Barack Obama’s Bush Moments

What is Barack Obama up to? What is Hillary Clinton doing? What are the other candidates up to?

The quick answers:

Barack Obama is turning into George Bush. In fact, Obama is defending George Bush. George Bush is not to blame for our problems, says the naive and irresponsible and inexperienced Obama. Obama has forgotten he is a Democrat. Obama has become a Naderite. Both parties are to blame says Nader Obama. What a laughable suggestion from Obama. [More on this later.]

Hillary Clinton is begining to clinch the Democratic nomination and preparing for her general election run. Hillary is earning votes, one at a time. Hillary is running a brilliant, methodical, intelligent, unyielding, relentless, rapid-response, well-organized, well staffed, well-thought out, long-term, short-term campaign.

After Obama taking Bush”s “you are with us or you are against us” moment on Pakistan, Obama now says he is the new Bush uniter not divider. Pat Buchanan on the 8/15/07 Tucker show.

SHUSTER: Let‘s talk about Barack Obama. In an interview with the “Washington Post,” he said that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can, referring to Hillary Clinton. Obama said something sort of similar the other night at the Democratic forum. But when you sit down to with the “Washington Post,” in my estimation it‘s a much more calculated strategy and theme.

This was much more calculated to portray Hillary Clinton as the past.

Smart strategy?

MCMAHON: He needs to draw some distinctions between himself and Hillary Clinton because he‘s about 20 points behind at this point. Although in Iowa and the early primary states, it‘s a very, very close race. To the extent that people are looking for an alternative to Hillary Clinton, it probably is because of what they perceive as the ideological gridlock and the partisan warfare occurred during the time that President Clinton was in the White House.

That may or may not be an accurate or fair representation of what the record is, but that‘s what he‘s trying to tap into.

BUCHANAN: He‘s right. Look, Obama‘s strategy‘s not working. Hillary is rising slowly. He‘s falling slowly. You‘ve got to change it. He‘s got to go after her. It‘s a calculated cold political decision. Let‘s go after her and engage her in a battle. I agree. Nationally he‘s not making it.

He‘s still got a fighting chance in those first three states. They could be everything. If he can win Iowa and New Hampshire, I think he explodes. He‘s decided, OK, let‘s take the gloves off. The high road ain‘t doing it anymore.

Keith Olbermann (Countdown 8/15/07) also knows, to put it in Bushian terms that OBAMA IS TAKING THE LOW ROAD ON HIS HIGH HORSE

OLBERMANN: The last time a politician claimed to be a uniter and not a divider, it was George W. Bush. Better luck next time. Our fourth story tonight, our “Countdown” to 2008, and since the uniter title is available, Barack Obama is picking up the theme. The Illinois senator saying one of the reasons he decided to run for president because Hillary Clinton is too divisive to get the country out of what he calls our ideological gridlock.

Senator Obama telling the “Washington Post”: “I think it is fair to say that I believe I can bring the country together more effectively than she can. That is not entirely a problem of her making. So of those battles in the ‘90s that she went through were the result of some pretty unfair attacks on the Clintons. But that history exists, and so, yes, I believe I can bring the country together in a way she cannot do.”

Ironically, it is the same line of attack on Senator Clinton used by the White House after a new campaign ad said the middle class and even the troops are invisible to President Bush.

The soon to be removed presidential brain, Karl Rove, already rerunning his catch phrases again today, describing Clinton as fatally flawed, as he appeared with comedian Rush Limbaugh.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KARL ROVE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE ADVISOR: She is who she is. There is no front runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling. She is going into the general election in the high 40‘s on the negative side and just below that on the positive side. There‘s no one who is ever won the presidency was started out in that position.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

OLBERMANN: Clinton seemed to revel in the White House. She made a statement late in Iowa today.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CLINTON: Karl Rove attacked me today trying to, once again, poison the atmosphere. I feel so lucky that I‘m giving them such heartburn.

KO talks about the low road Obama is riding on perched atop his high horse:

OLBERMANN: Senator Obama, with this interview with your colleagues at “The Post,” seems to a split a very fine hair. He says that Hillary Clinton is too divisive to win, he is not. He is willing to be divisive enough to attack another Democrat for being divisive. It‘s like an M.C. Escher drawing.

KO also reminds us of another Obama goof no one has mentioned yet (Note to George Stephanoupoulos: here is yet another good Obama gaffe questions):

OLBERMANN: The mild stuff seems to be getting past people. There was something about Senator Obama and this issue of unifying that happened at the debate in Chicago that seems to go right past people. He was talking about roots to citizenship for immigrants. He suggested one of the tests should be are they learning English. In retrospect, I think I should have stopped the debate right there and said, did you really just say that? How unifying is that position going to be among Democrats in, say, Florida and New York and California and Texas?

Ralph Nader blames Democrats and Ripublicans equally for the nation’s failings. Ralph Nader loved saying that there was no difference between George Bush and Al Gore. Now Obama is saying that Bush, who has abused his power and lied us into Iraq is getting absolution from Obama:

“Part of the problem here is not just George Bush and the White House,” Obama told a crowd of hundreds gathered at a park in Cedar Falls. “We can’t just change political parties and continue to do the same kind of things we’ve been doing. We can’t just go about business as usual and think it’s going to turn out differently.”

Nice political theory Barack, but not really germane is it? Our problem right now is the Bush/Cheney government and their abuses of power. Of course Obama also does not think what Bush has done to this country reaches the level of abuse of power and is not impeachable. It is one thing to admit that it will be difficult and might not be advisable to impeach Bush and Cheney it is quite another to argue that the abuses of power by Bush and Cheney do not reach the constitutional threshold for impeachable offenses.

While Nader Obama is absolving Bush, Hillary is fighting Bush and Karl Rove:

For the second time in two days, a high-ranking White House official has taken issue with Hillary Clinton’s recent critical campaign TV ad of President Bush. Yesterday, it was White House spokeswoman Dana Perino; today, it’s none other than outgoing political adviser Karl Rove.

For Democrats, the choice is now very simple.

Obama is rapidly becoming a Naderite and apologist for George Bush. Obama is so desperate as his campaign falls apart that he will go very dirty, very fast. Very dirty, Very fast.

Hillary is fighting George Bush.

The Naderites will side with Obama and George Bush.

Democrats will nominate Hillary. We have had enough Bush moments.

Share

107 thoughts on “Barack Obama’s Bush Moments

  1. Here is my guess where Obama is heading:

    He knows that he will not be the DEM nominee and also most probably not even the chosen VP.

    So he is playing it safely by thinking that a third ticket party (Hagel, Bloomsberg, Nader) will chose him as their VP. He will do this…in spite of knowing that this strategy will give the Repubs the win…

    He is playing up to the Indies…

  2. Admin: Lets assume that your thesis is
    correct and Obama is trying to defend his position by blaming both Bush and our party for the
    current political athmosphere. Harken
    back to ’72 when the McGovern campaign
    did exactly that. The Democratic party ran
    on one issue, the Vietnam war. All other progressive issues were drowned out by the clammer to end the war.

    The center left influence of Hubert Humphrey
    and the center right, of the party of Scoop
    Jackson were ignored. The Wallaceites were
    totally dismissed and were in tears on the
    convention floor. There was so much
    tumult on the floor of the convention that
    the election was lost on nomination night.

    The tradional liberals that brought equal rights
    and voting rights legislation were sidelined.
    Senator Eagleton was nominated for VP.
    I was on the floor that night when labor leaders
    didn’t have a clue who he was.

    The point of my rambling is that if BO expects
    to win the nomination and GE, he can’t divide
    the base by attaching Hillary’s electiblity. Or
    for that matter, any other Democrat. He has
    to stand on the real issues and not on his fellow
    candidates.

    Admin, you are correct. If you profess to
    be an outsider in the Democratic Party then
    we will treat you as one. You don’t deserve
    the support of others if you denegrate their
    stating in the party.

  3. MP, that is too calculating even for BO.
    He is getting his advice, not from real
    pols, but from the pundits that have
    propped him up from the beginning. These
    pundit grew up in a time of racial strife.
    They feel BO competes that struggle.
    They overlook the reality, we are looking
    for competance as well as hope. Like
    the poll in Iowa, Hillarys support is broad
    based. It cover the entire state. BO’s
    strength is in the east and JE’s strenght
    is only in rural area. This is indicative of
    what is happening in the national polls.
    Hillary’s support is broad based. She is
    the only candidate to have broad base
    support.

    Therefore, BO and JE and the other needs
    to redefine their campaigns along issues
    not personality.

    I’ll be back about 10 PM this evening.

  4. http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=c38366ec-caec-412d-a918-cb92b101a78b&headline=Who+is+divisive%3a+Clinton+or+Obama%3f

    The Union Leader has this:

    SEN. BARACK OBAMA says he’s a uniter, not a divider. Hmmm . . . where have we heard that before?

    Oh, yeah, President Bush said that some years ago. And he tried to be just that. He began his administration by reaching out to Democrats as he did in Texas. But the Democrats would have none of it, and the rest is history.

    Now Obama says he’ll heal those wounds and bring the country together, and that Sen. Hillary Clinton won’t.

    That might be true. But it also might be true that Sen. Clinton would govern in a more bipartisan, unifying way than Sen. Obama would. Between the two of them, Sen. Clinton, believe it or not, is more appealing to moderate, independent America. She plays to the middle while Obama plays to the left. Is she just pandering? Maybe. But maybe she, like her husband, would govern from the middle, while Obama would govern from the left. If that were to happen, Clinton would be the more unifying President.

    Speaking to a Washington Post reporter here in Manchester, Obama said he would bring about “a more fundamental change in how business is done in Washington.”

    That’s the kind of inspiring rhetoric the Illinois senator is brilliant at dispensing. But the question is, “How?” Peel away his eloquence, and his policy proposals are revealed to be solidly left-wing and no more appealing to middle America than Clinton’s are. Can he unite the country simply by speaking eloquently about our shared values? It is not likely, especially if he intends to turn us decidedly leftward.

    If Sen. Obama really plans to unite the country, he can start by showing that he would actually govern from the middle and not just talk from there.

  5. I’m reposting the following opinion of mine. I think the subject matter belongs under this thread and not the previous one.

    My take regarding today’s news article entitled “Obama says Bush not solely to blame.”

    I’m all for a more open government. I believe so does Hillary.

    1) She signed the bill S1. The bill is designed to provide greater transparency in the legislative process and is commonly known as the “ethics reform” bill.

    The bill amends Senate rules in an effort to make more transparent legislative earmarks. It also aims to make clearer the relationship of lobbyists and lawmakers by changing rules governing meals and travel that lobbyists provide to lawmakers and their staff. The bill also makes some restrictions on post-employment for members and staff.

    2) I watched the entire YearlyKos debate video. I clearly heard, near the end of the dabate, Hillary said that she is for public financing of elections and that as a President she would sign such a bill. I can understand why she cannot refuse lobbyists’ money right now. She needs every penny that she can raise to win against the Republicans. She cannot afford to disarm unilaterally. She will abide by the current election finance law until it is reformed and adopted by all.

    3) There was a misconception regarding a statement that Hillary made during the YearlyKos debate. This misconception was wrongfully capitalized by her opponents. This was discussed in the Aug 8 issue of the Daily Howler.

    http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080807.shtml

    “CLINTON (8/4/07): I don’t think, based on my 35 years of fighting for what I believe in, anybody seriously believes I will be influenced by a lobbyist…

    Clinton hadn’t denied the obvious fact that lobbyists have a large influence. She had said something totally different—that lobbyists don’t influence her. ”

    The fact that her Senate votes were 1) identical to Obama’s, with the exception of 2 minor bills, and 2) more progressive than Edwards’s, supports my contention she is NOT more influenced by lobbyists than is Obama or Edwards. Obama’s “I’m purer than Hillary” and lumping Hillary and other Dems with Washington’s culture of corruption rhetoric just doesn’t wash with me.

    As a matter of fact, the following news article suggests that regardless of Obama’s claim that he would not take lobbyist money, Obama pushed lobbyist’s interest in the Senate.

    http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/07/16/2561/

    “Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.”

    “Only one other 2008 presidential hopeful has introduced more tariff suspension bills than Obama. Longshot GOP candidate Sen. Sam Brownback, Kan., introduced 30 such measures in the 109th Congress. Fellow dark horse candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., introduced one in 2001; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. have introduced none.”

    “Some say the tariff suspension process isn’t how Washington should operate.”

    This article is proof that Obama is not an outsider. He is part of the Washinton insider that he is now proposing to reform. That is, he is not Jesus trying to chase out the money changers from the Temple. It appears to me that he is part of the money changer scene. Of course, I’m all for cleaning out the money changers from the Temple.

    In conclusion, I am all for a more open govenment. For the reasons I’ve stated above, I believe so does Hillary. She would make a great first female President that I can be proud of.

  6. NYT article…

    When Karl Rove said yesterday that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unfavorable rating was in the “high 40s,” he may have been looking at an old poll. And when he said no one had been elected with negatives as high as hers, he had apparently forgotten some recent history.
    The most recent CBS News poll, conducted from Aug. 8 to Aug. 12, showed Mrs. Clinton’s unfavorable rating at 39 percent. That number has been falling bit by bit since its high mark of 46 percent in April.
    That 46 percent was the highest negative rating measured by The New York Times and CBS News since the two news organizations began polling about Mrs. Clinton in 1992.
    Over the last few months as her negative ratings have fallen, her positive ratings have fluctuated, with the most recent poll showing that 41 percent of voters have a favorable view of her.
    So, contrary to what Mr. Rove said on Rush Limbaugh’s radio program, her unfavorable rating is about 10 points lower than where he thought it was and her favorables are higher than her unfavorables, although barely.
    His point was this: “There’s nobody who has ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.”
    In fact, Mrs. Clinton’s husband was in that very position and did win. And Mrs. Clinton’s numbers are better than his were at this point in his first campaign for the White House.
    In April 1992, only 26 percent of voters had a favorable view of Bill Clinton, while 40 percent viewed him unfavorably, according to a Times/CBS poll. By June 1992, his favorables had plunged further, so that only 16 percent had a favorable opinion, with 40 percent still unfavorable.
    After Mr. Clinton won the nomination and after his convention, his favorable rating began to rise. By October 1992, his ratings had become about even, with 34 percent favorable and 35 percent unfavorable.
    Mrs. Clinton’s favorable ratings reached a peak of 50 in 1998 during her husband’s impeachment. They have never climbed higher, as measured by The Times and CBS, meaning that at no point since her emergence onto the national stage has more than half the public viewed her favorably.
    Having negative ratings below 50 percent isn’t so unusual for a politician, but it is unusual for a first lady.
    The situation is a little different for Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton’s closest competitor for the Democratic presidential nomination, whom voters view as more “likeable” than Mrs. Clinton.
    In the CBS poll, 36 percent of voters have a positive view of Mr. Obama while 20 percent have a negative view.
    So while his negatives are lower than hers, so are his positives.
    But the two sets of numbers are not directly comparable because Mr. Obama is not as well known as Mrs. Clinton.
    Asked about Mr. Obama, 27 percent of voters said they were undecided about whether they feel positively or negatively toward him, and 17 percent said they had not heard enough about him to say.
    Asked about Mrs. Clinton, 19 percent said they were undecided about how they feel, and just 1 percent said they had not heard enough about her to judge.

  7. Mea Cupa’s before posting this… but I believe it is worthy of a read… Much ado about Rove..and the Audacity of Mediocrity… look to the right hand sleeve last topic

    http://www.tnr.com/

    The shameful, Mrs. S.

  8. Kostner: That was a fascinating analysis. Thanks for posting it.

    I wrote a diary at dKos today about the irony that Kossacks want a generic woman to be president but not the flesh and blood one who has an excellent shot at it.

    Nobody got the irony (except for people who already support Hillary.)

  9. COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa – Senator Barack Obama opened a three-day bus tour here today in this Missouri River town, located on Iowa’s western edge in Pottawattamie County.
    Yes, that is a mouthful: Pottawattamie. It took Mr. Obama three tries – and a lifeline from someone in the audience – before he properly pronounced the county’s five-syllable name.
    “It’s still early in the morning,” Mr. Obama said after his first botched attempt, stopping halfway through after realizing his stumble. He looked down at his notes and laughed along with the crowd.
    Not all counties in Iowa have so many syllables. Des Moines is located in Polk County. Cedar Rapids is in Linn County. And Mr. Obama’s next stop today is in Cass County.

    Mr. Obama is surely not the first visiting presidential candidate to mispronounce Pottawattamie. During the rest of his speech at a school gymnasium, he made repeated references to Council Bluffs. He did not take another stab at Pottawattamie, a county that was formally organized in 1848, with its name taken from the Pottawattamie Indians.
    Over the next five months, as presidential hopefuls parade through Iowa, others are sure to pass through here. For the record? It’s pronounced like this: pawt-uh-WAHT-uh-mee.
    No one in the audience seemed offended, particularly the first two people who rose to ask a question. They were from Omaha, which is located just across the river in Nebraska.

  10. It seems to me that Obama is boxed in. If he continues with this partisan attack, he divides the party and plays into the hands of people like Rove. If he speaks to policy issues it is damned near impossible for him to prove he is better Hillary because she is so strong on the issues and he is more uncertain than ever after his disasterous foray into the realm of foreign policy. He is under great pressure from supporters and those media pundits who are indeed the real architects of his candidacy for to do something, but as long as she continues to run a great campaign his options are limited. When Matthews says that Obama should do something or get out of the way and let someone else go for it, well it just speaks volumes.

  11. Kegs, your description of ’72 sounds like the blowback from ’68. Wow. With the moment of opportunity now at hand we cannot allow history to repeat itself.

  12. wbboei, you are correct; BO is in a box. He
    is put there by the pundits and political writers
    who are more interested in the horse race than
    the issues. The issues favor a modern
    progressive program. The is not the time
    for knee jerk liberalism. Too many people
    will have hopes lifted beyond the reality of
    what is deliverable. Hillary has knack that
    can work. She knows what buttons to push
    and when. Obama, just doesn’t measure up.

  13. Wbboei, yes, ’72 was the chapter 2 of the
    ’68 convention. ’72 was just a fiasco, so
    much infighting. Long debate on a platform
    that few party people could run on. McGovern
    didn’t give his acceptance speech in prime
    time. McGoverns floor managers lost control.
    The Rules committee was not functioning
    very well because it was nearly divided in
    half between McGovernite and ABMs, anybody
    but McGovern.

    The pundits keep on talking about how stop
    Hillary. After six months they should be talking
    about how the front runner, Hillary, compares
    to previous contenders and taking it over top.
    Democrats this year will not support a stealth
    candidate nor a hollow one. The party is
    looking for a winner. Race, gender, and ethnecity
    aside,

  14. DCDEM – Good diary on Kos. Very astute. How surprised I was that many didn’t get the point. DUH. Not a surprise though.

  15. Admin,

    I shared your comments about “whining” to several of my friends!!! You are spot-on, both with the concept and with the verbiage you chose!!! We dont need anymore whiners like John Kerry who “complained that SWIFT BOAT ads were unfair (they were indeed unfair and untrue).” We need to push back and fight back!!!!!

  16. HG, lobbying is more of a stain on Congress
    than on the presidency. Few pieces of
    successful legislation come to congress from
    white house without the congress doing
    the padding.

    It is much harder for lobbyist to stuff a bill
    at that level. Only in this administration
    does the lobbyist set the policy, write the bills
    and pay its way to enactment. No prior
    administration since WWII has been tarnished
    this way except for the Eisenhower administration.
    It was so bad during his time, that the famous
    plea of caution of the “military, industrial
    complex” came in to being.

    It depends on whose issues you believe in
    that determines which is a “good” or “bad”
    lobbyist. Elimating all lobbying and not accepting
    lobbyist contibutions is foolish. An honorable
    administration, will listen to all comers. And
    not have a tin ear and an open wallet when
    they come calling.

    have them pass.

  17. Kegs, it must have been bad if a guy like Eisenhower who could cope with the likes of Patton, Montie and de Gaulle in a single afternoon went ballistic over the military industrial complex. With respect to lobbyists, they go back to the Old Willard Hotel, and have come to play a crucial role in the system due to the expansion of government and the increasing complexity of issues. Congress can divide itself up into committees to focus on specific areas, and they can hire staff, i.e. legislative assistants often wet behind the ears, but at the end of the day seasoned, experienced lobbyists have an important role to play. The enduring question of course is how to keep them on the straight and narrow. What drives me ballistic is the way Hillary’s opponents mislead the public over the issue. Hillary has been the only honest one on this issue, and perhaps Biden will second her comments at some future time, since he too is willing to tell it how it really is.

  18. OH FUDGE!!!

    My pic of my dog wearing the HILLARYIS44 button does not look the same on the Internet as it does on my cell phone! I am going to have to do another photo shoot with TINY tomorrow, and hopefully, these will turn out less blurry and have more contrast than the previous ones.

    Meanwhile if anybody is interested, HIllary Clinton, among her many talents, does happen to have the BEST cookie recipe. She makes a mean chocolate chip oatameal cookie. I will post the link in the next post. I have made these for the last two Christmas’, but why wait? They are so good that they deserver to be devoured all year long.

    I will keep working on my photo of TINY for you dog lovers!!!

  19. I have finally written a DIARY for MYDD. I have no idea if anyone is going to read it or not. Its very amateur. But it does ask a question that I have been wondering about. If anyone has any tips on writing DIARIES on MYDD, I am open to constructive criticism. In fact, I welcome it!!! Also if anyone wants to comment on it, on mydd, the link is posted in the next post!! Here is the DIARY:

    Hillary Clinton Double Standard
    by Sandy1938, Fri Aug 17, 2007 at 04:41:17 AM EST

    I am new to this site, and new to writing in BLOGS. I have been reading this blog, as well as others, for quite awhile now. In my first DIARY, I would like to know why so many people seem to hold HILLARY CLINTON to a different standard than other Presidential candidates?

    For example, while HIllary did vote to authorize to use FORCE in IRAQ, she also made it clear in her speech on October 12, 2002, that her vote was not to authorize a new foreign policy of pre-emptive warfare. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton also supported the BYRD AMMENDMENT, which would have limited the IRAQ war to ONE YEAR. John Edwards both voted against, and lobbied against this ammendment to the joint resolution.

    I keep reading that HILLARY CLINTON accepts FEDERAL LOBBYIST MONEY, but I have read that OBAMA and EDWARDS both accept LOCAL AND PAC LOBBYIST MONEY themselves.

    I am not knocking any DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE. That is not the point of this diary, AT ALL. The point is to ask others what they make of the seemingly DOUBLE STANDARD that people apply to HILLARY CLINTON. Is it sexism? Is it that familiarity breeds contempt (since she has been in the public spotlight for 15 years now), or is it that she is taking the heat for the perceived mistakes of her husband? I honestly would like to hear what others have to say.

  20. Does AP love Obama? Because they have been recently playing a lot with HIllary’s negative. When her negatives are dropping why is it now a concern????

    Here is the latest hitjob
    ===============================================================================

    Analysis: Clinton’s Double-Edged Fight
    By NEDRA PICKLER 08.16.07, 3:00 PM ET

    WASHINGTON – Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton says she feels lucky to be the target of White House criticism. And while the barbs might bring her good fortune – and campaign dollars – in the short term, they also could remind voters about her weaknesses come Election Day.

    In the race for the Democratic nomination, any presidential candidate would relish engaging the White House in a little one-on-one. For Clinton, it increases the perception that she is the inevitable nominee and could help galvanize anti-Bush Democrats to her side.

    But voters also are hearing what the White House has to say – that she’s fatally flawed, weak on national security and unconscionable in her political criticism. And perhaps most threatening to her in the primary campaign is the idea that she’s too polarizing to win the presidency, said Democratic consultant Jenny Backus.

    “There is a long-term danger to her and to the campaign to laugh it off and say it’s a good thing because electability is a challenge that the Clinton campaign has to face,” Backus said.

    “In a primary, it’s like getting a $1 million check from Publisher’s Clearing House when it comes to Internet fundraising,” Backus said. “The problem for Hillary Clinton is that she may have to use $750,000 of it to challenge the electability argument.”

    And that’s just the argument that White House political adviser Karl Rove was making.

    “There is no front-runner who has entered the primary season with negatives as high as she has in the history of modern polling,” Rove said on the Rush Limbaugh radio show earlier this week. “There’s nobody who has ever won the presidency who started out in that kind of position.”

    Said Sara Taylor, a former Rove deputy and one-time White House political director: “It may be good for her base, but short-term gain could prove to have long-term pain for her. This episode reminds independent and soft Republican voters what they dislike about Clinton.”

    Rove’s numerous criticisms of Clinton were paired with a rebuke from White House spokeswoman Dana Perino on Tuesday. Perino was questioned about a Clinton ad in which she says struggling families and U.S. troops are “invisible” to President Bush.

    Perino initially said she wouldn’t comment – fitting with Bush’s reluctance to weigh into the presidential campaign – and referred questions to the Republican National Committee. But then she launched into a critique of the spot, calling it outrageous and absurd, and of Clinton, saying it was unconscionable for her to say such a thing.

    Perino said Thursday she won’t do it again.

    “We’re going to let the RNC answer anything further. At this point in the game, it’s all politics coming from those camps,” she said.

    The Clinton campaign was thrilled when Perino spoke out and quickly linked the official White House transcript to her campaign Web site with the headline, “White House Attacks Hillary’s New Ad.”

    “Apparently I’ve struck a nerve,” Clinton said in Iowa.

    Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said supporters have been rallying behind the candidate, but he said he wouldn’t give out fundraising figures in the aftermath of the dispute. He said it’s no coincidence that the White House criticism is coming as Clinton’s lead in national polls is increasing.

    “The fact that Karl Rove and the Republicans have chosen to engage this early is because they see her as the best and strongest candidate and would like to do what they can to weaken her,” Wolfson said.

    But some Clinton aides worry that his criticisms underscore concerns of Democratic activists, including her own supporters. Clinton’s unfavorability ratings are already at a historic high, and a senior Clinton adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there is some concern in the campaign that Rove’s remarks are more likely to raise those negatives.

    As she made obvious by seizing on the words, the prevailing view in the Clinton campaign is that Rove’s remarks help her with the party’s base voters who hate Bush’s senior aide. But that view is not firmly held nor unanimous, the official said.

    David Axelrod, an adviser to Clinton rival Barack Obama, compared the Clinton-Bush fighting to the movie “Groundhog Day,” when a weatherman relives the worst day of his life over and over again.

    “There may be folks who are partisans on both sides who are nostalgic and who are engaged by this,” Axelrod said. “But we are going to win this election by attracting voters both within the Democratic Party and nationally who understand we have been hobbled by partisanship in the extreme, of which Rove frankly is the master architect. We don’t need to re-enact that for another election cycle, and if we do it will portend another four years of scorched Earth politics.”

    EDITOR’S NOTE: Nedra Pickler covers the Democratic presidential primary for The Associated Press.

    Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

  21. SECRET,

    I am becoming convinced that the MEDIA is just trying to keep the race looking like an actual contest, and will prop up OBAMA in order to make it look that way. They will analyize the minutia in such a way, over and over, that it makes the PRIMARY RACE look like its up for grabs. I dont believe its up for grabs anymore. I believe that HILLARY has it solidified (not that she should get complacent, or take it for granted however).

    This is like the new era of yellow journalism, imo. How are your dogs doing?

  22. Hello Sandy,
    My dogs are great! I have big dogs and have recently got them hillary hats! People loved it! Even people who supposedly hated Hillary said – Now – they have a good association of Hillary because of the Dogs and but I didn’t push for it. I will first do a warm up. I live in a predominantly Republican area. Thanks for the idea Sandy. It was so great!!

    Yes, you are right – Media perhaps want this to be a race.
    Here I came across a nice article – Pro-Hillary for a change.
    I will post it now wait..

  23. The Hutchinson Report: Why Hillary Clinton Trumps Barack Obama — and Will Continue to Trump Him
    Date: Friday, August 17, 2007
    By: Earl Ofari Hutchinson, Special to BlackAmericaWeb.com

    The recent news that Hillary Clinton had appreciably widened the gap over her fierce arch rival Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nod wasn’t surprising. In fact, the only ones that it surprised and infuriated were those who have put a fervent, almost messianic faith in Obama as the savior of the Democratic Party, and for the even more starry eyed, the nation. That’s a terrible burden to dump on the shoulders of a novice candidate who, by his own public admission, is still at the very front of the learning curve on foreign and national domestic policy issues, gropes for an edge in the candidate debates and is still figuring out how to identify and target a solid constituency.

    Obama has, in a sense, been both a victim of and pandered to those inflated expectations. What else could you call it when he presents himself as the guy who will rattle the system by being anti-party establishment, anti-corporate domination, and a visionary on the folly of Iraq war and how best to wage the war on terrorism? Obama’s record in the Senate, his stint in the Illinois state legislature and his relentless chase of corporate dollars belie that claim.

    Clinton, in contrast, plays it close to the vest, and other than the ritual and obligatory attacks on Bush’s war, and his domestic policies, she has said and done nothing that will create blown-up illusions among voters. Progressives and ultra-liberal Democrats hate that, and they pound on her harder than Republican ultra-conservatives and the professional Hillary haters among some hyper-religious fundamentalists have. But Clinton knows what Obama is slowly discovering and that’s that elections are won not in early popularity polls, but in tough, gritty work in the state party caucuses, recruiting crack field organizers, and dedicated volunteers. Voters elect presidents that they feel will do three things: Bring stability, strength, and experience to the top spot.

    In the USA Today poll that proclaimed that Clinton gaps Obama, voters gave her top marks on experience and strength (They gave Obama short shrift on both.). That’s another way of saying that they don’t want someone in the White House that will stumble and bumble on policy issues. Bush was elected and re-elected precisely because voters got conned into thinking that they were putting a guy in and back in the White House who was tough and experienced and would not fall on his face on policy issues. They were terribly wrong. They’re not inclined to make that mistake again or at least make it knowingly.

    Hillary gave a vivid glimpse of her experience in the now defining debate in which Obama flatly said he’d meet with Hugo Chavez, and the Iranian and North Korean leaders. There was nothing inherently wrong with that, and good foreign policy is made and leadership shown as much by talking to enemies as friends. It’s just that Obama was far off in his timing in making that declaration and badly misjudged the public perception that it left. A seasoned presidential candidate or experienced public official who has had long experience in dealing with foreign policy matters and is recognized as such by the voters might have gotten away with that. But Obama is not that candidate or official. It looked and sounded like the brash and rash boast of a naive, and horribly green candidate trying to score foreign policy brownie points at the expense of his rivals. Clinton quickly spotted the faux paus and leaped all over it and quickly said she wouldn’t make that same pledge.

    Then there’s the issue of constituency strength, or more particularly, who can do the best job in identifying where their strength is and corralling it. Democratic party leaders know that the 2008 presidential race will come down to a showdown in Florida, several of the key Western states, and for the more optimistic, unhinging one or two Southern states out of the GOP orbit. Victories in these states can seal the White House for the Democrats. Democrats won none of them in 2000 and 2004. They also know that the key too snaring those states is the Latino and black vote. Hillary easily trumps Obama here. Polls show that Latinos overwhelmingly back Hillary against Obama and even take her by big margins over Bill Richardson.

    To win Florida, and a Southern state or two, will take a top heavy and inspired turnout of black voters. Clinton runs neck and neck with Obama among wide swatches of black voters. In recent polls, she handily tops him in bagging the support of the majority of black women voters.

    Obama brings a fresh face, new voice and energy to the Democratic presidential derby. That’s welcome and much needed. But the Clinton machine is a well-honed, heavy cash generating, smooth running machine. In the crush and heat of a long campaign, that’s what it takes to win votes and ultimately elections. That’s why Clinton trumps and will continue to trump Obama.

  24. Sandy,
    I liked your dairy about double standards very much. Good – let’s see if you get any response. I hope people argue rationally –

  25. SECRET,

    Thank you for your comments about the DIARY. I figured, why not give it a try? Since it was my first one, I was not overly agressive. I just wanted to see how people there would react to that question (which is something that I honestly have been wondering about for quite awhile now).

    BTW, that was a GREAT ARTICLE by HUTCHINSON that you posted. In my opinion, it managed to sum up the last few months of the HILLARY and OSHAMA campaigns, all in one succinct and cogent overview.

    I cant wait to share the pic of my PIT BULL (a gentil one, not a viscious one) wearing his HILLARYIS44 pin!! Your dogs wearing HILLARY HATS—-that sounds adorable!!!!!!

  26. Sandy, the late Sen Bill Roth (R-DE) of Roth
    IRA fame, had a St. Bernard. At election
    time, he would dress him in a “Vote for
    Bill Roth” coat and go to shopping centers,
    state fair, etc. It was very effective.

    The Hutchinson Article was the best summery
    I have read. Too bad it has had limited play.

    Wbboei, thanks for the Eisenhower follow up.
    I appreciate it.

  27. From the Sacromento BEE.

    California Field Poll

    The New York senator held a commanding lead over the Democratic field, with 49 percent support to 19 percent for Obama and 10 percent for former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards.

    Hillary leads in all demographics over the entire
    state. Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!

  28. good morning guys. guys i have a ironic point to bring up. obama and his supporters or worshippers like to sprout how much he is a uniter and likes to bridge people together across politcal lines and so forth. but he trashes hillary and top of that runs the most far left run for the white house of the serious candidates. so how in the world is he suppose to attract middle of the road independents and republicans with his far left views. kinda ironic. calling hillary bush/cheney lite and wanting to invade pakistan(something even the bush administration does not want to). contridiction in terms to the extreme. he is all over the political lot.

  29. Nevada Poll:

    Hillary Clinton ….33% 32 %
    Barack Obama ….19% 20%
    John Edwards ….15% 11%
    Bill Richardson …11% 2%
    Al Gore …………8% 11%
    Joe Biden ………2% 1%
    Mike Gravel …….1% 1%
    Dennis Kucinich …1% 1%
    Chris Dodd………1% 1%
    Undecided ……..9% 18%

  30. In the Nevada poll, check out the undecideds.
    It went for 18% to 9%. Also, the diehard,
    Gore folks are starting to drop out, albeit,
    slowly.

  31. Hello good morning everybody! 🙂

    Kegs, thanks so much for your response, I do hear you. I have a lot to learn. I was very upset with Obama yesterday. I was blowing my top a little bit.

    Watching the Obama campaign is like watching a train wreck in slow motion. It’s like watching a tragic play — a tragedy named “New Paradigm Lost.”

    In Act III, Obama the great threw the Dem Party under the bus and proclaimed himself the Uniter!

    I wonder what kind of new clothes the emperor will unveil in Act IV? Hmmm…. hee hee!

  32. Another shocking poll in Arkansas:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/state_toplines/arkansas_toplines_august_15_2007

    Arkansas:


    Clinton 55
    Giuliani 37

    Clinton 55
    Thompson 36

    Clinton 56
    McCain 33

    Clinton 60
    Romney 28

    Ms. Clinton enjoys 65% favorability in this state. For all the flowery talk of turning red states into blue ones by other candidates, Clinton is actually the one who’s doing it. An old poll also showed she’s competitive in WV.

    Rasmussen also released some matchup numbers in Michigan. Clinton looks very strong in this state as well.
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/state_toplines/michigan_toplines_august_15_2007

    Michigan:


    Clinton 49
    Giuliani 40

    Clinton 50
    Thompson 37

    Clinton 49
    McCain 36

    Clinton 49
    Romney 39

  33. Sandy,
    Yes – I thought your dairy was fairly amiable. Good start! No point in being aggressive. As you say that is indeed a genuine question. So, let’s see what kind of response you get. Oh Sandy you have a Pitbull – how adorable! I have 2 Rotties:) They both are absolute clowns!! I thought you had some small dog! Pitbull – good for you! They are lovely aren’t they? Our doggies have such bad press:(- But they really are gentle giants!

  34. Hey you all -Just to bring a news to your attention. It was from Obama campaign. I watched it from CNN videos. It was rather a passionate speech from Michelle Obama. Despite all the claps – She sounded desperate saying several times that she fears loosing this campaign to Hillary and she needs people’s support. Even I ended up feeling sorry for that woman. Anyways – that indicates that they have a sense that things aren’t going well for them. May be they have finally woken up. Huh?

    Hey do you reckon Obama will outraise Hillary this quarter too? I really hope not!!!

  35. Hello Terrondt,
    You didn’t work last night did ya? By the way I saw your comments on Hillary’s official website [discussion board about Hillar as a nurse] Good on you!!

  36. Can somebody diary those Arkansas numbers on dailykos. It’s pretty shocking even to me!

    A diary of this and other polls are put up on mydd.

  37. thanks secret, yeah i worked but i’ve been up all morning helping my wife clean out the living room. the landlord is helping us paint it saturday. i have tonite off so i will be on from time to time.

  38. Kostner,
    Pardon my ignorance but wasn’t Arkansas always democratic? Isn’t it a blue state? I must be wrong – Red state huh?

  39. i try to touch bases with the hillaryclinton.com official blog. it is not as free flowing and as lively as here but it is still good. they take a little lonf to post the cooments because of the screening proccess, you know abusive behavior.

  40. Terrondt,
    Of course they have to screen it – imagine how embarassing if some Obama supporter or right-wing moron wrote some comments and it was flashed on all the TV channels? Disgraceful. Yes, the downside to that is – not as lively. But this site is so great. I have become so addicted to coming here.

  41. secret, arkansas was a red state until favorite son bill clinton came along. returned back to red in 2000 and 2004. but it is not as red as other southern states though. hillary should win the state.

  42. Terrondt,
    Good – so, Hillary will win back Arkansas. But as Kostner says – the poll numbers are surprisingly high for Hillary there isn’t it?

  43. Sandy, Love your diary very much! There are a lot of very nice responses already. Keep up the good work! 🙂

    Wow! Those are truly amazing numbers from Arkansas and Nevada!

  44. secret, the wife is going to pick the color with our landlord. whatever she picks i will be ok with it. if i don’t mind hillary being president i worlds don’t mind my wife running things.LOL!!!!

  45. Chuck Todd on MSNBC finally admitted this
    morning the public is very engaged in this
    election. A critique in the DesMoines
    Register of Fred Thompson delaying entry
    in the Republican race is much like Mario
    Cuomo delayed entry in the presidential
    race years ago.

    He is the first tv pundit to acknowledge
    the polls matter. If the numbers harden
    as they are, candidates will not have much
    room to pick up additional support.

  46. wow I am thrilled with my smiley:-)
    Terrondt, Of course – you are a very nice guy to let your wife run things are home. But Hillary’s policy is that “Man should run the house and woman should run the country” Great yea?

  47. Good move terry, what ever the wife chooses.
    I love it. My father had a paint store for
    many years. I heard that statement so
    many times. When it comes to my on house,
    I have learned the refrain, yes dear.

  48. Oops I lost it – it won’t give me a smiley anymore!!!!
    I am going to bed – up all night! Bye Hill fans!!

  49. great is is secret. we have to yield no ground, spread the word, fight off the nutrooters , and the haters. it’s going to be a long fight but we have to keep the hillary hardcore supporters with us and sway the leaners. we keep the hard core support and expand on that we will win next feb and then in nov. 2008. GO HILLARY GO!!!!!

  50. nite nite secret. i should get some zzz myself. the wife headed out with her girlfriend. the kitty cats are bothering me now!!!

  51. But – nice to catch up like this – once in a while among Hill fans don’t u think? usually Hill fans are supposed to be dormant and secretive! God knows why! She has lots of fans that don’t make a lot of noise. But comes election – they promptly go and cast their votes for our Lady!

  52. secret, im hoping when moderate, independent,republicans, and dems go vote, a lot a woman may say not hillaryin the open but secretly vote for her. a hidden votes from their spouses? that’s been known to happen.

  53. sandy,

    I saw your diary, a nice start, i recommend yours. Please recommend every pro-Hillary diary there.

    The recommended list is notoriously occupied by all sorts of nasty smear piece on Hillary these days.

  54. Secret, I read that AP story you posted and it didn’t make sense to me, especially this part:

    “But some Clinton aides worry that his criticisms underscore concerns of Democratic activists, including her own supporters. Clinton’s unfavorability ratings are already at a historic high, and a senior Clinton adviser, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there is some concern in the campaign that Rove’s remarks are more likely to raise those negatives.”

    Even a poster on talkingpointsmemo.com didn’t buy it. He made the point that there’s no reason to fear anything said by someone associated with a historically unpopular administration, especially Rove. I think the anonymous remark is designed to lure the Repubs into attacking her more. Remember, HRC’s campaign doesn’t leak at all, so for someone to make that comment has to fit into some overarching strategy. I mean, why would you telegraph to the Repubs that you’re worried about something, because that only invites more of the same from them.

  55. Paula,
    You are cent percent right. There cannot possibly be any leak from Hill team. This is why I asked the question before posting – why is AP doing this hitjob for Obama. There is absolutely no reason or substance to this story so why run it?

    Their seem to suggest that Karl Rove pointed Hillary having negative and “Rove’s observation” will further raise her negatives. How silly of an argument is that. Who buys it? No one.

    My intention of posting that story is for everyone here to see AP is constantly doing this anti-hillary stories that are favourable to Obama.

    Sad case really!!!

  56. Secret- thanks for posting the Hutchinson Report on why Hillary trumps Obama-and will continue to. Sound, incisive analysis.

  57. TERRY,

    I posted it on MYDD. I still have not figured out how to write one for DAILYKOS.

    KOSTNER:

    Thank you!! And I will recommend the HILLARY articles. How do you do that? I am new to this whole thing!

    SECRET:

    Yes “TINY” is the name of my English Pitbull, lol.

    HG:

    Thank you!! I appreciate it.

  58. Secret, I agree. I just don’t understand the argument that Rove’s attacks would raise her negatives. Among who? This administration is disliked by almost two-thirds of the country, so who the hell even listens to Rove except wingnuts and some desperate Obama supporters who suddenly decide that bullshitter is now an oracle.

    I don’t know if the AP is anti-HRC, exactly, but they need something to write about, I suppose, so “electability” is all they can fall back on.

  59. sandy, good first diary. and you were not attacked like crazy like some of the other pro-hillary bloggers. surprizing. anyway these nutrooters are allways giving edwards a pass”at least he apoligized for his vote on the iraq war” total bs. even if she voted against it they would still vote against her. thes guys are naderites all the way threw.

  60. Put the AP story aside. The Rove logic is
    if you attack the some person constantly
    you can raise their unfavorables. This
    is only true if the opponent is a mirror
    image of the person doing the attacking.
    The examples being white men, Gore and
    Kerry v. Bush. The public views them as
    essentially the same.

    When it comes to Hillary, or for that matter,
    BO, the differences are more dramatic so
    it becomes more difficult for the opposition
    to label them.

    As to Hillary’s unfavorable, they are coming
    down. They were over 50, now in the
    average poll of mid 40’s. I saw somewhere,
    this week, they had dropped to 39% in one
    poll. The point is Hillary is breaking the
    sterotype view of her. Her electabilities are
    rising faster than any candidate of either
    party. The internals of these poll are becoming
    very clear. Its not the money but the message.
    She struck an “invisible” tag on Bush as much
    as the Republicans used on us, “silent majority.”

    The writer of the AP story lags in the polling
    data department.

  61. guys, maybe im a little premature it being 6 months out but im getting nervous about iowa. everytime it seems hillary catched up and pass edwards another poll has her falling behind? maybe im too poll driven. it is like a drug, im hooked on em. all the other polls after iowa look great.

  62. Terry, Iowa is a three way race. Edwards
    has to win, so does BO. Hillary only needs
    be in a tight 1 or 2 point second to be
    successful. Remember, Iowa has three
    distinct areas. The east bordering on Ill
    which favors BO, the rural which leans towards
    Edwards, and only one statewide candidate
    and that is Hillary. The source is the Iowa
    University poll last week.

    Consider, Edwards has been in Iowa since 03
    leading up to the 04 election. His non stop
    presence in Iowa just has not gain sustainable
    traction. For all his efforts, he should have a
    double digit lead.

    Terry, wait until the next round of polling to
    see if the “invisible” tv spot has made any
    impact for Hillary. I suggest it will add
    5 points. Its the suttle message that hits
    home.

  63. If I’m not mistaken, Hillary first used the
    “invisible” tag in speeches in New Hampshire.
    It was so well received in the press that
    it is becoming a standard part of her stump
    speech.

  64. Do you know which fellow is ‘HillaryGuy’ on dailykos? I remember it’s somebody from Hillary44! Great diary and great traffic.

    terrondt,
    I actually want Hillary to finish a strong 2nd place in Iowa instead of 1st. Let’s face it, Edwards is going nowhere besides Iowa. Obama is still the major threat due to his enormous money garnered from bundlers. The real danger is for Obama to gain any momentum in Iowa. That’s why we need Edwards in the mix.

    I can give you two scenarios. 1. Hillary 2/3 Edwards 3/2 Obama. If Hillary wins Iowa, Edwards will immediately be finished off and probably drops out. Who kows what’s going to happen to his supporters? That’s very unpredicable. They might flock to Obama and those GOP-leaning independents in NH may also help Obama to derail Clinton in NH since they feel she is the major threat in general election. Remember McCain in 2000? So this scenario is pretty scary.

    Consider the opposite scenario: 1. Edwards, 2. Hillary, 3. Obama. Edwards will likely get a bit bounce, and he may finish ahead of Obama in NH, but he has no chance in overtaking Hillary in NH. This will almost guarantee a Hillary win in NH and if Obama comes in third place, that’s pretty much the end of his campaign.

    So I really want Edwards to finish first in Iowa, Clinton to finish a close second, and Obama finishes a distant third or even fourth!

  65. sandy, terrondt and whoever has an account on mydd,

    please recommend two pro-hillary poll dairies already on the rec list. We need to beef up our support there, and let more people see how strong Hillary is crushing all GOPers.

    Go Hillary!

  66. thanks terrondt,

    We need to keep pushing all pro-Hillary diaries on myDD. I am so sick and tired of seeing all those nasty smear pieces of Hillary on rec list!

    Thanks again, and we are making progress!

  67. Kostner, your Iowa #2 is my preferred scenario.
    But we will know in the next round of polls.
    If the 2 weeks of tv spots give her a major
    bump and she does well in Sundays debate
    then all bets are off.

  68. Terrondt, thanks for the shout out! 🙂

    KOSTNER,

    How do I recommend something on MY DD? Remember, I am new to that site (other than just reading it)

  69. BO and JE have to resort to desperate ploys. I think that they talk more about Hillary than themselves and their campaign during stumps. Hillary is the only person that is running a clean campaign. You don’t hear her talking about other democratic candidates in her rallies, policy speeches, or fundraisers. It’s all positive (aside from Bush bashing). Isn’t Obama supposed to be uniting, but calling candidates in the same party Bush-Cheney Lite and saying that they aren’t capable of uniting reaks of hypocracy. Hillary is the only one that is uniting and I don’t think anybody has mentioned this.

  70. terrondt, That Iowa poll you’re referring to is actually two weeks old. I think Iowa is very fluid right now, and HRC is quite competitive there.

  71. jr, bo and je are now realizing they are not catching hillary, so negative attacks will intensify to a fever pitch now. so much of barack’s “a new kind of politics” sounds like same old, same old desperate politics.

  72. sandy, to reccomend u have to click on the comments link below the diary and then to your left hit the recommend link

  73. Terrry, TY!!

    I am going to go in and recommend GeorgeP’s diary. Also if you know of any others in here that have posted diarys let me know and I will also recommend those too!

  74. How about ‘Invisible Majority?’ The whole ‘polarizing’ thing just means HRC pushes the Radical Right and Radical Left even farther to the fringes. Of course, the more they get squeezed out, the louder they scream.

    I will never in my life vote for Obama. He has permanently damaged his brand with his insulting bullshit, attacks and flip-flops. I didn’t support Dean in 2004 because he didn’t have the foreign policy experience, but nothing he did made me rule him out forever. I hope Dean is President someday, say in 2016 after 8 years of HRC. But Obama – never!

Comments are closed.