0) (#76)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:59:47 PM EST
    we are watching it!!! LOL

    She didn't even do that (5.00 / 4) (#66)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:36:44 PM EST
    She told the press to ask Obama himself to give his creds for being CiC.  Obama's response: "WAH!!!  She said I couldn't be commander in chief!!!!"

    It took him--what?--two months to come up with "my fp experience is better than either of them because of my four years in Indonesia talking to the little people." (haha, really little--less than thirty six inches tall in most cases)

    I suppose the fanboyspin on this latest from O will be that he is speaking truth to power, or some such.  Frankly, why would anyone be shocked that he's complimenting a republican?  He did it with Bush 1, he did it with Reagan, and now he's propping up McCain.


    This is why (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:42:20 PM EST
    I don't believe he's a true Democrat.  I don't know if he adheres to Republican beliefs (although his anti-gay, anti-feminist religious connections are extremely suspect), but either way, I don't trust him.  He's just weak.  The only way he can make a name for himself is by tearing down the Clinton legacy.

    If he hadn't torn her down (5.00 / 6) (#71)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:44:48 PM EST
    there would be nothing for him to stand on right now.

    I think folks are seeing that.  I read an article a long time ago that stated the more Obama looks like a politician, the worse he does.

    He yam what he yam.


    Odd (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by phat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    He actually admitted that either Democrat would be better than McCain.

    When was the last time he said that?

    we've heard nothing of the sort from Hillary (1.00 / 2) (#164)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:25:26 PM EST
    unfortunately.  Would be good if they both elevated the party (and the discussion) a bit.

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by kayla on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:49:08 PM EST
    Are you saying that Hillary Clinton has never emphaticcally spoke om the importance of getting a Dem (either Dem) in the White House?  Please tell me I'm misinterpreting this comment.

    This is the first time Obama has said anything like that that I've heard.  The last debate was probably the third or fourth time I'd heard Hillary make such a statement.


    Where have you been?! (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:39:17 AM EST
    She says it at campaign events, interviews and debates. This is pretty much common knowledge. In fact she was saying it when they all jumped on the bandwagon calling on her to quit (and before).

    She's been promoting party unity no matter what, NOT Mr. Unity Pony.


    Would it be inappropriate (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:29:11 PM EST
    to laugh?  That's going to get some play.  Could someone please tell me what is this new direction, better path he doth speaketh of so often?

    Super D's should be appraised of this. (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    This candidate is at best a bumbler; at worst, does not care about the party or winning in November, juswt his nomination. Bad,bad,bad!

    Oh dear... (5.00 / 4) (#8)
    by outsider on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:31:19 PM EST
    I have a sinking feeling in my stomach, prompted by the realisation that, since they have to defend their man to the death on everything he says, no matter how unlikely, all we will hear from the Obama blogs now is ream after ream of analysis showing how, yes, it's true, McCain would in fact be significantly better than Bush.

    Selective Outrage. (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by Iphie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:57:27 PM EST
    I don't  think they'll defend it -- I think they'll just ignore it. Just like they ignore the evidence of media bias against Clinton, or the other gaffes that Obama makes. Just like it was much easier to lash out at the ABC debate moderators than to critique in any way Obama's performance. They'll pretend it didn't happen unless it becomes big enough news that they have to acknowledge it, at which point their only option will be to attack the messenger.

    Yes, you're right (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by daria g on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:17:57 PM EST
    I'm sure that will be forthcoming - 1) What Obama Really Meant and 2) fierce insistence on big differences between McCain and Bush (these, from the folks who are happy to say things like "Bush-Clinton era").

    I don't know how Obama can be so careless with his language.  That's not a trivial thing to say about this election.  The press isn't going to cover up for him forever!


    I think the main defense will be (4.90 / 10) (#9)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:33:05 PM EST
    Hillary did it first.

    It was a foolish thing to say of course (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    But it is true that Bush is the worst President in history and thus McCain would be better.

    Let me add that Clinton has been too cozy about McCain in this campaign and it will not be quite so easy for her to use this slipup as Jeralyn implies, imo.

    Well I'm still not sure McCain would be (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:39:42 PM EST

    Some of us are not sure that Obama (5.00 / 5) (#21)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:42:58 PM EST
    would be better than McCain, frankly.
    Obama's tendency to needlessly insult other politicians and huge constituencies does not bode well for his ability to implement an agenda.
    McCain is a real wild card, to me.
    He has taken so many stands on issues, it's very hard to predict what he would do if elected.

    Heck, I'm not sure Obama would be better (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by angie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:54:37 PM EST
    then Bush -- yeah, that's right, I'm saying it.  At least W was able to win re-election in 2004 -- if Obama gets in the WH, I don't see him being able to do the same in 2012.

    Iraq and choice (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Nasarius on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:17:47 PM EST
    Those are some pretty clear life-or-death deal-breakers when it comes to contemplating voting for McCain.

    Obama will, at worst, be a do-nothing centrist.


    Cutting the budget (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:21:24 PM EST
    by 30% core programs.  McCain today said.  Is Obama on this planet?

    Rhetoric vs reality (none / 0) (#126)
    by boredmpa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:25:30 PM EST
    Good luck with that...even if he did have a repub majority in congress they wouldn't be able to hold the party line on such a cut.  McCain is pandering to energize the donor$.

    get off the partisan bandwagon (none / 0) (#83)
    by diogenes on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:56:50 PM EST
    We all knew both in 2000 and now that McCain is better than Bush.  Attacking Obama for saying what everyone knows to be true is likely to backfire.  Heck, it isn't as if he said that "McCain would be better than Bush...Hillary has yet to prove that".

    That was then... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:43:07 PM EST
    Now he's sung the "Bomb Iran" song and pointed out that 100 years in Iraq would be fine with him.

    Those two items seem to be right in line with where the Bush admin is.


    Hasn't she already said both (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:43:59 PM EST
    would be better than McCain in a manner that implies McCain would be a nightmare? She has room to point out how his economics would be worse than Bush, or a continuation. Same with health care and I'm sure a few other issues.

    Obama said that too (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:49:30 PM EST
    The problem was Obama said McCain would be better than  Bush. Of course anyone would be but you don't like to say that when you will be arguing that McCain is running for Bush's 3rd term.

    But Clinton does not have clean hands on this.


    She was asking voters (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by pie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:53:49 PM EST
    to compare her experience with McCain's.  McCain has supported every single one of Bush's policies.  Bush is extremely unpopular.  You could even say that he's the worst president ever.  :)

    I think she'd do all right.


    you nailed it pie (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:04:20 PM EST
    she was setting up a softball.

    first: he's my equivalent in experience...

    then in the GE:

    but what kind of experience!

    supported every single one of Bush's policies.  Bush is extremely unpopular.  You could even say that he's the worst president ever.  :)

    So its a fair fight between Democratic v Republican = worst brand ever.

    while Obama was boxing himself into the typical neophyte corner of I'm a bipartisan wannabe...wheres he gonna go against McCain?

    cos McCain already has that 'bipartisan' brand down!


    Not so sure ... (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:01:03 PM EST
    of that.  Think McCain will be Bush with the loony switch pushed to 11.

    "There will be more wars, my friends."


    It's not a switch... (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:06:20 PM EST
    it's a knob that goes all the way to 11 because - well, you know, most knobs only go to 10 but sometimes you need that little bit extra...

    there will be more wars (none / 0) (#45)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:07:02 PM EST
    heres where I agree with McCain.

    Unless we radically switch this country to a clean energy economy, we will be scrounging under the unwilling for the last of their oil.

    Under veto every bill Mccain, that won't change. So, yes.


    You got that right (none / 0) (#102)
    by 1jane on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:08:03 PM EST
    I dont think that it is so hard/ (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by ajain on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:51:26 PM EST
    While she did imply that McCain would be a stronger Commander-in-Chief than Obama, she also said that McCain is proving that he knows nothing about the economy and that he is digging deeper in hole Pres. Bush has dug us into. Infact she described his economic policy as digging a hole to China.

    So she has been pretty critical on him, even though she has been respectful towards him.


    She has to be careful (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:59:55 PM EST
    in how she uses it, but Senator McCain promises to continue Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy and the economic policy that has sunk the US into a deep recession. Clinton's already been pretty successful at being friendly to John McCain "nice guy war hero" (ew) while still pointing out the multiple problems with John McCain "Bush follower."  

    I think Hillary will not (none / 0) (#48)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:10:26 PM EST
    make this a distraction for the Pennsylvania primary.  She might say something before Indiana or North Carolina.  She doesn't really have to do anything.  Obama can defeat himself all by his lonesome.

    I think BTD is right on this one (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by fuzzyone on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:57:25 PM EST
    Hillary is going to have a tough time using this given the love she has shown McCain.

    It was another example of Obama saying something that is probably true, but should not have been said.  Its pretty amazing what a non stop gaffe fest the dem race has been on both sides.  Luckily for them McCain is a gaffe machine himself.  No matter who gets the nomination the big winner: John Stewart.


    Worst Presideent SO FAR (5.00 / 0) (#108)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:15:16 PM EST
    If McCain continues pushing Bush's failed policies, even long after it has become obvious that the policies are hurting the nation, he might supercede Bush as "Worst President Ever". He has shown no indication that he would do otherwise.

    Clinton will tear McCain a new (none / 0) (#52)
    by Chimster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:14:22 PM EST
    you know what. Just as Obama and Clinton agreed to come together after a nominee is chosen, the opposite applies to the GE match up with the Republicans.

    Any snuggling up to McCain will be short lived. This primary is only the pre-game show. Just wait till she gets in the ring with McCain. Old man won't know what hit em.


    I (none / 0) (#131)
    by sas on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:45:32 PM EST
    think the worst(s) would be (according to my history teacher friends)

    Warren Harding, James Buchanon, US Grant-all below GW Bush

    but he is down among the lowest


    So here's that logic that... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:37:26 PM EST
    one of the Dem candidates is doing the work for the GOP.  Wow.  Differentiating Bush43 from McCain.  Nice work senator, very nice.  Certainly will be used by the right-wing noise machines.

    I don't believe it is a slip up (5.00 / 6) (#26)
    by angie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:50:15 PM EST
    I think he really believes it -- his attitude seems to be that the most important thing is that Hillary NOT be President. Nonetheless, undercutting the entire "3rd Bush term" the Dems have going for them is plain old suicidal. But you know, you can't blame him really, he seems to prefer Republicans to Democrats overall.

    good point (none / 0) (#57)
    by kimsaw on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:24:47 PM EST
    I agree with you. (none / 0) (#85)
    by miguelito on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    I don't think it was a slip-up either. I think he's dog-whistling to get his supporters to know that he thinks if HRC is the nominee, it's alright to vote for McCain or let McCain win.  

    One more piece of the puzzle (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:51:50 PM EST
    I could not understand how Obama could be so willing to attack Clinton the way he has. He has essentially made it likely that if she does win the primary, she will be poisoned to the point that she can't win. After seeing Wright's speeches, a puzzle piece fell into place. I think that Obama has bought into the victim mentality promoted by Wright, who thinks that all whites are privileged. This is a 2nd puzzle piece. Obama does not think that McCain is that bad of an option. This allows him to tar Clinton with impunity, secure in the belief that even if he loses then he will be handing the Presidency to a decent person.

    clinton will do fine against McCain (none / 0) (#70)
    by kimsaw on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:44:00 PM EST
    and she will almost (I say with a hard swallow) have to pull Obama in as her VP and Obama is almost at the point of the reverse if he is the nominee. A deal will be cut.  Voter demographics for Obama and McCain don't match up as well as Clinton and McCain, McCain will draw from Clinton supporters if he's the nominee. If Obama supporters leave Clinton, many are the young voters who historically didn't vote anyway. Clinton and McCain will be on equal footing and  Clinton will easily handle McCain in the debates, where Obama and McCain stammerings unify their capabilities it will be more of a toss up. The patriotic valor of McCain will trump the nearly Republican wanna be Obama.

     Clinton and Obama may need each other as much as I don't like the idea. I don't trust Obama. He hasn't earned it, hasn't worked hard enough on policy issues. His debate performances proved that point.

    Neither of the Dems have an absolute blanket of support, but in the long haul Clinton will fair better against McCain.


    If you think Obama will take second place (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:51:21 PM EST
    to a woman, think again. He won't go for the VP spot, he will see it as second best and as making him a loser. Which he will be, but since it's all about him and not the party, how he feels is more important than what is good for the Democrats. I think Hillary will offer it to him and he will decline, take his marbles and go home. I think Obama is in this for Obama and no one else. Unless I missed it, he has yet to say that his supporters should vote for whoever the nominee is. Hillary has said that on several occasions, if I recall correctly. Obama isn't a Democrat in the real sense of trying to get policies in place, he is a Democrat because they gave him the easiest and fastest leg up to national office. Don't count on him to back us up if he isn't the nominee.

    I kind of hate (none / 0) (#148)
    by IzikLA on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    that you are right in those last two sentences.  In similar fashion, I watched that whole compassion forum on CNN and was shocked (well not really at this point) that no one mentioned the fact that Obama basically said he joined the church because it would be good for his political career.  Did anyone else see that or I am just imagining things at this point?  Sometimes I can hardly believe my own eyes and ears.  Especially when no one else calls him on it.

    I hope you're right (none / 0) (#86)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:08:17 PM EST
    I believe that the only possible win we have right now is Clinton/Obama. I don't think Clinton would do any good for Obama as his running mate. She would draw the ire of the right wing without seriously countering any of his negatives. I'm just not sure it will happen. Obama has the lead right now, and the race is pretty far along. They're going to have a hard time giving the win to Clinton at this point, and even if they manage to it's not clear that Obama will be willing to play 2nd fiddle to Clinton.

    HIllary should be able to drive a truck through (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by eRobin on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:51:51 PM EST
    this one ...

    And if she does, she'll be criticized for "swiftboating" Obama because what he really meant was blah blah blah  ...

    Seriously, she'd do better to stick to her health care plan and talk up linking energy to jobs.  

    Hillary doesn't have to do anything (none / 0) (#36)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:58:25 PM EST
    I agree, she should stay positive and talk about what she will do in the first 100 days.

    I think that Obama has pretty much accepted the possibility that he would eventually lose the nomination.  He is laying the foundation for poisoning the water for Hillary.  I don't think he can accept the idea of being bested by a woman.  That's why he gives an assist to McCain.


    He sure must miss that time ... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:53:28 PM EST
    when all he had to say was "hope" and "change," and audiences cheered.

    Obama's foot has been spending a lot of time in his mouth of late.

    Perhaps now he understands (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:06:47 PM EST
    the Miranda warning:  "Anything you say can and will be used against you."  I bet neighter he or his campaign staff imagined that anyone would publish what he said there.  However, he does just ast badly in public as in private.

    People laughed ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:16:16 PM EST
    few months back when I suggested that Obama might end up with a Dukakis level defeat.

    Doesn't seem so ridiculous anymore.


    They still do (none / 0) (#87)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:09:28 PM EST
    Heck, now all he has to do is brush his shoulder or scratch his nose and they cheer. It's surreal. Bono doesn't have a better fan club than Obama.

    I eagerly await (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Nadai on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:02:08 PM EST
    the rabid condemnation of Obama by Kos, WKJM, et al. for cozying up to John McCain.



    Keep breathing (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by themomcat on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:04:49 PM EST
    because I think you will have a long wait.

    If you wait a few days (none / 0) (#40)
    by lilburro on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:03:42 PM EST
    for the NYT's columnists to type up some loving trash about it, you might at best get a rabid defense.  Sorry.  :(

    Crickets chirping.... (none / 0) (#63)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:28:33 PM EST
    The question again... (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Chimster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:07:05 PM EST
    Was this scripted or was this one of those I-think-I'll-make-up-my-own-speech quotes?

    This is off-topic (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by ajain on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:13:48 PM EST
    But I just saw this new Clinton ad

    I have to say, I wish we had seen more of this throughout this election. makes me think Geoff Garin is doing a really good job and I wish he had come in much earlier.

    Wow (none / 0) (#68)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:42:00 PM EST
    that's my favorite ad this election season. And I truly believe every word of it--she's for families, for people like me. Thanks so much for linking that :)

    Garin may be worth his money (none / 0) (#78)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:10:55 PM EST
    if this came from him.  It's really good!

    Vote depression (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    Fits with earlier thread:  "YO, undecideds, don't ya worry your pretty little heads, stay home, McCain not that bad, and if I Obama lose to him, it's ok".   People who feel the urgency to vote will think, I guess in the end, he's no Bush.

    Obama, we were not born yesterday.  

    This should not be a surprise to anybody (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by LCaution on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:26:50 PM EST
    After all, the Presidents Obama has openly admired are Reagan and Bush 41.  His implicit explanation for "standard Washington politics" is that Democrats are as responsible as Republicans.  

    In spite of 15 years of experience to the contrary, he apparently believes that if only Democrats would just try to get along with Republicans, we could solve all of our problems. Reality? The only times Republicans are interested in bi-partisanship are those times when they are in the minority.

    If anybody's Democratic credentials are suspect in this campaign, they are certainly Obama's.

    Heh...I got it (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
    It would justify him being McCain's VP.

    Machiavelli? (none / 0) (#106)
    by feet on earth on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:13:02 PM EST
    More scary: Planting in McCain's mind the idea of offering him the VP position to screw Hillary if she is the nominee?

    Bill Clinton = Bush < McCain (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by ineedalife on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:33:30 PM EST
    Obama math has to be giving the superdelegates the willies.

    If I were Clinton I wouldn't even address this (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:41:55 PM EST
    thing.  And if asked I would answer with a "Ask him what he meant"

    Well, he's likely right. It would be pretty hard (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by tigercourse on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:45:50 PM EST
    to be a worse President then Bush. Short of giving the country back to England, I don't know what McCain would have to do.

    Giving the country (5.00 / 4) (#79)
    by Nadai on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:30:53 PM EST
    back to England wouldn't have been as bad as Bush has been.  The English, at least, still have the Magna Carta.

    Brilliant (none / 0) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 06:09:00 PM EST
    comment, as the Brits say.  And, sadly, so true.

    He equated Clinton w/ Bush but McCain's better? (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Ellie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:47:43 PM EST
    IMO he just gave a sweet gift to Repugs and walked back any Dem PR gains made in attaching McCain to the Worst President Ever.

    Now all any wagon-circling, rubber-stamping Repug incumbent tip-toeing backwards away from Bush has to do is work a group hug with McCain into their campaign ads and run Obama's sound over it.

    And nice work dismantling the biggest Dem successes of the past 25 years.

    If he thinks McCain is better than Bush, (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:22:55 PM EST
    then how, as the nominee, does he make the argument that electing McCain is like giving Bush a third term?

    And how does he make the case to Republicans and independents that they should vote for him, and not McCain, if what people are looking for is someone better than Bush?

    Obama has an eerily familiar problem - when he goes off-script, he's a disaster.

    That's a pretty easy one.... (none / 0) (#142)
    by Alec82 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:35:38 PM EST
    ...because Senator McCain is only Bush II in certain respects, albeit large ones.  It is one thing to argue that the major policy initiatives McCain supports (tax cuts, Iraq) are disastrous and will continue to be so, and that on these big items he is indeed a third term for Bush.  But obviously he is better than Bush on the environment and campaign finance.  Additionally, as Nicholas Kristoff noted, when he panders to the Republican base he is really, really bad at it.  

     The mistake you make in evaluating his comment is that you assume that people are only looking for someone better than Bush.  They are not.  They are looking for someone fundamentally different from Bush in tone, policy and approach.    


    he is not better on the environment (none / 0) (#187)
    by dotcommodity on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:01:33 AM EST
    Bush could say global warming too on the campaign trail.

    John McCain already vetoes every energy and climate bill. June will be interesting: his buddy Lieberman has another stab at mediocrifying another attempt at a cap and trade bill its about as toothless as you can get...lets see if cranky McCain will break his veto record.


    Nice spin from Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#92)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:26:16 PM EST
    that's how the dem nominee for the presidency talks.

    Hear hear! (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:28:46 PM EST
    See Obama...no need to disrespect your opponent and attack them personally because you disagree with them!  Take a cue from Hillary. She can show you how to destroy your opponent with truth AND class.

    Great response from Clinton - (5.00 / 4) (#95)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:45:22 PM EST
    she makes two important points: (1) that McCain is not better than Bush, and (2), that Obama's vaunted judgment must be out of whack if he thinks McCain would be.

    I really think a lot of this comes down to Obama having no clue who he is or what he believes in - and the last thing we need is another president who thinks it's all about him.

    Obama's poor judgement (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by sas on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:12:17 PM EST
    This guy is a neophyte. It seems like every few days he is "flaming up" and then spends several days putting out the fires.

    This is what he will do as President.

    This is why experiance matters!

    REPOST-Hillary's Big Push, Boots on the ground (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    Hillary must have had A HUGE turn out for volunteers today. I saw Hillary supporters on corners of busy roads, and packed shopping malls, and plazas in the Pittsburgh area. Phone calls, signs, and gatherings are going on everywhere. This must be the major push I have been hearing about. I was in Monroeville PA today on a VERY busy US Rt. 22 east of Pittsburgh, but still in Allegheny county. My GF saw the same things in Greensburg even farther east in Westmoreland county on US rt. 30. These are VERY busy suburbs with middle class white people, east of the city. Huge signs, honking of horns, etc. I have NEVER seen anything like this for a primary in my 42 years......... It is simply amazing. Barack Obama has been spending money for months here on advertising while Hillary has not been as visible. It seems she has been waiting to pounce. Bill, Hill, Chelsea, Governor Ed Rendell, Jack Murtha, Dan Onorato (chief executive of Allegheny county) and the 100 mayors that have come out to endorse Hillary are criss crossing this area and the whole state. What is even more bizzare is The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which is owned by Richard Mellon-Scaife endorsed Hillary today. That is the man and newspaper that pushed VERY hard against the Clintons in the 1990's......I would assume all this is going on in Philly, Harrisburg, and Erie too. Is this part of the Clinton machine people talk about? I really don't know but, it is very uplifting as a Clinton supporter I must say.

    I think that Obama is simply highlighting (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:35:05 PM EST
    the difference between him and Hillary.  The gaffes and careless statements of recent days reflect badly on his claim to having good judgement.  At the same time, they also highlight  the advantage to Hillary by having experience and judgement in these critical stage of the campaign.  She is showing her steady composure/poise and Obama demonstrating his susceptibility to being rattled into making careless statements.  I am so pleased with my candidate.

    I am confident that in the GE campaign, Hillary can go toe to toe with McCain without being disrespectful or attacking his character.  They have great differences in philosophy and policies; but they don't have to be unchivalrous to one another; unlike what Obama has been doing.

    their candidate is off message (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by miguelito on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:44:11 PM EST
    what a clown, the Democratic points are that McCain will be a continuation of the Bush years and Obama can't even keep on that.. was the teleprompter broken?

    I'm sure this is the magic talisman (1.00 / 3) (#51)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:14:13 PM EST
    that will give Hillary the nomination. Obama states what we all know to be true (except those crypto-Republican Hillary supporters who like McCain better than Obama) and the Clinton drones go crazy.

    Ding, ding, ding! (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by angie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:54:28 PM EST
    First WORM of the thread -- and the "but it's TRUE" meme is the winner!!!
    Bonus points for that nice little jab at all us "not even Democrats" Hillary supporters too.  

    Good call on the WORM :-) (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:22:42 PM EST
    Not of case of liking (none / 0) (#82)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:56:01 PM EST
    McCain better than Obama .  It is just that some of us are running scared about who and what Obama really is.  He's a pig in a poke (poke = sack),  And we do probably know the worst about McCain.  (Sitting out an election in a wholly red or blue state is NOT the same as voting for McCain.)

    Perhaps it was deliberate on Obama's part (none / 0) (#3)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:28:27 PM EST
    a dog whistle to his supporters saying it is ok to vote for McCain if he is not the nominee.  However, it this is the intent, he did not take into consideration that it goes for Hillary supporters too.

    Whether or not it was deliberate on his part, this guy is guaranteeing democratic defeat in November.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#88)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:11:24 PM EST
    That's my feeling on the matter.  It wasn't a misstep.  His campaign is unraveling and he wants to make sure to assuage his supporters that should he not be the nominee--John McCain winning wouldn't be so bad.

    While true, what a truly idiotic thing to say! (none / 0) (#11)
    by barryluda on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:34:53 PM EST
    I agree with the comment that the Supers should know about this.  We have to win in November, and anything that's relevant to that decision matters.

    We Need To Give SD's Some Credit (5.00 / 0) (#31)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:53:04 PM EST
    Many of them refuse to heed the call Howard Dean sent out about deciding now who to back.  In a piece today in the AP they are holding back and reserving the right to vote against the will of the people, basically.  I hope it is okay to post this one more time.



    Thanks PssttCmere08, I hadn't seen that (none / 0) (#47)
    by barryluda on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:09:25 PM EST
    I'm surprised that only 1/3 of the Supers think electability is the key factor.

    Those are the only ones (none / 0) (#49)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:13:17 PM EST
    who would respond to the question.  The rest did not want to give any answers for fear of giving their inclinations.  

    Well we have the WORM now I guess (none / 0) (#12)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:35:29 PM EST
    we will get WMRM.

    Ok. I'm gonna ask (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:37:23 PM EST
    What is WORM?

    Does it must mean how Obama worms his way out of all of his gaffes instead of owning them and moving on?

    What Obama really meant (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:38:13 PM EST
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    I get it now.



    Wow (none / 0) (#19)
    by Lil on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:41:59 PM EST
    Doesn't get much dumber than that.

    But Hillary said (none / 0) (#23)
    by pie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:45:57 PM EST
    that she and McCain were more experienced, and the crowd went wild! I thought some Obama supporters were going to have an aneurysm after her remark.  She was right though, and Obama is going to have his work cut out for him to prove to voters that the experience he brings to the table is just as good as the old man's if he's the nominee.  Rookies, of course, can be superstars, but not all are.  As far as the presidency is concerned, I'd rather not go with the rookie.

    Now Obama has leveled the playing field with this comment.  Even though he is right, I guess, it was a gift to the republicans, one they'll certainly use with the undecideds.  Dumb.

    Doesn't this (none / 0) (#58)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:25:46 PM EST
    also undercut his them of "Bush-McCain" - implying they are one and the same?

    HuffPo Must Be Going Crazy (none / 0) (#59)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 04:26:46 PM EST

    Huffpost is a parallel (none / 0) (#96)
    by bjorn on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:46:13 PM EST
    universe where Obama never says anything wrong, and when he does they just pretend like he didn't say it.  The Off The Bus report on the S. F. fundraiser was the one exception.

    And it was only because Arianna (none / 0) (#107)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:14:35 PM EST
    was off on a cruise somewhere.

    Stupid comment from Obama. n/t (none / 0) (#77)
    by Faust on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:03:45 PM EST

    Democrats and REpublicans: What's the difference? (none / 0) (#91)
    by allpeopleunite on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:24:01 PM EST
    Any government is in fact only a continuation of the last, in that they are all simply in service to the industry and financiers that control them, be they Democrat or Republican there can be no hope of a truly transparent and representative democracy while Capital still rules. The War in Iraq, the deregulation of financial markets (which happened during the CLinton administration), all the blames on the Bush White House should be considered for what they are: expressions of the class nature of society, where the ruling class is constantly trying to grab more power, influence, and wealth, while trying to pacify the working class. The Democratic party has let down the Left, as has the AFL-CIO and even SEIU, there needs to be a real organisation of the working class in order for concrete gains to be made

    Come On! Stop the lies about Clinton adm. (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:19:46 PM EST
    some of us were around to understand and remember:

    deregulation of the financial markets began with Nixon when he took the U.S. out of the gold standard; as well as busting the unions; then under Reagan: deregulation of the airline industry and the S& L's which resulted in the biggest federal bailout and we are still paying for that; and more union busting.

    Incidentally, John McCain figured prominently in the Keating 5 scandal.  How he escaped the consequences I am sure will come out in the general elections.


    the only let down (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by miguelito on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:40:05 PM EST
    has been Pelosi, Dean and the rest of the gang who are more concerned with preventing Clinton's presidency than securing the White House for the Democratic party.

    Personally (none / 0) (#98)
    by Trickster on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:55:53 PM EST
    While he shouldn't have said this, since it does indeed undercut the Democratic argument . . . it is, after all, true.  I mean, I'm sure McCain would be a really bad President, but W is and was a unique talent.  Don't expect that kind of performance from McCain.

    GWB said 100 days in Iraq; McCain sez 100 years (none / 0) (#99)
    by Ellie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 07:59:13 PM EST
    Oh, HRC can go to town on this.

    Trying to estimate war start and mission accomplished I'm sure a tweak here and there should do it, or even going by the sweets and rose petal estimates (both if you're a fan of rosewater scented yummies.)

    OUCH!!! Just got back. (none / 0) (#110)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:21:22 PM EST
    Great response by Hillary, and completely consistent with her past remarks.

    Yes, HRC's response was perfect (none / 0) (#118)
    by barryluda on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:35:31 PM EST
    You got that right MarkL.  She put both Obama and McCain in their places with one shot and with class.

    I wonder how Obama responds now.  I'll keep checking here 'cause I'm sure J or BTD will let us know.


    I think he will go thermonuclear. (none / 0) (#122)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:45:42 PM EST
    eh... kind of weak sauce.... (none / 0) (#123)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:47:10 PM EST
    The problem with the Clinton campaign is that they pursue everything. Is there a single person in the United States that does not believe John McCain would be a better president than Bush?

    Yes, me (none / 0) (#165)
    by angie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:27:09 PM EST
    I think McCain will be just as bad as Bush -- not one teensy tiny bit better -- just as bad.

    He speaks the truth (none / 0) (#124)
    by CoralGables on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:50:38 PM EST
    Here's the reality. McCain "would" be better than Bush...as would damn near 150 million other Americans that are eligible for the presidency. McCain just wouldn't be nearly as good for the country as Clinton or Obama.

    Obama unraveling (none / 0) (#129)
    by DandyTIger on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:35:19 PM EST
    Clinton is about to win PA and WV, and then will win a number of other primaries to boot. After that she will have the lead in the popular vote (incl. FL). She will have the momentum, and with the current polls, it is becoming clear she will be the most electable. We can see these signs, I'm imagine the Obama camp can see even more detail than that, and may see even more ominous signs. I can't help but wonder if this among some other recent desperate or stupid things coming from the Obama camp aren't meant to cause a loss in the general on purpose. After all, if the dems loose the general in '08, the dem nominee is finished, but the 2nd place person could run again in '12. So if he's not sure he can be the nominee, then it's in his interest to hurt the dem party as much as he can. Just idle thinking mind you.

    Winning over Independents (none / 0) (#133)
    by daryl herbert on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 09:57:57 PM EST
    For the record, I personally think Sen. McCain would be a better president than George W. Bush on most issues.  He's a "maverick" who doesn't take direction from the Republican Party talking points factory.  He has shown in the past a great ability to work across party lines (I think Sen. Clinton has shown a lot more of this than Sen. Obama).  If nothing else, McCain is more likely to hear out Democratic concerns instead of plowing ahead on ideological lines just because he knows he can win in the short term.

    But a Dem candidate shouldn't say that!  Half of the Dems' appeal to moderates/swing voters is that people are sick and tired of George W. Bush.

    To win this election, Dems will probably have to win over moderates and independents, some of whom are leaning Republican (especially conservative independents who see McCain as somewhat like them).  Telling them that McCain is better than Bush is exactly what they need to hear to justify voting for McCain.  We've had a lot of Republican presidents, and most haven't left the country shouldering the kind of burden that George W. Bush has left us.  It's perfectly rational to believe that McCain would be better than Bush, even if he says (on the campaign trail) that he has many of the same positions.

    On the other side, I am increasingly getting the idea that Sen. Obama is immature.  His comments about Sen. Clinton suffering from PMS and flipping the middle finger while talking about her are juvenile.  His refusal to admit that he was wrong about his "cling" remarks is juvenile.  Conceding that Sen. McCain is better than Bush is a rookie mistake.

    Sen. McCain, when he first got to the Senate, was very partisan and did not work well at all with Democrats.  He thought he was there to carry the GOP flag.  He has matured (a lot--he's "older than dirt").  Sen. Clinton has been through Washington before.  Her husband compromised a great deal--maybe she thinks a little too much.  But she knows all about compromising to get things done.  Sen. Obama, on the other hand, is "100% liberal," a charge that McCain can make against him and can make stick with enough voters to matter.

    Sen. Obama is constantly promising bipartisanship--which inherently means compromising with Republicans.  Yet he is always talking about the radical, fundamental changes that he wants to bring about in Washington.  The "change" he is talking about is big change.  A lot of that change: Republicans don't want!  You can't have bipartisanship and dramatic changes, except in extreme circumstances.  That has always been an inherent contradiction in Sen. Obama's campaign--which he resolves by saying that to know him is to love him, and everyone will fall into line behind him because he's such a great guy.  He needs a reality check, but I don't think he would get one until early/mid 2009.  By then, he would have alienated everyone to the right of him, resulting in a Republican takeover of Congress in 2010.  At least Hillary never promises that Republicans will fall in love with her!

    Great post (none / 0) (#159)
    by IzikLA on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:15:15 PM EST
    a fundamental problem with his platform.

    The change meme... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Alec82 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:30:51 PM EST
    ...is important more for inspiring people who are working for you and who will be necessary to implement that change.  

     Your PMS and middle finger comments betray tunnel vision, so I won't bother with them except to say that attempts to transform Obama into an arrogant snob is as useful as earlier attempts to transform him into a Muslim terrorist.  

     Senator McCain only "matured" after the Keating scandal.  His breakdown on contraceptive policy on national news was bewildering.  He is truly a man who will say anything to win an election, and wins over journalists by zigzagging on issues.  But will he be as bad as Bush? No.    


    "implement that change" (none / 0) (#186)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:55:08 AM EST
    WHAT change?  Could you break that out for me please? In specifics?

    Um, I said that Obama may not be (none / 0) (#136)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:17:06 PM EST
    better than McCain. They could both be disastrous, though in different ways.
    But seriously.. can't you see the difference between Hillary strategically conceding McCain one quality which everyone gives him already, compared to Obama flat out praising McCain? There's a world of difference. Hillary has consistently warned that McCain's economic policies would be bad.

    Yes Mark (none / 0) (#138)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:25:22 PM EST
    I CAN see the difference.  Hillary was saying that McCain was BETTER than Obama in a way that many people feel is important when it comes to being President.

    Obama was deriding George Bush and said that even McCain would be better than Bush.  He was NOT saying that McCain would be better than Hillary.  

    If Bush is the penultimate worst President than all other Presidents would be better.  

    The big difference was that Obama was comparing McCain to a Republican and Hillary was comparing McCain to a Democrat.  The fact that you guys can't see the difference speaks volumes to have far detached you have become.  

    Both Hillary and Obama would be infinitely better than Bush. Yes, Angie, Obama will be infinitely better than Bush.  Both Hillary and Obama would be infinitely better than McCain.  

    When you start arguing that McCain would be better than Obama, you have clearly lost the plot.


    Actually, for an intelligent guy, you (none / 0) (#140)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:28:24 PM EST
    have a tendency to misread things rerribly.
    Hillary did NOT say that McCain was better in the CIC category.
    The rest of your argument is decent, although we disagree, obviously. I see NO upside for Democrats in what Obama said today.

    I didn't say that (none / 0) (#141)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:34:58 PM EST
    She said he was more experienced than Obama.  Of all the things that have been said this campaign season that was the ONE thing I found unforgivable.  You NEVER praise the opposition in comparison to your own party.  Unless you want to be Joe Lieberman.

    Did Obama's comment hurt himself, Hillary, or the Democratic Party?  I guess if it was taken on it's own and out of context there is a chance that someone could see that as praise of McCain.  But you really need to want to see that.  Most people likely see that as saying "Bush was terrible. Anyone would be better!".


    Oh you mean (5.00 / 4) (#144)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:48:24 PM EST
    the way that Obama has compared Bill Clinton to Bush and keeps on uttering them in the same breath? Like that? Or like how he praises Republicans like Reagan and Bush I while bringing up Monica and pretending to get the Clinton dirt off his shoulder?  OR are you talking about the way that he said he'd get all Hillary's voters and she wouldn't get his? Or when he called her a liar?  Or when he made fun of her WH experience by claiming she served tea? While simultaneously blaming her for Nafta (wait I thought she was busy serving tea!)?  Please tell me all about how Hillary Clinton is tearing the other Democrat apart? Oh wait.  That's not actually her.  That's Obama.  

    So happy (none / 0) (#160)
    by IzikLA on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:19:58 PM EST
    That someone else put these points together.  Thanks! : )

    I need a direct quote. What I recall (none / 0) (#143)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:38:58 PM EST
    Hillary saying was that she and McCain had passed the "CIC threshhold", and she left it up to Obama to  speak for himself.
    I see no harm in this, because it will be taken as a given that McCain is ready to lead the military (rightly or wrongly). On other issues, she has criticized McCain strongly.
    About this NEVER praising the opposition: does that go for ex-Presidents too? LOL
    I'm guessing not, but I'd like to see the tortured explanation.

    Finally, Obama's comment definitely hurt his chances, IMO.


    Here is the quote (none / 0) (#145)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:48:57 PM EST
    ""I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

    "I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said."


    "She and McCain "bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, Clinton said, while "Sen. Obama will bring a speech he gave in 2002," stating his opposition to the Iraq war as an Illinois state senator."

    Ex-Presidents are ex-Presidents.  They are no longer part of the political landscape.  I doubt you had a problem with Bill distancing himself from the Carter administration.

    This quote has absolutely no value whatsoever.  Except to excite the Hillary partisans.  Even the righties aren't going to mention it, since it implicitly damns Bush.


    Last comment: on this topic: (none / 0) (#147)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:53:23 PM EST
    Your dismissal of quotes about ex-Presidents is terribly convenient. Obama has gone out of his way to praise Reagan and Bush I while deriding Bill Clinton. I am sure that has a lot of political significance to many Democrats.
    Thanks for the quote, though, which is not as you characterized it (IMO)>

    Oh please (1.00 / 2) (#149)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:55:48 PM EST
    Obama has NOT gone out of his way to praise either Reagan or Bush.  You guys have gone out of your way to take singular comments and extrapolate all sorts of nonsense.

    The quote was EXACTLY as I characterized it.  She wished to equate herself and McCain as being on equal footing, with Obama being below them.  There is no other way to explain it.


    Not to be nitpicky (none / 0) (#152)
    by Iphie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:59:35 PM EST
    If Bush is the penultimate worst President than all other Presidents would be better
    Who would be the worst -- McCain? Either I'm not understanding your point or I'm not sure you meant to say penultimate, which means second to last. Many Democrats have already begun to paint a McCain presidency as being nothing more than a Bush 3rd term (which in my mind could be worse as the longer a body is infected by a cancer, the greater the damage done -- the cancer needs to be removed immediately so that the damage doesn't become irreparable), Obama's comments do nothing but undermine that sentiment.

    He needs to be drawing distinctions with McCain, not similarities. When he basically says that any of them would be better than Bush, all he is doing is drawing similarities -- not helpful.


    Mea culpa (none / 0) (#155)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:04:22 PM EST
    Poor word choice.

    I think this is a mountain from a molehill.  It's not like McCain will have ads saying "Obama thinks I would be better than Bush!"


    Um, you realize that penultimate (none / 0) (#174)
    by angie on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:48:51 PM EST
    means next to last right? So, if Bush is the penultimate worse president, as you say, there is one worse than him -- I don't want to hold my breath and see if that turns out to be either McCain or Obama -- I would like to take the safe bet on Hillary, the only one in this race that I know would be better.

    that would be because, well, (none / 0) (#146)
    by cpinva on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:49:46 PM EST
    he is.

    She said he was more experienced than Obama.

    to argue otherwise would be transparently stupid, something sen. clinton is not. the issue isn't whether or not sen. mccain is more experienced than sen. obama, of course he is. the issue is whether or not he'd be better as president than sen. clinton or sen. obama.

    no, of course he wouldn't, and sen. clinton never implied, stated or otherwise hinted that to be the case.

    hell, my male cat would be a better president than bush, so that's not even an issue worth discussing.

    Right (none / 0) (#150)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:59:25 PM EST
    This is nothing more than a rationalization.  

    Hillary doesn't need to argue that Obama is or is not as experienced as McCain.  What she needs to do is NOT MAKE THE COMPARISON.

    Imagine if Obama had said "I know I am an honest person.  I also know that Senator McCain is an honest person.  Senator Clinton still needs to show how she is an honest person".  You guys would be absolutely livid, and with good reason.


    Is your comment a joke???? (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:01:37 PM EST
    Obama has made the questioning of Hillary's honesty a centerpiece of his campaign. As far as I know, he has made NO such attacks on McCain; so, in fact, the situation is almost exactly what you propose as a hypothetical.
    P.S. We ARE livid. Now maybe you know why.

    Not it is not (1.00 / 2) (#157)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:06:06 PM EST
    I don't have a problem with Hillary challenging Obama's experience whatsoever.  Part of the game. I DO have a problem with her saying that McCain has more experience.  It DOES NOT MATTER if he does or does not.  She shouldn't be saying that.

    I'm not going to go into your world of fantasy regarding how Obama has been the one painting Hillary as dishonest.


    Um (none / 0) (#170)
    by IzikLA on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:34:01 PM EST
    You have obviously not been paying attention whatsoever.  Painting her as dishonest has almost been a daily assertion from Obama and/or his campaign.

    Au Contraire, mon ami... (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by Alec82 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:20:19 PM EST
    Senator Obama has criticized the myth of Senator McCain's "straight talk" during the primary, in response to questions from reporters (I remember seeing one on 60 minutes).  Senator Clinton's partisans do live in something of a fantasy world.  Having seen what her surrogates are doing to Jim Neal's campaign in NC, you can count me out if they ever participate in a primary in CA.  

    By the way, I forgot to mention a (none / 0) (#154)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:02:50 PM EST
    real harm in what Obama said: he is opening the door for Democrats to vote for McCain. In fact, someone above commented that he is probably hinting to his supporters that they could go for McCain if he is not the nominee.

    He has said (none / 0) (#163)
    by IzikLA on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:24:19 PM EST
    over and over again how she is a deeply flawed candidate with trust issues.  There is no way I could even quote how many times he has questioned her character here.  This is a ridiculous argument.

    Really? (none / 0) (#172)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:41:38 PM EST
    How bout just one solitary quote in which he says she has trust issues?  Just one would be great.  

    Oh and one from Obama and not from some surrogate or supporter.  


    do your own research (none / 0) (#173)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:46:06 PM EST
    it's been a theme of his stinking campaign since last summer.

    Yes I know (none / 0) (#176)
    by flyerhawk on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:51:55 PM EST
    I always find when someone tells me to do my own research, they have a really strong argument.  Well strong in a I-have-no-evidence-to-support-my-claim sort of way.

    her campaign does this on a daily basis (none / 0) (#177)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:05:34 AM EST
    in their briefings.

    In fact, this morning on Meet The Press, David Axelrod repudiated the lengthy statement his 'General' had made in Saturday's press briefing - exact language can be derived from the transcript because I'm not going to bother retrieving it.

    The fact is that Obama's campaign has been equally negative and divisive on a daily basis and your denial simply insults everyone's intelligence.

    Obama tries hard not to make the direct statements himself but lets his campaign office make them daily. It's the mark of a coward. There's little wonder why Mark Levin has reported that John Edwards calls Obama a p***y


    Nice (none / 0) (#178)
    by flyerhawk on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:11:51 AM EST
    So when you can't actually back up your assertions revert to hearsay smears.  

    You guys are making the claim that Obama accused Clinton of being dishonest.  Show a quote.


    Just to point out... (5.00 / 1) (#179)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:22:51 AM EST
    you're being a jerk...

    'That was a terrible thing that that soldier, that veteran said' - 'We repudiate this'

    This is their General Axelrod's referring to. This is today's transcript. How much more reality denial do you intend to practice?

    Today's Meet the Press transcript, 1st page

    MR. GARIN:  I, I, I agree with that, Tim, but I, I don't think that, you know, that's what the Obama campaign says.  I, I honestly don't think it's, it's what it does.  They--talk about the kitchen sink, just this weekend they're out there with two new negative ads.  They held a--Senator Obama said at the debate the other day that they only deal with Bosnia when asked.  I think they held their fourth conference call on Bosnia the other day, which their--one of their spokespeople said that Senator Clinton lacks the--this is the quote, "lacks the moral authority to lay a wreath at the tomb of the unknown soldier on Memorial Day." When has anybody in the Clinton campaign said anything like that about...

    MR. AXELROD:  Well, there was the time--well, first of all, we, we...

    MR. GARIN:  About Barack Obama.  David says that Hillary has, "a special interest obsession." David Plouffe says "one of the most secretive politicians in America." This is not--I'm, we're--we want a go ahead and have a good, fair discussion of the issues facing the country, but we really don't want to play by two sets of rules.  It's not fair.

    MR. AXELROD:  Look, first of all, we repudiate--that was a terrible thing that, that soldier, that veteran said on that phone call, and it was reminiscent of the time that someone on a conference call for your campaign compared our health care plan to Nazi Germany, and Howard Wolfson rightly repudiated that.  We repudiate this.  You can't control the way your...

    someone had mentioned... (none / 0) (#180)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:28:23 AM EST
    that they thought Garin didn't do that well on Meet the Press today but I'm telling you, he tore Axelrod limb from limb as this exchange demonstrates.

    Axelrod was pathetic, he was shamed into admitting their despicable things they did in yesterday's news conference on national television.


    and just to pile on... (none / 0) (#182)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:36:01 AM EST
    about your candidate Obama...

    If you look here, Karen Tumulty at Time cannot understand why Obama would say one thing at the debate and his campaign would do exactly the opposite - which just sort of leaves the impression that Obama LIED

    and to make it even worse...John Dickerson at Slate gives the entire horror story of this event.

    Politics of hope...
    Politics you can believe in...

    Yeah, right


    Here's a whole bunch of them (none / 0) (#184)
    by echinopsia on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:48:38 AM EST

    Take your pick.


    Check the stumps after the debate (none / 0) (#188)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:04:13 AM EST
    he was saying plenty of crap about her, maybe he included it. And somewhere, there is a list, with all the comments made by him and his campaign regarding this issue. They always include negative character descriptives on the conference calls no matter the issue.

    obama , one stupid democrat (none / 0) (#151)
    by drewohio1 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:59:28 PM EST
    is this guy for real.. F obama for saying this stupid statement. is this guy a democrat or what... he is a jerk !!!

    Are both Clinton and Obama trying to lose? (none / 0) (#169)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:33:12 PM EST
    I personally have no idea why he would make such a boneheaded statement. it was dumb when clinton tried to use McCain to one up Obama. it's dumb now for Obama to use McCain to one up Clinton.  Both of these candidates act as if their only adversary is the person they are facing in the primary rather than also who they will have to face in the GE. I don't get it. Can someone provide me with an explanation of which advisors on both teams think these sorts of statement make any sense at all?

    She's Made A Key Point Today (none / 0) (#181)
    by cdalygo on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 12:33:09 AM EST
    As she told us at a SF fundraiser, if this becomes about McCain's life story then dems lose. She noted that many American rightfully hold McCain with a great deal of affection. Moreover his life story is far more compelling than her or Obama's life story, despite the historical nature of their campaigns.

    That's why dems need to campaign on issues because McCain is wrong on all issues. This was the point she hammered today. Fortunately Obama gave her the lead in to start making that argument.

    Clearly she - and her supporters - believe she is the best person to do that job.

    I wonder how far he can go (none / 0) (#190)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:14:05 AM EST
    on his life story and lack of functioning policy on major issues? Clinton will be able to slice and dice some (most?) of his plans. And in debates, heh, that could be fun.

    Comments now closing (none / 0) (#189)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 01:09:31 AM EST

    What will Obama have left to run on? (none / 0) (#191)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 10:06:21 AM EST
    He's thrown older and working class women and non-urban Democrats under the bus, totally trashed the only successful Democratic administration in half a century, pretty much erased any advantage Democrats have enjoyed in terms of perceived support for women's equal political participation, rights and issues, cast Democrats, again and again, as hypocrites and "bamboozlers" on race (the same argument Republicans have made for the last 40 years), killed his unity message with race-baiting campaigning and now he's signaling to his independent and moderate Republican supporters that McCain is more moderate than Bush and perhaps even a "change" candidate, too.

    People will claim he's a smart campaigner if he beats Hillary. But the truth is, from the beginning, he's been campaigning as if defeating Hillary was more important than winning in November.

    This is the great weakness of the Obama "movement" -- it HAS been fueled more by aniomosity toward, and desire to smite, "the Clintons," and the kind of people who might support them, than anger at or rejection of Bush and the Republicans.

    The problem with this will become painfully apparent once Hillary is out of the picture.


    I don't think this is a big deal at all. (none / 0) (#192)
    by DodgeIND on Mon Apr 21, 2008 at 03:08:40 PM EST
    I mean I consider Bush to be one of the worst, if not THE worst Presidents in history.  So wouldn't that make almost anyone better?