home

Obama Happy With Hillary's Campaigning

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:18:43 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Via Todd Beeton:

So I was happy, if unsurprised, to learn from a source that Barack Obama called Hillary Clinton yesterday to thank her for what she's doing on behalf of the campaign. During their conversation, I'm told he thanked her specifically for what she was saying on the campaign trail. The fact is the Obama campaign is working closely with Hillary Clinton on her role in the campaign and will continue to do so until election day.

This is not surprising in the least. Hillary Clinton's message has echoed the Obama campaign's concentration on McCain as Bush' Third Term. Credit where due to the Obama campaign, they realize that fixating on Sarah Palin is a losing political strategy.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Gallup Tracker: McCain By 5 | Hood Execution Stayed >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Happy With Hillary's Campaigning | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Why wouldn't he be happy....she always (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:20:43 PM EST
    does a good job.

    always an outstanding job (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by noholib on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:24:36 PM EST
    A slight emendation:
    she always does an outstanding job! - IMO.

    Parent
    True, but I don't want her to get a big (none / 0) (#81)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:29:20 PM EST
    head....:)

    Parent
    I wish (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:22:43 PM EST
    there was a better understanding within the campaign of the need to keep knocking this narrative down, but at least Todd is trying to do their work for them.

    It's amazing how the media continues to sift through the tea leaves looking for evidence of a rift that isn't there.  But if the rumor is going to be "Obama wants Hillary to be an attack dog, but Hillary won't do it," it benefits no one to just let the false rumor percolate.

    Of course there is a rift there (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by MichaelGale on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:26:43 PM EST
    It's just that Hillary cares more about party than she does Obama.

    And i have to say, she is much more loyal than I am.

    Parent

    Not to be cynical (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:24:33 PM EST
    But I can't help it (too many years being a political observer). I am sure the sentiment is real but timing of this information, a little too convenient?

    I hate to be a conspiracy theorist (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by JAB on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:29:34 PM EST
    But I think you're right.  He's dropping support with women, so now he has to say something about Hillary.

    Parent
    Convenient=Savvy (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:38:11 PM EST
    Why not release this information especially at a time when it can do you the most good?

    What's wrong with that?

    Parent

    Savvy (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by tree on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:46:55 PM EST
    would have been releasing this information weeks or months ago. That's when it would have done the most good. This is way late.

    Parent
    Like before the convention? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:52:29 PM EST
    Anytime Obama wanted to show he was firming up his base and uniting the party?

    Parent
    Obama should have (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by Fabian on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:55:29 PM EST
    been playing up Hillary's every public appearance from the time she suspended her campaign.  
    Appearances matter.
    Appearances matter.
    Appearances matter.

    Parent
    Except, before the convention (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:13:32 PM EST
    the media was busy showing the continuing dissing of both Clintons with not picking her as VP, and messing around with whether or not they would get a chance to speak at convention, and the need for a full floor roll call to determine who the candidate would be (which in any other election year would have been mandatory because neither candidate was going in the true winner). To give her a gratuitous nod of approval would have interrupted the flow of the information being concentrated on.


    Parent
    I Have No Opinion (none / 0) (#46)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:33:02 PM EST
    About when the best time for spotlighting Clinton/Obama collaborating would be.

    I was commenting on the idea that this information coming out now when it could do some good (I assume the idea was with Palin in the news so much) was (ahem) convenient, as in suspect or negative.

    I don't think it is either.

    I think it's good politics--and as you and others point out it would have probably been good politics earlier as well. But that's not what I was responding to.

    Parent

    Did I say there is anything wrong with it? N/T (none / 0) (#29)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:01:12 PM EST


    Parent
    Am I Misinterpreting What You Meant (none / 0) (#48)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:35:01 PM EST
    by "a little too convenient"?

    It sounded as if you thought there was something negative or suspect that this information was coming out now.

    Parent

    It is suspicious, but not negative (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Marvin42 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
    Specially from a political standpoint for Sen Obama. It is an attempt to diffuse the barrage of attacks from the McCain campaign.

    I was simply pointing out that it is a political move, and a calculated one at that.

    Parent

    Agreed, Definitely Political (none / 0) (#91)
    by daring grace on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:52:40 PM EST
    Not sure if it's calculated or not.

    Hope so, esp. if it turns out to be effective. Would renew my confidence in their campaign.

    Parent

    I understand that Obama is having (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:38:49 PM EST
    a face to face with Bill this week in NY.  Greasing the skids?

    Parent
    He is trying placate Bill before imposing on him (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Bob K on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:59:32 PM EST
    to campaign actively. Bill is going to say: How about that small matter of campaign debt.

    Parent
    Greasing the skids (none / 0) (#57)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:51:47 PM EST
    I thought meant working to get rid of somebody.  Is that what you meant?

    Parent
    No, maybe I dont know what that (none / 0) (#95)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:34:12 PM EST
    really means. I though it meant something like making the meeting a little easier.  Is there another better way to say that?  After what BHO has said about Bill's presidency, I would think he would try to ingratiate himself with Bill before asking Bill to get out there.  And complimenting Hillary would be one way to do it.

    Parent
    Maybe you (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 11:41:32 PM EST
    were thinking of greasing his palm, which is actually bribing somebody so not quite right either.

    Here's a definition for greasing the skids:

    The phrase "greasing the skids" comes from the same origin -- loggers greased the skids with oil to help move the trees faster.

    So not inherently bad, as I thought.

    Parent

    hairspray....have a question about some- (none / 0) (#82)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:34:45 PM EST
    thing you posted the other day...pls get in touch at hotmail...pssttcmere...want to see if you meant what I thought you meant...O/T sorry

    Parent
    I tried to locate you using your sign in (none / 0) (#98)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 08:05:53 PM EST
    name at hotmail but it didn't work.

    Parent
    it's just pssttcmere....leave out 08 (none / 0) (#99)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 09:51:29 PM EST


    Parent
    Convenient (none / 0) (#10)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:29:58 PM EST
    in that they are addressing an oft-repeated storyline by the press. Good job by the Obama campaign getting this out there.

    Parent
    Hillary is a class act as usual... (5.00 / 11) (#5)
    by athyrio on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:24:48 PM EST
    I have so much respect for her thru out all this mess...IMO she will emerge with far more power after this election is over...and that makes me happy..

    Well, he darn well better be. (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:26:40 PM EST


    So special. (none / 0) (#93)
    by oculus on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:56:38 PM EST


    Parent
    I'm glad (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:28:59 PM EST
    to see this but it would be better if it came directly from the Obama campaign and not a blogger who "knows somebody".

    FYI (none / 0) (#58)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:56:11 PM EST
    I can confirm that it is true.

    Parent
    Oh (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:06:31 PM EST
    I'm not doubting what the blogger said. Why not just have the campaign come out and say it instead of passing it through blogs?

    Parent
    Bush's third term... (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by Dadler on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:40:10 PM EST
    ...is not enough, since too many Americans believe the McCain as maverick b.s..  The media are among the biggest dupes on this point.  Obama must lay out a bold plan -- on tax cuts for working people, a comprehensive national health care plan, and a Kennedy-esque-man-on-the-moon alternative energy plan that will create tons of jobs.  Just my woman's intuition, even though I'm a man.  

    Got Lost (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by WS on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:44:55 PM EST
    His acceptance speech and those same proposals got lost after the Palin pick.  

    One way to get health care back in the news is for Obama to publicize his acceptance of Hillary's health care plan sort of like when he announced he won't take public financing.  

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:49:21 PM EST
    None of that needed to get lost and in fact those issues are so much more important to the average American than who McCain's VP pick is that the only reason they got "lost" is because Obama lacks the confidence to strongly advocate for them.

    Parent
    Why is it a matter of confidence? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by lambert on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:11:26 PM EST
    That's like the narrative that the Ds are weak. That's not it. They have a vision for the country and they're carrying it out. Obama's FISA vote fits right in; they want to sand the rough edges off the system Bush built and collect a lot of money. Period.

    Parent
    Oh lambert (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:41:56 PM EST
    Everytime I come to the fount to worship, before I can imbibe here you come along with soap and I end up with a bath.  If one is willing to stand back and take a look at the full snapshot, it looks like everybody up there has only wholesale B.S. that we are all willfully purchasing at a new speculation inflated price.  Thanks.......now where did I leave my prozac?

    Parent
    I'm a good example (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by Prabhata on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:19:59 PM EST
    I'm not planning to vote for Obama, but if he and Hillary and a joint appearance and Obama said that if elected he will work to have Hillary's health care passed in congress and that he will seek Hillary's help to get it through, I would vote for Obama. I don't trust Obama and none of his promises sway me to vote for him, but an appearance and a switch to Hillary's health care would make a difference.

    Parent
    if he and Hillary had a joint appearance (none / 0) (#41)
    by Prabhata on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:21:14 PM EST


    Parent
    Yup (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:46:32 PM EST
    Hopefully the debates will produce some well needed reality smackdown.

    Parent
    I'm (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:19:16 PM EST
    not putting too much hope into the debates unless Obama is getting some serious preparation. What I saw in the primaries was hardly impressive. I fear a Michael Dukakis moment where he tries to intellectualize an emotional issue.

    Parent
    As things stand now (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:19:06 PM EST
    with Lambert deflating my housing of elation bubble, and Obama gets up there as the Republican lite he is currently resembling......fugetaboutit

    Parent
    You're right ... (none / 0) (#34)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:09:46 PM EST
    it has to be Bush's third term, plus Obama's solutions for the problems created by Bush's two terms.

    Problem, solution.  Problem, solution.

    I know Obama is adverse to using the "three point plan" style argument.  It's that old politics he hates.  But I still favor that style because it's the most effective anyone has yet found.

    Parent

    Big Mistake by Camp Obama (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by AvianoTeamB1 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:44:30 PM EST
    I think the Obama camp may have made a big mistake by not tapping Hilary as VP.

    I'll never understand it. (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by talesoftwokitties on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:52:36 PM EST
    Baffling.

    Parent
    I understand it (5.00 / 11) (#37)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:15:38 PM EST
    Obama doesn't like Hillary, never has and the DNC is trying to extricate the Clintons from the Democratic Party.  Now they need her, so they have to butter her up so she'll go out and tow the party line.

    I think people forget that Obama and his surrogate were demanding that Hillary drop out of the race after the 11 state win in February/March.  They didn't have one kind word to say about here and the media was like vultures, salivating over her.  The left said that Hillary was selfish for staying in the race and that she was going to ruin the Democratic Party.  Does anyone remember this, or does everyone-including the so-called progressive left- have short term memory.

    Of course Obama is happy that Hillary is campaigning.  I don't see too many of the Democratic bigwigs busting a hump for him these days.  This is Obama's race to lose or win, not the Clintons.  

    Hillary is a better person that the Democratic Party thinks she is.

    Parent

    Hillary doesn't need buttering up. (none / 0) (#47)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST
    She seems perfectly willing to work for our party.  She's in alignment with the party goals and the campaign, not "towing the party line."  

    That kind of description of her work does a grave disservice, IMO.  The DNC needed to limit the liability that Bill Clinton creates.  It's not about Dems picking on Hillary, it's Dems trying to find a way to take back our country.  That's all.  We can disagree about the path our party has taken, but I don't think continuing to portray Hillary as a victim helps anyone, especially her.

    Parent

    Limit the liability? (5.00 / 8) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:40:17 PM EST
    Wow, that's the way to lose an election. A popular expresident is considered a liability by Obama and his supporters? No wonder he's not doing well in the polls. Not using Bill Clinton is one of the things that cost Gore in 2000.

    Parent
    Look, I don't represent Obama (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:58:33 PM EST
    I'm not an "Obama supporter" any more than I'd be a "Hillary supporter" if she were our candidate.  I want our side to get elected because the Repubs are destroying our country.  That doesn't mean I have to forget Bill Clinton's history.  He's popular with you, but not with me, OK?  I think his actions make him a liability for our party.  So do plenty of other Democrats, obviously, and some of them voted for Edwards, not Obama.  You don't need to make this into an "Obama supporter attacking Hillary" meme.  There's really no point in arguing about it anymore because Hillary supporters don't want to hear reasons for choosing anyone besides her.  She's a good Democrat and a strong, courageous woman.  She'll be a role model for years for many of our kids.  But constantly portraying Hillary as a victim does not help her or the campaign.  The victimization is what I was responding to in that comment.  

    Parent
    Your (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:25:32 PM EST
    opinion is in the minority in the country. I'm not portraying Hillary as a victim just pointing out that you are proposing a strategy that's bound to lose the election for Obama.

    People who think like you and Obama, Daschle, Kerry and Pelosi are the reasons we lose elections. Bill Clinton knows how to win but for some reason people in the party continue to cling to losers. Good grief, Ronald Reagan did worse in Iran/Contra than Bill ever did and the GOP worships him. No wonder voters think that the Democratic party is full of wimps.

    Parent

    Never saw Hillary as a "victim" (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:51:38 PM EST
    She was a politician who was not in favor with the press and it showed.  IMO, the MSM chose the storyline they wanted and pressed it in the American psyche.  If Hillary saw herself a "victim" she would have quit the race after the 11 losses to Obama.

    All I am trying to say is that it is not Hillary's job to get Obama elected, it is Barack's job.  I just feel that all this Hillary "love" from the Obama camp is disingenuous and a bit desperate.

    Parent

    Bill Clinton a liability? (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:47:38 PM EST
    I don't think so.  Thanks to Bill, Hillary won the majority of the last primaries in April/May.  I think it is a disservice to treat Bill as a liability.

    The point is Hillary is trying to help the Democratic Party, not Obama personally.

    Parent

    Eh (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:56:08 PM EST
    Bill was there all along.  I think Hillary won those last primaries because she, herself, found her voice and finished strongly.

    Parent
    liability of Bill Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Amiss on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 01:05:38 AM EST
    "There's nobody smarter in politics," Obama said on CBS' "Late Show with David Letterman," scheduled to air Wednesday night. "And he is going to be campaigning for us over the next eight weeks, which I'm thrilled by."

    LINK

    Parent

    I think they know it (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by BrianJ on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:55:32 PM EST
    And are trying to shanghai Hillary as a second running mate.  This really isn't in Hillary's best interest-  she'll got no credit if Obama wins and lots of blame if he loses-  and probably isn't in Obama's best interest either, since it makes him look weak for selecting Biden over an obviously superior woman.

    Parent
    Yep. I am certain Obama would be at least 10 (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    points ahead in the daily tracking poll and he would be way ahead in MI,OH,PA and Florida. What's that old saying, "Pride goeth before a fall"

    Parent
    mistake (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Amiss on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:57:19 AM EST
    Biden made a similar comment today about Hillary
    "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America," Biden told the crowd. "Let's get that straight. She's a truly close personal friend; she is qualified to be president of the United States of America. She's easily qualified to be vice president of the United States of America and, quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me, but she is first-rate."

    LINK

    Parent

    Really nice (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:56:21 PM EST
    It is heartwarming that Obama has thanked Hillary Clinton.

    It's not heartwarming... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by stefystef on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:16:36 PM EST
    it's politics.

    Parent
    I know. (none / 0) (#89)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:33:19 PM EST
    I was being ironic...

    Parent
    yeah, but (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by Turkana on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:08:17 PM EST
    it'll still be all her fault, if he loses. what bad isn't?

    Maybe he should learn from her (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:12:19 PM EST
    Actually, anytime I hear that he is calling her to thank her for carrying out his orders on his behalf, I want to vomit.  So, if I were the Obama campaign, I would stop issuing little press releases like this.  It just makes us dig in our heels even more.  
    If I were her, I'd get a new cell phone number and keep it a secret from him.  The last thing she needs is any kind of advice or instruction from him.  
    Um (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:14:16 PM EST
    I dont think Hillary Clinton needs marching orders to fight for what she believes in.

    Parent
    Which as far as I can tell... (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:31:19 PM EST
    ...is NOT being Barack Obama's personal gladiator.  
    I hope she writes another book before she dies where she tells us what she really thinks.  Like, "This guy is the nominee??  After the lipstick comment, I'm still campaigning for this dumb@$$ party??"


    Parent
    um (none / 0) (#73)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:39:33 PM EST
    Does that make 4 yet?

    Parent
    Can I yield one of mine (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by DJ on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:21:14 PM EST
    to goldberry?

    Parent
    Also hurling. I'll hold your hair back ... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Ellie on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:36:06 PM EST
    ... if you'll hold mine.

    Actually, anytime I hear that he is calling her to thank her for carrying out his orders on his behalf, I want to vomit.


    Parent
    Obama and all Dems should (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by BernieO on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:12:13 PM EST
    be touting Bill Clinton's accomplisments every chance we get. Every income class did well when he was in office, not just the poor. And, unlike the Republicans who keep preaching about it, Clinton balanced the budget and produced a surplus. The Balkan area could have been as big  a mess as Iraq, but Clinton handled the conflict well. The problem isn't solved but it is a lot better than it might have been.

    During the impeachment Clinton's approval ratings were strong, at times over 70%. When he left office it was 65%. It wasn't just rank and file Dems who appreciated what he did. So why does the party keep trying to erase his accomplishments?

    Yes, he had an affair, but Dems still revere Ted Kennedy in spite of Chappaquidick and JFK even now that we know of his numerous affairs, including one who with a woman was also sleeping with a powerful mob boss. Clinton's misbehavior pales in comparison.

    the comment by goldberry (none / 0) (#105)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:36:26 PM EST
    was deleted for a false and inflammatory accusation against Obama.

    Parent
    Payback is coming because Obama raped the party!? (3.00 / 1) (#90)
    by MyLeftMind on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:20:34 PM EST
    How dare you belittle the horrific experiences of rape survivors by claiming Obama raped anything!  Get a grip.  We're supposed to recognize Palin's accomplishments or we're being sexist?  She is running on an anti-feminist ticket.  No, I don't think our side should jump up and laud her accomplishments while trying to get people to vote for us instead.  

    We're saddled with a nominee who raped and pillaged his own party, assuming they would actually "get over it" and vote for him.  And he did it at a woman's expense.

    No, he fought for the nomination in the interests of all the women and men who voted for him.  He's working in their interests to win the GE.  This isn't Obama vs. feminists or even Obama vs. women.  Too many Dems did not want the Clintons back in the WH.  Period.  Enough Democrats wanted someone else, either Obama or one of the other candidates, that it tipped the scales.  Are you furious at the Edwards supporters also?  The Richardson supporters?  

    Accountability is coming.  And it's going to be painful.  

    It sounds like there's no chance for Obama to win your vote, never mind your support.  This is why I shake my head when other posters here say don't say anything bad about the Clintons, you're just hurting Obama's chances with Hillary supporters.  I think they're wrong.  I think our party needs to realize the divisions created by the Clintons were long lasting in America's psyche.  I'm not young; I experienced the loss our party went through when Bill threw away his legacy and all of our good work.  And for what?  He had the chance to be the beginning of a string of Democratic presidents who could reshape our country in alignment with our Dem values.  But to you it's just a "stupid fling."  No, it was much more than that.  It was exactly what the Repugs needed to take back control.

    There are plenty of women and even feminist women who do not think Obama used sexism to win the primary.  You do, and you're entitled to your opinion.  But the more Hillary supporters (and trolls) pretend that the DNC hates women, when the issue was the Clintons, not Hillary's gender, the more they help undermine the only chance feminists have to promote our agenda.  

    Your voting for McSame isn't hurting me any more than you're hurting yourself.  You don't even have a clue who I am.  But go ahead, revel in your "payback" if it makes you feel good.  Jeez.

    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:45:35 PM EST
    so you'll blame the Clintons for all the "lasting damage" they caused, but Obama is blameless.  No, he was doing nothing more than fighting for the people who voted for him, including the morons who think the Clintons were bad for the party.  Gee, who could hold that against him?

    When you're ready to accept that Bill Clinton's actions are not the only ones that have consequences, maybe you'll come to understand some of these people a little better.  Some people look at the prospect that we might have a President McCain where we might have had a President Hillary Clinton and they fill with white-hot rage towards people like you who were willing to throw it all away because you just had to carry out your childish revenge fantasy against the Clintons.  Well, all we can do at this point is hope that scenario doesn't come to pass.

    Parent

    I don't want revenge. Really. (none / 0) (#101)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 12:02:35 AM EST
    I just wish they hadn't run and brought it all back in our faces this past year and a half.  I don't want us to be in the position of losing next time around because Bill has given  them even more ammunition.  I don't want a stalemate in Congress justified by whatever trade deal Bill is finagling with the Columbians or whoever else is willing to buy him off with contributions.  No, I don't want revenge, I just don't trust him in the future.  He's shown his character.  Is it really too much to expect our President to not cheat on his wife?  As it turns out, Obama gives them plenty to focus on anyway, even though most of it's not true.  And actually Edwards was my first choice, so that would have been an even bigger mistake.  Cheating on his sick wife, boy they would have ridden that one straight to the GE..  

    I can appreciate why people who like Bill and dismiss what he did as a non-issue would think that Obama has been rash to run with so much going against him, from his skin color to his history.  Even so, I don't think Obama running against Hillary and winning the nomination, even if he loses the GE, is in the same category as Bill cheating in the Oval Office and lying under oath.  


    Parent

    Faux outrage (none / 0) (#92)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:53:12 PM EST
    all around...and give the tab to Obama.

    Never before the history of elections in this country has there been more parsing of words.

    Parent

    Myleftmind is replying to a deleted comment (none / 0) (#106)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 04:37:32 PM EST
    by goldberry

    Parent
    why post this? (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by progrocks on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:56:13 PM EST
    Stuff like this only gets the PUMA-esque elements on the site more riled up and therefore defeating the purpose of posting it in the first place? If this comes out, it is bad for Obama, if he didnt do this, he is a jerk for doing so. There is no way to win with some here, and we are seeing it in the comments in this thread.

    Not PUMA (5.00 / 3) (#28)
    by lentinel on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:59:37 PM EST
    He'd better be thanking her.
    She owes him nothing, yet she's going out on a limb for him.
    Isn't this obvious?

    Parent
    going out on a limb (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by noholib on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:57:16 PM EST
    She's not really going out on a limb for Obama.  Hillary is campaigning for the Democratic Party and the American people -- both of which she believes in strongly.  

    Parent
    Your comment (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by otherlisa on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:02:57 PM EST
    helps spread the love too!

    Sheesh.

    Sorry, a lot of us are watching this election, thinking, "if only." I won't even get into the biggest "if only," but "if only Obama had picked Hillary as his VP" is pretty high up there.

    We wouldn't be in this situation.

    Parent

    heh (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:03:30 PM EST


    Parent
    Huh? (3.00 / 2) (#27)
    by rooge04 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:59:21 PM EST
    It's posted because it's relevant to the campaign at hand. In case you didn't notice. For me, it makes me more confident in Obama. So how is that a bad thing?

    Parent
    ok then (none / 0) (#76)
    by progrocks on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:48:17 PM EST
    for you, how about all the other haters who comment here dozens of times a day, they thrive on this stuff cause it is more opportunity to bash Obama

    Parent
    "haters"?! (none / 0) (#86)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:28:42 PM EST
    really, you can do better now, can't you??

    Parent
    Has the (none / 0) (#7)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:28:05 PM EST
    Obama campaign given up on Palin? I hope so. McCain seems to be driving that train somewhat now.

    I agree (none / 0) (#11)
    by Todd on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:32:15 PM EST
    I so agree that Obama and Hillary and Biden need to not concentrate on Palin. But who should? I haven's seen a real answer to this anywhere. And I think someone needs to as the press certainly won't focus any kind of oversight on her. So, who should counter her?

    I think it (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:52:35 PM EST
    should be Biden.  Isn't that what the VP does?  If it should be anybody, it should be Biden.  

    Trotting out token woman after token woman to do it isn't working b/c Clinton has said she won't do it and that's all anybody cares about:  the catfight between HRC and Palin.  

    So, take the "catfight" entirely off the table and get Obama out of the Palin rut by putting Biden on the attack.  If anybody's going to do it, Biden should.

    Relatedly, I think HRC has become a linchpin of this election, some sort of power broker in a way I don't entirely understand.  Thoughts?

    Parent

    Again I agree (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Todd on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:04:14 PM EST
    I agree in principle, but hasn't the media set Biden up already?Anything tough is gonna be "beating up" on her and sexist. My thoughts on this went to the three great western govs we have. Schweitzer, Sebelius, and Napolitano. But would the media take them as serious counterpoints? I agree that the media wants Hillary - Palin, but that's not gonna happen.
    And your point about HRC is spot on, but I'd go further and include Bill, and Gore. I think our party stalwarts, the best of the best, must all join in to win this. It's not just about the various sects of the democratic party working for their own constituents in the caucus, this is a huge war for our country and everyone must come together to regain the White House.

    Parent
    Would (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:22:04 PM EST
    you rather have Biden thought of as sexist or Obama? Take your pick. Unfortunately, Obama brought all this upon himself.

    Parent
    I'm not coming out from under the bus (5.00 / 7) (#43)
    by lambert on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:23:43 PM EST
    ... 'til the broken health care plan is fixed ( Hey, wasn't Elizabeth Edwards going to work on that? Long forgotten. My other litmus test was, alas, FISA).

    You say "our" party, but it's going to take an awful lot of walkback on remarks from Donna Brazile and Dean and the creative class types and Obama's supporters for me to believe I have any place in it, newly located as its HQ is in Chicago. (Yes, I know what Hillary said at the convention. But she had to say that. Plus, she's loyal to the party because she believes in it. But I'm loyal to the party when it's loyal to me.)

    Now, getting the best and the brightest involved might help. Getting off Palin and on to "it's the economy, stupid" would help. And health care is definitely a huge part of what causes pain in the economy right now, so fixing the plan would help. Heck, Obama was acting Presidential there for a bit with the foreign trip, so why not act Presidental now and put some task forces together? Sixty days is enough for that, yes?

    We've been on Palin for what, a week now? And Obama throws gasoline on the flames by getting snarky in front of a friendly audience? Jeebus. For now, I'm still under the bus. It seems safer.

    Parent

    He'd need to do it right. (none / 0) (#88)
    by DJ on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:31:34 PM EST
    "If I earn your trust and you make me your president I want to hit the ground running on your behalf.  That's why I have asked Senator Clinton,  etc. to form committee to discuss x y and z.

    Parent
    That might work (none / 0) (#104)
    by lambert on Thu Sep 11, 2008 at 08:05:57 AM EST
    Needn't be just the Clintons, either, and probably shouldn't be.

    But this vague stuff is just back to hopey-changey.

    Parent

    Well, yeah, (none / 0) (#54)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:48:51 PM EST
    Biden has been set up.  But he's not in the position Obama is:  Obama is the focal point of complaints about primary sexism, not Biden.  Biden has a bit more leeway b/c he didn't join in the primary sexism IIRC.  (I may be wrong.)

    Also, Biden's long history w/VAWA is a plus in this area.  Big plus.  Why not use it?  Surely Biden CAN go after Palin on issues, not on sexism, and surely voters are smart enough not to fall for false sexism tropes.  They didn't fall for calling people racists who weren't, why should they fall for calling something sexist when it isn't?

    Send out the attack dog.  Make her look bad by comparison to Biden, her peer.  Get her out of the way that way, not with passive-aggressive jibes about pigs in lipstick.  Have Obama go after McCain's bad policy, b/c he's so bad any time he gets near a woman.

    Parent

    Actually no one should attack her. Her (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by hairspray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:36:51 PM EST
    lack of qualifications simply point out Obama's thin resume.  I think if Biden (who has a history of Anita Hill that is not pretty) would simply echo what HRC is saying...Her ideas are wrong for the country.  Global warming, war and occupation and workers rights for example.  the public needs to focus on that, not whether she took her young girls to a Woman's Leadership Conference, etc...When the public wakes up to their infatuation and looks closely at what it means to them economically, they will lose.

    Parent
    Yes, exactly right. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:50:38 PM EST
    But have BIDEN do it.  He does have SOME credibility with his work in VAWA.  He's been a real champion of that and he's big, big reason it passed.  Look at that!  Successful legislation on behalf of women!!

    Parent
    Hopefully, Biden will do a better job (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by nycstray on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:32:37 PM EST
    than Fowler did.

    Parent
    Oy. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Emma on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 04:26:12 PM EST
    Teh stupid.  It burns.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Jane2009 on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 05:29:47 PM EST
    I kind of thought this was the evil genius of McCain's nomination; no one can touch Palin, not really. The ground was poisoned by the trashing of Hillary AS A WOMAN.

    You reap what you sow.

    Parent

    Is it a winning a message though? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 01:33:51 PM EST


    well (none / 0) (#56)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    They just need an add highlighting McCain's stances on women's issues, followed by some of his uglier quotes and jokes against women. The Chelsea Clinton joke alone will hurt him.

    It hasn't so far (none / 0) (#70)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    I think he acknowledged at the time that it was tasteless and cruel and he apologized.  
    You know, we've heard all the negative things about McCain but there's one thing that puts Obama in a more negative light- he had the chance to make Hillary his VP and he passed.  
    And that's all there is to it.  All we need to know about Obama vs McCain and cruelty.  

    Parent
    tough game (none / 0) (#72)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:36:15 PM EST
    He apologized. So?

    This isnt fair time. You hit him on issues, you hit him on crass jokes, it looks bad.  Then he has to spend his valuable time saying why he isnt a sexist pig.

    Good for the goose...

    Parent

    You said it would have an effect (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by goldberry on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 03:45:01 PM EST
    Since I am his target demographic now, I say it does not.  See, it is now 15 years later and he hasn't come out with any more boneheaded remarks.  It looks like he can be taught.  Obama, OTOH, is still sticking his foot in his mouth and seems to be incapable of respecting half of his base.  
    You seem to be misreading this situation.  Don't try to speculate about it too much.  You might hurt something.  
    Just take it from me: when Obama used the DNC to tilt the scales in his direction and intimidated the delegates to abandon Hillary, he solidified our impression of his trustworthiness in our minds.  If he wants our votes in November, he's got to reverse that.  Nothing you say about McCain is going to make it more likely that we'll vote for Obama.  It's useless to even try.  
    Give it up.  

    Parent
    Give it up!! (none / 0) (#94)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 06:59:44 PM EST
    McCain didn't make up that joke! It circulated the internet via email before McCain ever uttered those words...he repeated it, he apologized for it, and Chelsea Clinton went from being a less than knock out teen to a very attractive and poised adult, and anyone who looks can see that.

    McCain and Clinton are from opposing parties, they say cutting things about each other because of it. Oh well. Now, get over it!!


    Parent

    Do you really think (none / 0) (#96)
    by daryl herbert on Wed Sep 10, 2008 at 07:41:30 PM EST
    that Senator Obama would leak a story to the press that he is unhappy with Hillary?  Now?

    Obama Happy With Hillary's Campaigning | 103 comments (103 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment