home

Hillary's Interview With the Indianapolis Star

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:06:00 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
Bump and Update: From Hillary's interview with the Indianapolis Star today (video below):'

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said today that it would be “the height of political foolishness” for Democrats to back a Republican, or not vote at all, if they’re disappointed by the outcome of the long-running nomination battle between her and Barack Obama.

“Anyone, anyone, who voted for either of us should be absolutely committed to voting for the other” in the general election, Clinton said during an hourlong meeting with The Indianapolis Star Editorial Board. “I’m going to shout that from the mountaintops and the valleys and everywhere I can, no matter what the outcome of the nominating process is.”

...“no matter what the differences are between Senator Obama and myself, they pale in comparison to the differences we have with Senator McCain and the Republicans.”

More...

Hillary Clinton sat down with the Indianapolis Star today for a long interview. I haven't watched yet, but the reader who sent it to me says, "She had great comments about people who say they will vote for her but not Obama (and the reverse). "

To view the video, click the ON-DEMAND button at the bottom of the player. Then select the clip on the right.

< Obama: Can He Move Past Wright and Reclaim the Conversation? | Hillary's Indiana Ad Criticizes Obama on Gas Tax >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Hillary's Interview With the Indianapolis Star | 122 comments (122 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    As always, she's fabulous. (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Angel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 06:48:49 PM EST


    Thanks Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Coldblue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:33:49 PM EST
    for providing the video.

    I watched the whole interview.

    It pains me to ponder anyone other than Hillary as our next president, but if it comes down to that I'll begrudgingly support Obama over McCain. Not sure how.

    That is my exact feeling (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:00:16 PM EST
    each time I have watched these interviews of her, so sharp, so on target, I cannot imagine there is a possibility that America will lose the chance to have her as president.  

    [ Parent ]
    That is my exact feeling (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by delacarpa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:21:41 PM EST
    as I can only imagine that she will want to go down in History as the first woman president and hopefully the best woman president in history.

    [ Parent ]
    I think (none / 0) (#108)
    by BrandingIron on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:12:58 AM EST

    you mean best president, sans "woman".  ;)

    I agree with both of you.  I don't understand why people can't see how historic for the country this would be:  The first Former First Lady (a sharp, VERY intelligent bordering on brilliant lady) becoming President.  THIS is the history we need to push this country up and out of its rut of having had such a terrible prez for the last 8 years.  D:

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, (none / 0) (#11)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:41:57 PM EST
    You were first.  It took me a while to find that link in my comment.

    I would encourage you to look at it.  He's not that bad.

    [ Parent ]

    Huh? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Coldblue on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:08:05 PM EST
    Did you reply to the wrong comment?

    [ Parent ]
    because (none / 0) (#113)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:53:58 AM EST
    McCain is so much more aligned with Hillary? Because a "copycat" is worse than the "right wing" platform?

    I love Hillary, but these supporters make me ill.

    [ Parent ]

    Jeralyn, could you do a side by side post (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycvoter on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:27:36 PM EST
    of the Obama interview with this one.  I watched the entire interview and as usual am impressed with how much she knows about each question she is asked.  From China to manufacturing etc.  I loved her thought on the debates as well.  If the moderators won't go into depth on topics like agriculture, then she and Obama could have done it without moderators.  I think they might lose some people who are waiting for the gotcha questions or fighting, but those primary voters who REALLY want to know the issues, would benefit from many many debates, focusing on different subjects, from foreign policy, to our current wars, to energy, environment, healthcare, education.  

    As always (5.00 / 3) (#22)
    by Leisa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:46:49 PM EST
    Hillary demonstrates the depth and breath of her knowledge, experience and willingness to work with others and change course if there is a better way to solve our problems.  

    She astounds me (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:58:39 PM EST
    As someone who watched both, I can say I was somewhat (surprisingly) impressed with Obama's time before the Indy Star, but Hillary just blew me away again.  Her answer on China had my brain hurting because I was just amazed at the breadth and depth of her knowledge on any given subject.  She doesn't get flustered and obviously has a mastery of the facts.

    And Politico had a photo earlier of the balloon doll she mentions at the end of the session - it's pretty amazing!

    [ Parent ]

    agree whole heartedly (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by angie on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:14:11 PM EST
    It is not only that she is the best candidate for the job in this race -- I firmly believe she is the best candidate we have ever had in my lifetime.  She will be a phenomenal president.

    [ Parent ]
    Hmmm... (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:33:43 PM EST
    Maybe Obama will agree to debate the balloon doll?  Nowait, he'd still lose.

    [ Parent ]
    Seemed to have forgotten Hillary's point (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:41:29 PM EST
    with which we all agree as good Dems:

    "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said today that it would be "the height of political foolishness" for Democrats to back a Republican, or not vote at all, if they're disappointed by the outcome of the long-running nomination battle between her and Barack Obama.

    "Anyone, anyone, who voted for either of us should be absolutely committed to voting for the other" in the general election, Clinton said during an hourlong meeting with The Indianapolis Star Editorial Board."


    [ Parent ]

    haha (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:44:26 PM EST
    I like that she said it, but have made up my mind already.  Obama will not get my vote.  Have a nice day.


    [ Parent ]
    Have a nice Supreme Court (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:48:33 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I'm really not worried about it. (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:59:26 PM EST

    They said that the END WAS HERE when Bush gave up his noms to the Court and yet, Roe v. Wade still exists.  All of that doomsday "THE SUPREME COURT WILL TAKE AWAY ALL OF OUR RIGHTS!!11" junk seems to be fearmongering that just hasn't played itself out.

    [ Parent ]
    Roe v. Wade (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by DaveOinSF on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:33:22 AM EST
    I'm optimistic that, even if Roe v. Wade gets overturned, not too much will functionally change.  It will then fall to the states to decide the legality of the practice.  It was last year, I think, where the South Dakota legislature passed a law saying that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortions would be made illegal in South Dakota.  The citizens ended up putting it on the ballot and overturning that law in a referendum.  And this is a deep red state.

    I'm convinced that even if Roe v. Wade is overturned and there is no more constitutional right to an abortion, it will remain legal in all 50 states.  There might be some additional restrictions compared to where we are today, but there will be no wholesale outlawing of it.

    [ Parent ]

    You can bury your head in the sand (1.00 / 3) (#55)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:02:59 PM EST
    but Souter, Ginsbur and Stevens are on their way out.  If you think that it will make no difference if they are replaced with Scalia/Alito clones, then you just aren't paying attention

    [ Parent ]
    Fear mongering (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:05:27 PM EST
    you are a fear mongerer.  

    [ Parent ]
    No, a realist (1.50 / 2) (#58)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:07:38 PM EST
    Take a hard look at those three and assure me they will be around in four years.  Obama voted against Roberts and Alito; McCain voted in favor.  Actions do have consequences

    [ Parent ]
    So, if African Americans (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:09:03 PM EST
    don't vote for Hillary and McCain is elected, how is that not doing us with the Supreme Court?  Two can play this game.  

    [ Parent ]
    You are right (4.50 / 2) (#61)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11:30 PM EST
    I can only speak for myself.  I am voting for the Dem nominee.  There is no other responsible course of action

    [ Parent ]
    By the way (5.00 / 4) (#60)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM EST
    That will give Teddy, Kerry, and Pelosi a chance to be full fledged heroes.  

    [ Parent ]
    Eh, I think (5.00 / 2) (#72)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:19:19 PM EST

    Pelosi's done.  I know she won't get my vote next time up.  She's really disappointed us here in California.

    [ Parent ]
    She has an impossible job (none / 0) (#77)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:24:51 PM EST
    but in the end I agree

    [ Parent ]
    Pelosi? (none / 0) (#62)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:11:59 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The leader (5.00 / 3) (#66)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:16:56 PM EST
    she can pull her weight in leadership, all 110 pounds...influence, get it...

    [ Parent ]
    Under the version of the Constitution I have, (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:20:02 PM EST
    the House doesnt have much to do with Supreme Court appointments.

    But then, I am just a fear-mongerer.

    [ Parent ]

    LOL (5.00 / 5) (#76)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:23:51 PM EST

    I think that's one of the most ignorant comments in this thread.

    [ Parent ]
    Whatever, Bubba (1.00 / 5) (#80)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:27:02 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, whatever. (none / 0) (#85)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:41:16 PM EST

    "the House doesnt have much to do with Supreme Court appointments" is one of the most ignorant comments in this thread, and it's the most ignorant comment I've seen on the entire site today (i.e., you're completely ignorant about how SCOTUS appointments are made).

    [ Parent ]
    So explain it to me Bubba (none / 0) (#111)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:25:09 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Wow...brilliant... (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:33:17 PM EST
    I am wrong.  You won.  Darn.  It's called leadership of a party.  Get it.  

    [ Parent ]
    Pshhhyeah (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by BrandingIron on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:17:07 PM EST

    I think we all know what Obama has to say about the Roberts nomination.

    [ Parent ]
    In 1973 Roe vs Wade happened. (5.00 / 7) (#78)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:25:20 PM EST
    We have been fighting this argument for 35 years. During that time there has only been a Dem President for 12. The jar was opened and will never ever be completely shut. I want Dem judges but I will not be blackmailed into voting for someone I don't thing qualified. Use a different argument please.

    [ Parent ]
    We go lucky with Souter and O'Connor (none / 0) (#82)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:31:32 PM EST
    want to go for double of nothing?

    [ Parent ]
    I am paying attention (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by moll on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:01:35 AM EST
    but Souter, Ginsbur and Stevens are on their way out.  If you think that it will make no difference if they are replaced with Scalia/Alito clones, then you just aren't paying attention

    The question isn't whether the SCOTUS matters, or whether I am concerned.

    It's the fact that I don't see any reason to suppose Obama is better than McCain.

    At least with McCain we have the chance of a Dem being elected four years from now, and/or the hope of a Democratic congressional majority.

    If Obama is put out there as a representative of what it means to be a "Democrat", it will be a disaster for the Democratic party.

    [ Parent ]

    Dems should stop holding abortion rights hostage (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Ellie on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:43:23 AM EST
    And dragging them out every four years as extortion against women who, frankly ARE the backbone of the Democratic party and get NO F*CKING RESPECT, GRATITUDE OR PERKS FOR IT.

    I will not vote for no-choice "pro"-life panderer Obama if he is bamboozled forward as the nominee. I'm writing in my ticket for pres/vp.

    Dems in Congress had every opportunity to vet and oppose activist RW bigots and misogynists on the SCOTUS but didn't. Ask the 19 "Dems" who greased scAlito onto the bench. Ask the "Dem" leadership that uses liberal donations to seek out hard right "Dems" in the spirit of unifying with no-choice deadbeats.

    Dem leadership doesn't give a crap about the basic rights of women, children and young people if it means standing up to Repugs and hard right conservatism.

    So with all due respect, f=ck the hell off in this regard or get behind reproductive rights (and other basic human rights groups) in years other than election years.

    Until I see my rights as a full human being restored, I'm writing in my ticket for pres/vp. I didn't help any individual campaigns in '08 for the first time in my voting years.

    I did wish the party luck with their new BFFs, the fertilized egg activists manning their fund drives and working their phone bank.

    Jerk.

    [ Parent ]

    You go! (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:28:34 AM EST
    I too am sick of people using the supreme court to threaten me when they do not give a damn about women  the other three years out of a presidential cycle.

    [ Parent ]
    that's really too bad. (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:48:34 PM EST
    I'm a full-voiced Clinton supporter, but nothing in the world could make me vote for McCain. I fear that neither the armed forces nor the constitution could survive another 4 years of neocon (or even "maverick-infused neocon") rule.

    I will vote for Obama and think of England.

    [ Parent ]

    No one said to vote for McCain (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:26:43 PM EST
    If Hillary wins, we are losing the AA vote. Maybe that is the people you should be trying to convince.

    [ Parent ]
    I just don't believe (none / 0) (#99)
    by IzikLA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:28:11 AM EST
    We will lose the AA vote as you say Barn.  Unless all AA's just stay home I can't imagine it at all.  The Clinton's still have a lot of respect in that community, despite the fact that we are all caught up in this momentous primary.  Hillary Clinton has been a civil rights supporter her whole life and she has always showed up and stood up for that community.  I just think we'd be remiss to brush that completely aside.  And besides, just take a look at the alternative.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree on the AA vote (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by BarnBabe on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:40:24 AM EST
    But that is what they keep saying to us. My argument is you lose women and GOP women too. But I am tired of having to vote for someone who I do not think would make the best representative of my party and my beliefs just because I am told so. I am not voting for McCain. I am voting for Hillary.

    [ Parent ]
    I thought (none / 0) (#114)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:56:47 AM EST
    Hillary's supporters were "older and more mature" methinks "older and more bitter" seems more appropriate.

    [ Parent ]
    uh not really (none / 0) (#118)
    by moll on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:06:38 AM EST
    Hillary's supporters were "older and more mature" methinks "older and more bitter" seems more appropriate.

    Only bitter that the obviously superior candidate is being ignored for stupid, frivolous reasons.

    The real reason of course is that Hillary is a real threat to the status quo power structure. Obama is not. Therefore, all must unite against Hillary.

    and btw I am younger than Obama. So those digs at the supposed age of Hillary voters just sound ignorant to me. But I have noticed the general tone in America has gotten uglier - particularly in that people are now quite open in their rude, patronizing, and hostile comments toward white people, old people, and lower class people. What a lovely job of "uniting" us all!

    But hey at least our candidate isn't bitter. Obama's fans can't say that.

    [ Parent ]

    I really like Hillary (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:56:46 PM EST
    But I don't like it when she minimizes my reason for not voting for Obama.  So I'm thumbing my nose at Hillary right now.

    It's not sour grapes.  I simply have no confidence that he'll stand for Democratic principles or even be competent.  I have a complete and utter lack of trust and faith in the man.

    And put a lame Democrat in the White House what will the Supreme Court look like during the next 12 years of Republican rule?  Can you say Jimmy Carter?

    But that doesn't mean voting for McCain.  It means simply staying home.  

    I believe in divided government.  Not a bad idea to have the push-me-pull-you of Democrats in Congress and Republicans in the White House.  

    This keeps people from doing absolutely ridiculous things like they're doing here in Washington State.  Our own good Ron Sims here is talking about putting tolls not just on bridges, but on every single major highway in Western Washington....which is just about the most regressive tax you can have outside of a grocery sales tax.

    So, I'm beginning to think that divided government in Washington State is the way to go too....

    [ Parent ]

    Ditto here. (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Serene1 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:12:42 PM EST
    Being Hillary supporters do not make us blind followers who will unquestioningly agree to whatever she says.

    I have been wary of Obama for some time now, but his throwing his pastor under the bus was for me the straw that broke the camel's back.

    Today for me McCain and Obama are two sides of the same coin. I will not be contributing in any way to either of their campaign in any way. would rather sit out for 4 more years if Obama is the nominee.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly, T. inSnow! (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:31:38 AM EST
    As I have said before, if Hillary herself showed up at my door asking me to vote for Barack, my answer is 'NO!'  I really think that McCain will not be like Bush.  Being an ex-prisoner of war, he will not be as foolhardy as Bush in going to war.  I like the divided govt. myself as a firewall that insures checks and balances.

    I did not like it when Bush used fear to terrorize the country into acquiescing to his decisions and I do not like it either when the use the threat of Roe v. Wade. The worst that can happen is allow the states to decide their own policies

    [ Parent ]

    So we should be voting for McCain no matter what? (none / 0) (#56)
    by riddlerandy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:04:24 PM EST
    "Not a bad idea to have the push-me-pull-you of Democrats in Congress and Republicans in the White House."

    [ Parent ]
    No (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:44:08 PM EST
    I think she'll be competent and not do anything really stupid.  I don't think the same about the guy who's running.

    [ Parent ]
    Should Obama get the nom... (none / 0) (#106)
    by Thanin on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 04:39:28 AM EST
    it will be kind of humorous since this site will then begin openly supporting him.  Will you all come here everyday to tell Jeralyn how wrong she is for her support of Obama, should he get the nomination?

    [ Parent ]
    When has obama said the same? (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:17:53 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    It's Pretty Amazing How She Can Keep All That (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:16:28 PM EST
    stuff straight.  She is a deep thinker and a hard worker, not afraid to get her hands dirty.  And even if you don't like her, you have to admire her tenacity and her winning attitude.

    [ Parent ]
    It's possible I'm missing something... (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:29:18 PM EST
    and, being partial to Hillary, I'm not neutral. But has Obama ever stated the same unequivocal commitment to supporting Hillary if she should win?

    You haven't missed anything (5.00 / 6) (#38)
    by themomcat on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34:21 PM EST
    Neither he nor his wife has said that they would support or vote for HRC. So much for unity.
    / "By the pricking of my thumbs, something wicked this way comes." Macbeth, Wm. Shakespeare
    [ Parent ]
    But he did speak well of Lugar (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by rghojai on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:58:09 PM EST
    Called him "one of the finest Senators we have."

    Lugar's not hopeless, but to look at it, hard to understand how any Democrat could describe him as one of the finest.

    http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=53292

    [ Parent ]

    obama likes him some republicans...Lugar! (none / 0) (#74)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:20:47 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely... (5.00 / 5) (#39)
    by reynwrap582 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34:50 PM EST
    He said that there was no question that Hillary's supporters would vote for him, and that his voters would... oh, wait.

    [ Parent ]
    Um...let me think....NO. (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:34:53 PM EST
    Buuuut...he did claim her voters would vote for him but the same could not be said for his.  So that's what he's said about it thus far. Nothing more.  

    [ Parent ]
    Okay. Kind of what I thought. (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by Jerrymcl89 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:46:45 PM EST
    Hillary isn;t perfect, but I do think she's a Democrat before she's anything else. I'm not so sure about Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I've honestly wondered (none / 0) (#100)
    by IzikLA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 01:35:20 AM EST
    about this for awhile.  I wouldn't want to be a blind Hillary supporter so I would welcome someone telling me otherwise.  Has he really never said anything that would lead us to believe he'd want his supporters to vote for her?  I know I've heard arrogant statements about this but am I missing something?  I would love to have a good reason to vote for him if he does become the nominee.  

    [ Parent ]
    No pony for him! (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Joan in VA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:44:56 PM EST
    So much for the unity schtick.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes (none / 0) (#115)
    by AnninCA on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:56:54 AM EST
    he said something similar just the other day.  He's not focused on it quite so much, but he did say it.

    [ Parent ]
    it's the DNC that is missing something (none / 0) (#119)
    by moll on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:08:35 AM EST
    and, being partial to Hillary, I'm not neutral. But has Obama ever stated the same unequivocal commitment to supporting Hillary if she should win?

    Nobody seems to expect him to.

    [ Parent ]

    Thanks, Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Jane in CA on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:16:29 PM EST
    for posting this link.  As usual, Clinton is beyond impressive.

    In fact, if I were Obama, I wouldn't want to debate her either :)

    I disagree with her (5.00 / 7) (#90)
    by facta non verba on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:52:04 PM EST
    on this. I think Obama if he becomes President would be frankly dangerous. His inexperience will have unforeseen consequences and I would rather go with McCain solely on experience. Better the devil I know than the devil I don't. If I am devoting 8 hours a day to this campaign in one shape or form, it is precisely because I believe it of the utmost imperative to avoid an Obama Presidency. It won't be good for the country and it may destroy the Democratic Party in the process. We cannot afford ill-conceived proposals that are little more than band-aids and frankly McCain has a better energy proposal than Obama does and that matters more to me than Iraq.

    I do too! (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:48:32 AM EST
    But she is being a good democrat by saying that, since she knows Barack will no reciprocate the gesture and besides, she's probably confident that in the end she will be the nominee.  I don't begrudge her any opportunity to earn/make points with the voters.  The same goes for Obama, trying to earn points with the voters.  They are both politicians with track records; as divergent as they may be.

    I'll vote for Hillary.  Obama will be more of a disaster for the democratic party in the GE.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah (none / 0) (#120)
    by moll on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:10:57 AM EST
    But she is being a good democrat by saying that, since she knows Barack will no reciprocate the gesture and besides, she's probably confident

    There is also downticket to consider.

    If the party fractures too badly and Obama is the nominee with more Independents and fewer Dems, and with a lot of hard feelings going around, the Dems could suffer massive losses downticket.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry, Hillary, (none / 0) (#124)
    by Molly Pitcher on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    I can't go that way! Bush has been bad.  Obama could be better or worse, who knows?  He does not seem to be a committed democrat, and he harbors both prejudice and wooly-minded ideas based on his 'faith.'  If Dean and company want to destroy their party, they will do it without my help.

    [ Parent ]
    In light of recent Obama blogger tendencies... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Oje on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 03:14:06 AM EST
    I am more worried that the the media and the blogs will so effectively ignore or spin every last bit of Obama's "gaffes," "missteps," and about-faces that half of his primary voters will go to the polls in November without realizing that he lost during the primaries!

    When you contrast that statement (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by joanneleon on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 05:44:27 AM EST
    with Obama's statement:


    "I am confident I will get her votes if I'm the nominee," Obama stressed. "It's not clear she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee."
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/01/629273.aspx

    it really puts a strain on his "unity" theme.

    unity? (none / 0) (#121)
    by moll on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM EST
    it really puts a strain on his "unity" theme.

    When was the last time you heard him or any other Obama supporter use the word "unity"?

    [ Parent ]

    I actually entertained... (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by nellre on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:03:40 AM EST
    I actually entertained the idea of not voting for Obama. I soothed my conscience with knowing that being a CA resident, a true blue state, that I would not be vicariously voting for McCain by doing this.

    But I realized my anger was not with Obama, but with many of his followers. My anger was triggered by the fact that these people abandoned their "posts" by attacking a fellow democrat. I was disgusted by the zero sum game they played.

    Then Wright got center stage, and I knew I was not going to hold that against Obama. So, to be consistent, I couldn't hold the likes of Kos and Huffington against him either! My concern about Wright is that it'll hurt Obama in November. That's valid in my opinion.

    My support of Hillary is that I believe, because of her policies, her courage, her grasp of everything, she'd make the more effective president. So I'll be very disappointed if she doesn't win the nom.

    It looks like I'm the (1.00 / 2) (#10)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:40:32 PM EST
    most dedicated when it comes to listening to HRC.

    At least nobody else has commented.

    I think she did fine.  But, this BO editorial board interview is better.  You need to listen to the whole thing, there is an "off the record" part at the end that ties in with some of the content from the main part.

    I liked the way HRC talked about the war.  I'm not referring to her talk about Clinton administration endorsements, or her obviously calculated shout outs to previous visits and McCain and Bayh.  But, the way she discussed this topic gave insight into how she thinks.  She broke out of her normal style which seems to be a recitation of micro targeted laundry lists where each item gets a shallow mention, before moving on to the next bullet point.  That said, if you watch the BO video, you'll see a person who is much more comfortable with the art of persuasion.  There is a reason he's better at working with others to passed big legislation.  And, there's a reason he cleans up with paper endorsements.  Watch for yourself.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by nell on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:50:44 PM EST
    I watched and I walked away with a very different impression. I guess we both have our biases that color her view. In my view, he fumbled a lot, was more hesitant and uncertain, while she was crisp and confident.

    Also, your point about how he is better at persuasion for big bills is just absolutely false. She has a much more significant record of bi-partisanship than he does. His most significant, and only major, accomplishment in the US Senate is the Ethics bill. Her record is longer and more impressive. When you can bring foes to the table like Lindsey Grahm, you prove your ability to persuade others.

    [ Parent ]

    And Wasn't obama's Participation In The Ethics (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:10:06 PM EST
    Bill pretty thin?

    [ Parent ]
    Third party: WaPo editorial credits him 1/4. n/t (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:14:11 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    How did you watch the whole thing (1.33 / 3) (#15)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:09:13 PM EST
    that quickly?

    That kind of haste would explain why you don't remember the arms control (w/Lugar) and government accountability (w/Coburn) legislation where BO was the lead D in the US Senate (you only mentioned Ethics (where he was one of the two lead Ds.)  And you didn't mention any HRC passed legislation with a comparable reach that can effect all Americans or the world.  Of course Graham-Clinton was great legislation, for the Guard/Reserve.  She should have stuck to bragging about only this on the campaign trail instead of pretending that she was responsible for SCHIP (WJC was opposed to this for budgetary reasons: so legislators did two main things. 1)they asked HRC to work on WJC, and 2) most importantly, they changed the funding source so the budget problem was solved.)  And, please don't refer to FMLA, or Bosnia, or being "instrumental" to peace in Ireland.  There is more than one way to "fumble" as you put it.

    [ Parent ]

    Ethics and Illinois (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:23:20 PM EST
    Interesting how that was his big issue and Rezko and half of the Dems in Illinois are in trouble for political ethics. Sort of a contradiction for a man who was so immersed in ethics to have made a "boneheaded" deal with Rezko and had such an intimate relationship with someone who used money to buy political favors.  Judgement...oh judgement.  

    [ Parent ]
    You might want to check your facts (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:55:53 PM EST
    She WAS instrumental in getting SCHIP passed.

    see factcheck.org

    [ Parent ]

    That is not (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:17:25 PM EST
    at odds with my statement.  She was asked by folks from Congress to put pressure on WJC, because he was opposing SCHIP for budgetary reasons.  But, most importantly, Congressional leaders changed the funding so that WJC's budgetary concerns were taken care of.  HRC was helpful in a White House that was opposed to the legislation.  And, nothing I've sated is at odds with the factcheck piece.

    It must be embarrassing for HRC supporters to see her to take credit for SCHIP.  If she's such a doer, changemaker, resultser, soluitionser, fighter she shouldn't need to take credit for other peoples' legislation.  

     

    [ Parent ]

    Proud. Not embarrassed. (5.00 / 12) (#29)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:18:51 PM EST
    I would however, be embarrassed if a dude that was a community organizer for a couple of years, in Congress for 2 and passed no legislation at all while running for Prez the whole time thought he was qualified to run the country. Now THAT would be embarrassing.

    [ Parent ]
    Take credit for other peoples' legislation. (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by Manuel on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:26:14 PM EST
    You'd think Obama supporters would not mention this too much considering Obama's IL legislature record.

    [ Parent ]
    You would think. (5.00 / 7) (#32)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:28:17 PM EST
    LOL. Maybe trying to go after Hillary's legislative record is the latest.  But considering the utter LACK of such with Obama perhaps they are going the wrong route.

    [ Parent ]
    Untrue but wouldn't (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:32:03 PM EST
    that give her one 'me too' up against Obama?  He's got a chronic problem of taking credit for everyone's work in Illinois thanks to his good bud Emil Jones and offending others who did the work on the immigration bill (heck, Obama is even mocked for this in Dana Milbank's book Homopoliticus) and then trying to tag on to Dodd and Frank's bill.  If, which it isn't, schip would cause a Clinton supporter to be embarrassed, I would expect that Obama's lack of accomplishment being written up in books and displayed in the national media would cause an Obama supporter to be beat red, sobbing and crawling from the room on their knees.

    [ Parent ]
    One thing you wrote (none / 0) (#84)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:40:32 PM EST
    was interesting (I'm bored by Hendon, who almost got in a fight with BO on the IL Senate floor.)  Can you provide an excerpt from the Milbank book?  I read a not very positive review(Ezra Klein), so I'm skipping that one.  But, I'd like to read the BO stuff.  Hopefully by the time you provide the text I'll have regained my complexion, and I'll be done sobering and crawling.  Time will tell.

    [ Parent ]
    My mind is made up: No Barack! (none / 0) (#97)
    by felizarte on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:39:10 AM EST
    and remember that "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." You say Barack's interview was better?  I say Hillary's was awesome!

    [ Parent ]
    What you say about SCHIP is at odds (5.00 / 8) (#44)
    by RalphB on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:37:26 PM EST
    with the original statements of Kennedy staff people and others, but it is inline with the current ones after Kennedy endorsed Obama.  The story changed after said endorsement, but I will believe the original since it was made when no ulterior notice was present.

    On Obama's bill with Lugar, it was a reauthorization of funding for Nunn-Lugar and nothing original.  Fact it, he's a lightweight with no real accomplishments of his own.  You should be embarrassed, but have some more kool-aid.


    [ Parent ]

    This is sad. (1.00 / 3) (#70)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:18:34 PM EST
    I like HRC folks: y'all are very determined and resilient.

    But, even the old comments don't conflict with the reality of the creation of SCHIP, which I've detailed above.

    Lugar-Obama went well beyond Nunn-Lugar by broadening the scope and weapon types covered.  And, this focus on the unauthorized transfer of many weapon types is critical to preventing terrorism.  But, who's worried about terrorists, after all HRC was good at using legislation to name Post Offices.

    [ Parent ]

    I admire BO folks, too. (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:50:00 PM EST
    So patronizing and condescending.

    [ Parent ]
    A little (1.00 / 2) (#93)
    by 1jpb on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:05:16 AM EST
    "bite" in the comments shouldn't be a cause for concern (or unjustified troll ratings.)  And, don't forget that BO and his supporters are supposedly the whiners.  So, it's ironic to see how easily some HRC supporters run to the troll ratings instead of facts.  Whatever floats y'alls boat.

     

    [ Parent ]

    Obama/Lugar/foreign policys (none / 0) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:03:04 AM EST
    an interesting account of one of Obama's trips, with Lugar.  
    One of the stops on the trip included Azerbaijan, where Obama and Lugar met with President Ilham Aliyev. The latter had inherited power from his father two years earlier, won a rigged election, and then crushed protests that erupted in response.

    So what topics did Obama raise with Aliyev? Human rights? Political reform? His government's flagrant corruption and theft of energy revenues? Well, actually the topics he called to Aliyev's attention were "slightly more parochial," the Tribune reported:

    Why is McDonald's having difficulty opening restaurants in Baku [the Azeri capital]? And why is Boeing shut out of selling planes to the state-owned airline? "They are two Illinois companies who want to do business and expand," Obama explained, "but they are having roadblocks." He didn't walk away with a concrete answer. He could, however, report back to constituents that he voiced concern at the highest levels of government.



    [ Parent ]
    policy (no s) (none / 0) (#92)
    by Stellaaa on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:03:35 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    not to mention ... (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:13:11 PM EST
    his leadership of his foreign relations subcommittee. (/snark)

    [ Parent ]
    The one that met (1.00 / 3) (#30)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:19:51 PM EST
    seven times in nine years before he took over.  The one where the issues in Afghanistan were dealt with by the full committee.  The one where even Lugar acknowledged the lack of a meeting wasn't an issue.

    You can do better than that.  Can't you?

    [ Parent ]

    I couldn't but (5.00 / 9) (#41)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:35:17 PM EST
    he should have.  It was his committee.  You are mocking that it didn't meet.  Either the committe was unimportant and didn't need to meet, in which case, his chair appointment to the committe is meaningless, or.. the committee appointment he achieved was important yet he was unable to make an impact with the committee and actually achieve anything.

    [ Parent ]
    Oh, come on - are you seriously (5.00 / 12) (#42)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:35:30 PM EST
    trying to suggest that it didn't matter because Dick Lugar said it was okay?

    So, you would have us believe that a guy who already knew he was going to run for president, a guy who had little foreign policy experience, whose resume was pretty light, would go to the trouble of getting the chairmanship of that subcommittee at a time when things were deteriorating in Afghanistan, we desperately needed the support of our Western European allies, and badly needed to win back the respect of those allies - would just blow it off?

    This man was presented with an opportunity to learn something, to make that committee more than it had ever been - which not only would have helped him, but could have helped this country, and he chose to ignore it.

    Not only is Barack Obama's attitude about this insulting to me, but your constant efforts to find excuses for Obama have plucked on my last nerve.

    [ Parent ]

    He was probably bored n/t (none / 0) (#109)
    by DJ on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 07:45:19 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    yes, that one (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by dws3665 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:35:50 PM EST
    It was broken when I picked it up! But I'm a leader, and more knowledgeable about foreign policy than either McCain or Clinton.

    That one.

    I don't think I need to do better. His (non)record speaks for itself.

    [ Parent ]

    So what you are saying is that they gave this (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:28:54 PM EST
    committee to obama because he is so inept and can't be trusted with an important committee.  And the answer to his not calling meetings is because Dick Lugar, a republican, said it wasn't really that important?  And obama thinks he should be president?   ROTFLMFAO

    [ Parent ]
    There are no small committee (5.00 / 6) (#87)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:44:14 PM EST
    assignments, only small politicians.

    HRC would have dug into that and made it something.  Obama just shrugged it off.  I'm sorry, but that tells me something.

    [ Parent ]

    i watched (5.00 / 9) (#71)
    by nell on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:18:55 PM EST
    his livestream this weekend and hers this afternoon, thanks for your concern. perhaps obama should actually establish a credible record that he has earned instead of trashing hers. obama has a slim record, by his own admission, which is why he puhes judgement, which is why wright, ayers, et. al are so important. no amount of tearing down hills accomplishments will give him more.

    [ Parent ]
    Bingo! (none / 0) (#88)
    by gyrfalcon on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 11:45:50 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Watch the Reno Gazette one (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 08:57:16 PM EST
    Hillary is way better.  Obama at the SF one was dull and lack energy saw that months ago.  did he do one in Indiana?

    [ Parent ]
    Do you have a link? (none / 0) (#17)
    by 1jpb on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:11:40 PM EST
    He did do Indy, perhaps you could find that link too, I haven't heard that one, I only know it happened.

    I can listen to these in the background while I work.

    [ Parent ]

    google (none / 0) (#19)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:19:12 PM EST
    Reno gazette, in the video archives they have one hour with each candidate.  

    [ Parent ]
    So your takeaway is that (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:15:02 PM EST
    she was pandering and that Obama's interview was better. No mention of the Party UNITY thing she called for there, huh? LOL. Color me shocked. Or not. Divide and conquer. It's the Obama suppporter way!

    [ Parent ]
    Say what? "There's a reason ... (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:30:39 PM EST
    ... he's better at working with others to pass big legislation"?

    Well, exactly what "big legislation" are you talking about?

    I'm assuming, of course, that you're talking about legislation that he didn't duck and run from with his no-hows or votes of "present" on third and final reading ...

    [ Parent ]

    "working with others to passed big (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by nycstray on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 10:33:01 PM EST
    legislation"

    if he's so good at it, why has he done so little?

    if he's so good at it, why is he running for president so soon after becoming a Senator? Think of all the good he could do crafting bills that will be signed on both sides of the aisle . . .

    [ Parent ]

    Oh, puh-leeze (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by lambert on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 12:32:14 AM EST
    Gotta give points for persistence, but:

    if you watch the BO video, you'll see a person who is much more comfortable with the art of persuasion.  There is a reason he's better at working with others to passed big legislation.

    This whole thread is about people being persuaded that Hillary knows her stuff. And you know the best way to achieve that persuasiveness? By knowing it. That's what's working for people here, and many others. Not hollow oratory.

    That said, it would be useful to have both videos side by side.

    [ Parent ]

    i don't want to be persuaded, i want to be heard (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by moll on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 10:21:04 AM EST
    if you watch the BO video, you'll see a person who is much more comfortable with the art of persuasion.  There is a reason he's better at working with others to passed big legislation.

    First of all, I don't think there's any grounds to suggest Obama is better at working with anyone.

    Then, I also don't think there's any reason to tout his ability to pass big legislation.

    With all that said....

    Nobody is denying that he is better at delivering preplanned scripted events. When circumstances are tightly controlled, he's beautiful.  

    The problem is, it all falls apart when he's away from his script.

    What does he say to reporters? He's rude: I already answered 8 questions. Let me finish my waffle. He's impatient and immature. He only wants to talk when he is in control of all the parameters. Instead of giving a press conference about Wright, he gives speeches.

    I don't want speeches. I want dialogue, not monologue.

    After Bush, I find the one-way nature of the communication a very bad thing.

    [ Parent ]