Intellectual Left Abandons Obama

Working class Americans were never fooled by Barack Obama. Over 50-years-old voters were never fooled by Barack Obama.

American “Intellectuals” were bamboozled by Obama. Young voters, targeted by an Obama charm offensive, for a while were bamboozled by Obama.

No longer. Young people are turning more and more to Hillary. The intellectuals too are abandoning Obama.

Tom Hayden, cited by Obama as a polar extreme in the Democratic spectrum, recently wrote AN APPEAL TO BARACK OBAMA. Hayden rejects Obama’s central rationale for his candidacy: Obama as “page turner”. Hayden further rejects the “page turning” itself.

Your problem, if I may say so out loud, and with all respect, is that the deepest rationale for your running for president is the one that you dare not mention very much, which is that you are an African-American with the possibility of becoming president. The quiet implication of your centrism is that all races can live beyond the present divisions, in the higher reality above the dualities. You may be right. You see the problems Hillary Clinton encounters every time she implies that she wants to shatter all those glass ceilings and empower a woman, a product of the feminist movement, to be president? Same problem. So here’s my question: how can you say let’s “turn the page” and leave all those Sixties’ quarrels behind us if we dare not talk freely in public places about a black man or a woman being president? Doesn’t that reveal that on some very deep level that we are not yet ready to “turn the page”? [snip]

What I cannot understand is your apparent attempt to sever, or at least distance yourself, from the Sixties generation, though we remain your single greatest supporting constituency. I can understand, I suppose, your need to define yourself as a American rather than a black American, as if some people need to be reassured over and over. I don’t know if those people will vote for you.

You were ten years old when the Sixties ended, so it is the formative story of your childhood. The polarizations that you want to transcend today began with life-and-death issues that were imposed on us. No one chose to be “extreme” or “militant” as a lifestyle preference. It was an extreme situation that produced us. On one side were armed segregationists, on the other peaceful black youth. On one side were the destroyers of Vietnam, on the other were those who refused to submit to orders. On the one side were those keeping women in inferior roles, on the other were those demanding an equal rights amendment. On one side were those injecting chemical poisons into our rivers, soils, air and blood streams, on the other were the defenders of the natural world. On one side were the perpetrators of big money politics, on the other were keepers of the plain democratic tradition. Does anyone believe those conflicts are behind us? [snip]

You recognize this primal truth when you stand on the bridge in Selma, Alabama, basking in the glory of those who were there when you were three years old. But you can’t have it both ways, revering the Selma march while trying to “turn the page” on the past.

This brings me back to why you want to stand in the presumed center against the “Tom Hayden Democrats.” Are you are equally distant from the “George McGovern Democrats.”, and the “Jesse Jackson Democrats”? How about the “Martin Luther King Democrats”, the “Cesar Chavez Democrats”, the “Gloria Steinem Democrats”? Where does it end?

What about the “Bobby Kennedy Democrats”? [snip]

Will you live up to the standard set by Bobby Kennedy in 1968? He who sat with Cesar Chavez at the breaking of the fast, he who enlisted civil rights and women activists in his crusade, who questioned the Gross National Product as immoral, who dialogued with people like myself about ending the war and poverty? Yes, Bobby appealed to cops and priests and Richard Daley too, but in 1968 he never distanced himself from the dispossessed, the farmworkers, the folksingers, the war resisters, nor the poets of the powerless. He walked among us.

Hayden sees what we have written about – Obama utilizes leaders who fought, like Dr. King, then turns around and asserts we need to embrace Ripublicans, not fight for Democratic values.

Earlier this year, Real Clear Politics wrote Obama Outsmarts Himself. The article spoke to the earlier “Obamas” Americans have rejected and why:

Ironically, Obama’s “new” intellectual and reasoned candidacy is part of a long modern-Democratic tradition. And that is both its strength and much of its weakness.

Obama has been fond of subtly comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln — announcing his candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, for instance, and equating his relative inexperience with that of Lincoln. Alas, at least politically, the better comparison is to another son of Illinois, Adlai Stevenson, who had a similar scholarly approach and promised an end to politics as usual. “Let’s talk sense to the American people,” he said in his 1952 Democratic acceptance speech, which could have been delivered by Obama today. “Let’s tell them the truth, that there are no gains without pains.”

The tack has been repeated several times since. Eugene McCarthy, who nominated Stevenson for president in 1960, picked up the torch in ’68, igniting the idealistic, the young, and the intellectuals within the party. McCarthy was then followed by George McGovern in 1972, Jerry Brown in 1976 (who, running at age 38, makes Obama, 46, look like a senior citizen), Gary Hart (McGovern’s old campaign manager) in 1984, Paul Tsongas in 1992, and Bill Bradley in 2000.

The good news for Obama is that all of these Democrats appealed strongly to Independents and young voters. Most were embraced by the press for their attempts to uplift the dialogue; many were even noted for their attempts to write or quote poetry. (The poems of Obama’s youth have surfaced; McCarthy traveled with Robert Lowell, and a book of Brown’s Zen-like proverbs — “Why is the governor like a shoemaker?” — surfaced during his campaign.) Plus, most did better than expected in the New Hampshire primary, a state where more than half the electorate in the Democratic primary now has a college degree. (Oregon used to be a good locale for this brand of candidate, as well.)

But the bad news is that only two such candidates won the nomination, and both were beaten decisively in the general election. Being the favorite of the egghead or wine-and-Brie set (two negative characterizations of this constituency through the years) doesn’t win you enough voters, you see. Thus the famous story about Stevenson being approached by a voter who told him that he had the support of every thinking American.

“Thank you,” he supposedly replied. “But I need a majority to win.”

The same kind of comment echoed in 1968 from Bobby Kennedy, who wryly noted that he had the support of all the “C” students, while McCarthy had the “A” students. [snip]

Already, one can see impending pitfalls of Obama’s thinking-man’s effort. His speaking style, especially in debates, is professorial. Much of his fundraising base is said to be built around his contacts at his alma mater, Harvard Law School. Obama even had his former professor, Larry Tribe, praise him in his first ad.

That’s symptomatic of a larger concern yet to be addressed: all the candidates in the Stevenson tradition have, generally speaking, ranked poorly in the black community and among the less wealthy voters in the Democratic Party. Kennedy swept the black vote against McCarthy. Ditto for Jimmy Carter against Brown, Walter Mondale against Hart, and Bill Clinton against Tsongas.

There was talk in 2000 that Bradley might be different, since he’s more recognizable in the black community, having played for a New York Knicks championship team. But Bradley chose to run as a kind of tweedy Princeton don rather than a former All-American; as a result, he was narrowly beaten by Al Gore in New Hampshire — a state Bradley had to carry, given his profile. The rest of the campaign was a foregone conclusion.

Thus, if Obama doesn’t change his campaign approach to focus more on the concerns of lower-income voters, history has shown us he, too, may soon run out of luck.

Sean Wilentz, the Princeton University professor, strong Democrat, and Pulitzer Prize winning author of “The Rise of American Democracy: Jefferson to Lincoln” (2005) and author of “The Worst President in History?,” about George W. Bush, endorsed Hillary Clinton this past week. Professor Wilentz places this election and Hillary in historical context.

Professor Wilentz turns Obama’s argument about “turning the page” into an argument for Hillary. Obama’s “Kennedy” argument is likewise rejected.

Why Hillary?

I think Hillary is important because the election really is the culmination of what’s been a 40 year struggle for the Democrats to rediscover who they are. A 40-year struggle against what we’ll call Nixon-slash-Reaganism. And, simply put, she’s in the best position to be a president. Which is to say, she understands how American politics works. She understands the trajectory of American political history for the last 40 years because she’s lived it in a way that the others haven’t, really. She’s seen it at all levels, from Arkansas to Capitol Hill. The country needs someone who can take us beyond this struggle–this long, long fight we’ve been having

You seem to be saying that only Hillary can take us beyond Baby Boomer politics because only she’s lived through it. But Obama’s argument is that he represents a post-Baby Boomer politics, and that he’s not bogged down, like Hillary, in those old conflicts.

I think the whole idea of Baby Boomer politics is the problem. That concept. I’m very disappointed in that. There’s no such thing. You cannot enter this moment and make a new departure unless you understand what you’re departing from. And that’s what she understands. She’s not proposing some sort of vaporous, virtuous new thing that she’s going to conjure out of thin air. American political life doesn’t work that way. She’s not going to go “presto, change-o, everything’s different.” We all know that’s fantasy.

So you don’t find Obama’s meta-arguments against “politics as usual” particularly convincing?

You cannot have a president who doesn’t like politics. You will not get anything done. Period. I happen to love American politics. I think American politics is wonderful. I can understand why people don’t. But one of the problems in America is that politics has been so soured, people try to be above it all. It’s like Adlai Stevenson. In some ways, Barack reminds me of Stevenson.


There’s always a Stevenson candidate. Bradley was one of them. Tsongas was one of them. They’re the people who are kind of ambivalent about power. “Should I be in this or not… well, yes, because I’m going to represent something new.” It’s beautiful loserdom. The fact is, you can’t govern without politics. That’s what democracy is. Democracy isn’t some utopian proposition by which the people suddenly rule. We’re too complicated a country for that. We have too many interests here. You need someone who can govern, who can build the coalition and move the country forward. You hit on something that’s really my pet peeve about the others. Edwards the same way, except he doesn’t condemn the politics of the ’60s, rather he talks about the special interests… [snip]

So it’s a pragmatic argument? That she can get things done politically?

That’s true, but it’s beyond that. Pragmatism is an approach to power. It’s not a philosophy. It’s not just going for half a loaf or knowing when to compromise, although all that is important. Rather, it’s an understanding of the provisional nature of all of our deeds–an understanding that the politics of hope, taken too far, can turn into the politics of dogma. Just as the politics of memory can turn into the politics of fear. Hillary actually reminds me more of what John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy were up to–more than anybody I’ve seen since. More than her husband.

But people always tie Obama to the Kennedys.

God knows why. His philosophy is much more like Eugene McCarthy and Adlai Stevenson. He’s that kind of politician, in a post-Baby Boomer sense. If the argument we’re having today in the party is like the one we had in ’68 between the Kennedyites and the McCarthyites, she’s Bobby Kennedy. She’s not Eugene McCarthy. She’s not the beautiful-loser idealist, or the person who’s ambivalent about politics. She loves politics. Just as Bobby Kennedy loved politics. Bobby Kennedy could deal with Cesar Chavez and Mayor Daley. That’s what you need in America.

What people found so attractive about Bobby Kennedy when he ran for president, though, was that despite his toughness he also gave off a sense of vulnerability. Hillary doesn’t seem able to convey that vulnerability, or warmth, or humanness.

Talk to women out in the Midwest who’ve had a wandering husband. It’s not just any woman politician, because they wouldn’t have voted for Liddy Dole. It’s Hillary. It’s what she’s been through. She’s lived a life. But really it’s less to do with people identifying with her than people thinking she’ll get the job done. That’s basically what people want out of politics. We’re not a very ideological country. We’re not terribly into virtue for virtue’s sake. People really just want government to do what it’s supposed to do.

Wilentz on Ripublican Talking Points:

But Hillary excites so much antagonism on the right. If she were elected, wouldn’t it just be four years or eight years of the same old shouting?

You know who makes that argument more than anybody else? Republicans. This is a favorite Republican argument. They say, “We want to run against Hillary. She’s the polarizing candidate and we’re going to take advantage of that. She’s going to rile up our base, et cetera, et cetera.” Whenever Republicans tell us who they want us to nominate, we should nominate her. They’re scared of her. Who else is going to build a coalition?

Edwards would argue that he has rural, red-state appeal. Obama would argue that he attracts independents and black voters.

Look at the state of New York. You have to be able to appeal to lots of different kinds of people. It cuts across racial lines, it cuts across ethnic lines, it cuts across rural and urban lines. She carried every county but two. What that tells me is that all the things that the sophisticates like you and me don’t like about her–her coldness, her dowdiness, all these thing about her that seem uncharismatic, as opposed to the dashing Obama or Edwards–that’s all stuff people like. We don’t get it. They get it. They’re the people who are going to be voting. I’ve seen this disconnect before. In 1998, the chattering classes thought Clinton was toast, but the country was for him.

What do you think of Obama’s and Edwards’ attacks on the Clinton years, things like NAFTA?

There’s a misreading of the Clinton years. This is so weird. You’ve got a popular president, so you’re going to attack him? This is not a good idea. This sort of sounds like desperation. But they’re appealing to an old left-wing part of the party conceit, which is the idea that Clintonism is the equivalent of what they call triangulation. As if triangulation is a political philosophy. Triangulation was a tactic in the aftermath of 1994, after he screwed up big-time in his first term–he was not ready for primetime, in my view. He had his back against the wall. He was reduced pathetically to saying, “The President is still relevant.” He had himself to blame for that, in part. But he was smart enough to deal with political reality. He had to establish a position that was not only independent of the Republican party, but independent of the left-wing of the Democratic party, which wasn’t taking us anywhere–except to doom. Now, I love the left of the party. We need the left of the party. But it can be very frustrating if you’re looking for political success. That’s the problem with being allergic to politics.

Paul Krugman, as we noted yesterday, called Obama a “sucker” and a “fool”.

He is, however, someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times — and in this case, that turned him into a sucker.

Mr. Obama wanted a way to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton — and for Mr. Obama, who has said that the reason “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions” is that “politics has become so bitter and partisan,” joining in the attack on Senator Clinton’s Social Security position must have seemed like a golden opportunity to sound forceful yet bipartisan.

But Social Security isn’t a big problem that demands a solution; it’s a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing America, that has nonetheless become an obsession of Beltway insiders. And on Social Security, as on many other issues, what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want.

We all wish that American politics weren’t so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today — you end up being played for a fool. And that’s what has just happened to Mr. Obama.

Obama is a fool. Only now are American Intellectuals understanding what working Americans knew long ago.


75 thoughts on “Intellectual Left Abandons Obama

  1. right on admin. i have been voting for president since 1988 and seen this dance all before. i have to admit i have supported every WINNING nominee for the primaries early on. my early picks are: dukakis in 1988(huge mistake), clinton 1992, gore 2000, and kerry in 2004. i pick early in open nominations. i always thought jerry brown in 1992 represented the loopy left not tsongas. so my track record on picking whomever won the nomination is perfect. also in 1984 i was 14 but favored mondale. 1984 was the 1st year i really started following presidential elections.

  2. also admin, bloomberg has been making some noise latley. i guess he is going to be next year’s ross perot. for me i have no fears of him running. more chances of a huge electoral college victory in 2008 for hillary.

  3. Terrondt, Your support of Hillary should reassure us all. You pick winners.

    As to Bloomberg. We were worried about his candidacy last year. No more. Hillary has solidified her support and team and Bloomberg will not be able to overcome this.

  4. i remember 2000 having this strong dislike of bradly supporters, then dean in 2004 and now obama. these supporters seem to be so blinded about this so called inspiring candidate and think they are going to save the world from utter chaos. they seem to look down on low-income, blue collar workers, minorities,single women,ect… on mydd they call us unimformed voters. f*ck em, i have been following this for 24 years and im very imformed.

  5. by the way, i will NEVER support obama for the nomination should he run again in 8 years. i hope hillary’s vp in 2016 wins. let him rot in the senate.

  6. I agree. I keep trying to post this link with spaces but it still doesn’t work. Terron, someone posted a diary that goes to the heart of what you are saying on daily kos. The titel is “The Brief Autumn of Hillary’s Discontent”. You should read it. Obama is the candidate of the wine and cheese crowd.

  7. Really good analysis putting things into an organized perspective. I have two observations.

    1. “Already, one can see impending pitfalls of Obama’s thinking-man’s effort. His speaking style, especially in debates, is professorial. Much of his fundraising base is said to be built around his contacts at his alma mater, Harvard Law School. Obama even had his former professor, Larry Tribe, praise him in his first ad.”

    Well, then, all you have to do is think of Obama as Larry Tribe’s protege. Because that is precisely what he is. Who can forget 2000, Larry Tribe arguing in front of the SCOTUS on Gore’s behalf.?

    My screen isn’t moving forward or up to post any thing else..

  8. Actually, admin, the piece I tell terron about fits in with what you have here as well. This guy is an incredibly good writer. You should check it out.

  9. Bill Clinton’s speeches and State of the Union addresses were always derided by Big Media and elite types. Most Americans though gave those same speeches high grades. Americans understood that the Clintons were addressing “kitchen table” issues.

    Big Blogs and that type think they are smarter than the Clintons and have barely hidden contempt for every day issues like the price of milk and good schools. Wilentz is a rational lefty. Wilentz appreciates the connection between “kitchen table” issues and political theory.

    The “left” and Big Blogs who display contempt for “kitchen table” issues betray their own stupidity. They “say” they love the working class but at the same time deride them as “low information” voters. The working class and African-Americans are very wise and know that actions speak louder than words. Hillary’s 35 years of actions speak much louder than Obama’s flowery speeches.

  10. This 2X4 space seems to be all I’m alloted to post in for some reason..So, I’ll have to post in pieces and hopefully I can still get my message across.

    2. Is this: “What that tells me is that all the things that the sophisticates like you and me “don’t like about her–her coldness, her dowdiness, all these thing about her that seem uncharismatic,” as opposed to the dashing Obama or Edwards–that’s all stuff people like. We don’t get it. They get it. They’re the people who are going to be voting. I’ve seen this disconnect before. In 1998, the chattering classes thought Clinton was toast, but the country was for him.”

    I believe Hillary has had to develop a protective shell to defend against exploitation. I’m sure she had had friends betray her confidences and been ver hurt by it..Ooops…out of room.. (next)

  11. hillfans, at work i listen to hannity becuase my right wing supervisor. hannity is very worried hillary will be the next president. the right should be careful what they wish for.

  12. (cont.)

    When Hillary is elected and I sincerely feel she will be. I think she can let her guard down and be more of herself than ever before. However, I feel she needs a strong VP presence. Someone that can standup to the RW and not take any crap from those global destroyers. Whatsmore, her VP choice needs to be someone not only of strength but well respected by the country.

    Biden seems to be coming along fast in that direction..He wouldn’t think twice about telling the media or the Republicans to go shit in a hat if they didn’t like Hillary’s policies or started bitching and moaning about some petty issue..

    Out of room again folks..

  13. So, until I firgure out why I’m not able to post in unlimited space, I’ll have to do it in 2X4 sections if you can bear with me until I can post freely.

    Have a great weekend..

    Mrs. S.

  14. mj, the diary you reference is good at discussing the contempt for politics by people who are “in” politics.

    Politics is a clash of meaningful ideas. Obama wants to bamboozle us into thinking the differences are one of personality. They are not. The clash of ideas translates eventually into budgetary processes. A society that praises teachers but pays them little in fact cares little about teachers and education. A politician that says he wants to be a “uniter” but spends most of his time writing anonymous attack memos and dividing gays from blacks, young from seniors is not a “uniter”. Obama and Bush say they want to be “uniters” but what they do is divide.

    The reason why Hillary was so effective in the last debate can be summarized by her saying that Americans know what she has been fighting for these past 35 years. Obama and Edwards and Ripublicans trying to paint Hillary as anything but a committed fighter for what she believes in does not resonate. Americans do know Hillary. Yes, Americans had an ugly impression of Hillary painted by Ripublicans but as Americans get to hear directly from her they get to know the Hillary we know.

    As Americans get to know Obama all they see are flowery words contradicted by Obama’s actions. Ditto Edwards.

  15. edwards sold himself to the loopy leftwing fringe to get the nomination. he is dean of 2008, except more goodlooking pretty boy.

  16. He is definitely a fool to say some nurses, cops, fire-fighters, teachers in high-cost urban areas earning $97,000 are upper-class; and that only 6% of Americans earn over this amount…… i believe that his numbers are way off here….

    And now he got sucked into that Repug Novak meme game..


    This man would be twisted to do so many things by the repugs and neocons if he were to get into the W.H.

    But I trust Terrondt judgement so this won’t happen!

  17. mj:

    To some extent it reinforces the existing narrative about both. For Hillary, it is that she is willing to do anything for power, and for Obama that he is too inexperienced to recognize a right wing attack from a left wing one.

    If both Obama and Clinton came forward and attacked Novak and republicans, that would have been the best. Instead, Obama chose to attack Hillary. That pig (Novak) must be laughing his ass out on how he suckered Obama into attacking Clinton.

  18. Still, if you keep repeating the same mantra again and again, it subconciously creates an impression among many people who don’t follow politics that much, but follow news headlines.

  19. I read over in some comments on HuffPo that the “scandal” is that Barry was a pot dealer during law school!

    Sex would have been much more lurid.

  20. LA Dem..

    Could be Obama’s friend Ray decided it was time to come clean on Obama’s moonlighting business..

    Mrs. S.

  21. Still, disagree. The rumor is she knows something, but refuses to use it. That doesn’t paint the illusion you describe.

  22. Los Angeles Democrat:

    Whatever it is, Hillary camp would never circulate it to fellow democrats. Remember, Obama is also a democrat. So it is easy for him to know that from a few democrats if she or her campaign had told them. Also, of all the people, how is that Bob Novak is the only person to know it. The rightwing noise machine played Obama for a sucker to go and do a character attack on Hillary.

  23. ra1029…

    I never said that Senator Clinton’s camp was circulating the Obama scandal rumors. So back off.

  24. It might be time for angry Dems to back away from the word ‘corporate’ as inherently evil and for Edwards to back down from his much-loved assertion that we must not negotiate with big business, but crush them.

    A. We don’t have the means or backing to crush them.

    B. Now, when some interests are converging, is not the time to go it alone. 50% + 1 will not solve the big issues (and we might not get to 50)

    C. Big Business AND Small Business AND consumers wnt to solve the health care crisis.
    Surely Bush has taught us that only listening to the core of the base will get us a solution that will not pass — or work.

    Hillary listens to all, AND is bright enough to craft the best solutions to the war, energy, environment, trade, health care and the economy. You need people to say, “That’s fine, but here’s a problem you didn’t address.” If everyone believes that they are 100% right, you’ll get Cheney and Rumsfeld all over again. “Let us not fear to negotiate” — in Iran and with conservatives et al.

    Isn’t it ironic that Republican call Hillary a socialist, (because communist is no longer PC) hyper-liberal, part of the loony left while Democrats call her a corporate shill, Bush/Cheney lite, a Republican.?

    I call her bright, dedicated to the causes I feel strongly about, and the most likely to get some important things done. If we don’t, we will go down out-shouting each other as the seas rise and the middle class disappears.

  25. Los Angeles Democrat:

    Take it easy. What I am saying is that for all you know there is no scandal. It could be something that is madeup by Bob Novak.

  26. Fact Hub answers to all the Obama distractions today. Obama wants to change the conversation from being booed. Post-traumatic stress syndrome:

    Today, Sen. Barack Obama echoed Republican talking points by repeating a totally false claim by Republican Bob Novak about the tactics of the Clinton campaign.

    It might be a good time for Sen. Obama to take a look at the tactics of his own campaign.

    The Obama campaign pedaled an opposition research document, titled Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-Punjab), attacking Hillary for her ties to the Indian-American community:

    Senator Barack Obama disavowed the document his campaign aimed at Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton last week, saying today that it was “stupid and caustic.” The headline of one of the documents, which referred to Mrs. Clinton as ‘D-Punjab,’ touched off a furor among Indian-American groups that called on Mr. Obama to apologize for the remarks. [New York Times, 6/18/07]

    The Obama campaign made a false attack on Bill Clinton:

    More Obama oppo is online today, including a detailed document on Bill Clinton and Ron Burkle (.pdf) and a story, which turned out to be false, about Bill Clinton giving a paid speech on 9/11/06. [The Politico, 6/15/07]

    The Obama campaign took credit for placing stories attacking Hillary regarding Norman Hsu:

    In August, Obama’s team scored a significant hit by helping to place a story in several newspapers revealing that Norman Hsu, a major Clinton donor, had skipped town after having pleaded no contest to a charge of grand theft 15 years earlier and still faced an outstanding warrant… (Hsu had also contributed to Obama.) [Atlantic Monthly, 12/2007]

    The Obama campaign was ‘digging for damaging facts’ at the Clinton library:

    How far is the money being spread? The Obama campaign spent $27 at the Arkansas state archives and $9.30 at the Clinton library, digging for damaging facts on Clinton. Asked what Team Obama found, spokeswoman Jen Psaki conceded, “Not much.” [New York Daily News, 10/17/07]

    The Obama campaign’s communications director compiled a list of opposition research stories on Hillary that he was pitching to reporters:

    I couldn’t help but notice some of what he had scrawled on a whiteboard hanging on his wall:

    HC Bio > NY Post
    HC Travel (AP?)
    Tax Returns (Balz?)
    Darfur investments (HF)
    JE 527

    HC is, of course, Hillary Clinton…These were obviously notes about stories the campaign was pushing or anticipating…

  27. I love that ad. She should hit back at these guys. Their campaigns are based on character assassination, and I for one am tired of it. It’s so demoralizing which is exactly it’s intended purpose. I’ve seen this before. they are trying to depress women’s support. They have probably given up on winning them over, they just don’t want women who Hillary has brought into the process to come out on primary night.

  28. Admin, These are great commentaries, and I love the ad. I liked that Tom Hayden piece when I read it a few days ago. He gets to the heart of the problems with Obama’s stance on what he regards as the tired ole fights of the 60’s. What he seems to be oblivious to is that these were universal fights for human rights–they had specific names in different contexts–civil rights, womens rights–workers rights–gay rights, but, in the end, it’s basic rights and equality that we were fightin’ for then and those issues haven’t just “gone away” because its four decades later. We still have much to do. I think the complexities of social change aren’t appreciated by people who thing we can just leave those battles behind and come together as a united front. These fights weren’t a bunch of teenagers arguin about what to watch on tv. They were and are fundamental fights for human rights. to me, all this shows that it’s just an intellectual exercise for Obama to consider what happened in the past — he seems to have no real appreciation for people who have been in the trenches. If the fights were over, there would be no need to worry about the Christian right and the neonazi’s and the KKK. If the fights were over there would be no need for NOW and NARAL and Planned Parenthood. It’s this basic lack of understanding of the American experience that baffles me about Obama. The strength of our country comes not because we are all unified, it comes from the fact that many of us have grown stronger and smarter from learning from the diversity that’s found in our society. Hillary had many wonderful moments in the debate the other night but she really did shine when she talked about working for 35 years–work that brought about some important changes, changes of a magnitude to support members of minority groups running for President. Of all of the so called intellectual candidates that have run over the decades of my life, Obama is most definately the weakest, the most detached from any real cause other than gettin’ himself elected. mollyj

  29. morning guys, woke up to see what is up. this novak thing is much a do about nothing. how can you refute a rumor by calling hillary on it. obama has no credibility on the issue when his own staff push sleeze and rumor on hillary.

  30. I’ve been thinking the same thing as this article:

    Why Are They Debating Republican Issues?
    Bill Curry
    November 18, 2007

    This week’s Democratic presidential debate settled one question: A two-hour debate, it turns out, can be as empty as a 30-second ad. In fairness, it did shed light on whether Hillary Clinton, John Edwards or Barack Obama is driving Democratic debate; a trick question, in that the apparent answer is Karl Rove.

    Nevada’s debate was the last sanctioned Democratic faceoff before Iowa. Republicans have one more, Nov. 28 in Florida. Trace the narrative arc of the debates and you’ll see how savvy Republicans, abetted by inept Democrats and a brain-dead press, steered Democratic debates straight into GOP territory.

    In early debates, the parties seemed to live on different planets. Democrats talked about health care and getting out of Iraq. Republicans embraced Bush’s policies while denying science and their own consciences to mollify right-wing evangelicals. Advantage: Democrats.

    Flash forward to Thursday, with Edwards and Obama clawing at Clinton while pawing over well-trod Republican ground. Health care was but a character signifier; Iraq but an afterthought. In their stead came the topics Republicans love: Iran, immigration, Social Security and that perennial favorite, how evil are the Clintons.

    The last point was the main one. Beneath the surface, and usually not very far beneath, Edwards’ and Obama’s talking points and most reporters’ questions were really about Hillary — not whether she could win but whether she could be trusted.

    Iran was an issue because Hillary voted to label Iran’s Republican Guard “terrorist.” The amendment in question was a calculated step to war but so transparent as to be useless to its plotters, a group including few of the 76 senators voting yes. But it does help hawks that Democrats talk about staying out of Iran rather than getting out of Iraq.

    Illegal immigration is a real problem, but it’s an issue only because Hillary mangled her answer to a question about driver’s licenses. Republicans need someone to blame for the middle-class squeeze. Forget about health care or living wages, the problem is Mexicans. A mile-high fence is a bargain compared to the cost of regular checkups for every child.

    Democrats have a better grasp of the origins of middle-class discontent. But they can’t make their case while taking shots at one another on immigration. It happens to be an issue on which George W. Bush is at least half-right. That shouldn’t inhibit them, but they should endorse a decent compromise and move on to other issues.

    The most bogus Republican issue is the Social Security “crisis.” After Bush’s disastrous attempt to privatize it, Republicans by and large stopped talking about it. So why did Edwards and Obama resurrect it? Did they swallow Bush’s blarney about an impending actuarial apocalypse? Not likely.

    Once again the sole point of the discussion is to paint Clinton as a hypocrite. Obama and Edwards are for raising taxes on the rich to ward off projected deficits in the Social Security trust fund. Clinton waffles, while making the reasonable point that fiscal reform should precede tax hikes.

    If Hillary’s position doesn’t quite etch a profile in courage, it sure beats running around screaming the house is on fire when it’s not. That’s what Edwards and Obama are doing.

    The Social Security trust fund is solvent until the year 2041. It will not then, as Bush likes to say, “go bust.” Rather, if we do absolutely nothing till then, there will be a shortfall of about 25 percent.

    Clinton is right that fiscal responsibility in itself would make a difference. It’s why Al Gore said we should put Social Security in a “lock box.” (Nostradamus had nothing on Gore.) Either of Edwards’ and Obama’s modest proposals would take care of the problem altogether.

    The real crisis is in Medicare’s trust fund, which slips into insolvency in 2018. But talking about that requires getting all detailed and specific about universal health care and besides, no one’s found a way to use Medicare to impugn anyone else’s character.

    Fighting over Republican issues, Democrats neglect their own. The most worrisome example is the environment. On Thursday night, the issue wasn’t mentioned until 9:07 p.m. Discussion lasted until 9:12.

    If Social Security’s alarmists are right, in 34 years we may reduce retirement checks. If global warming centrists are right, in 34 years we may run out of water. With Al Gore out of the race, you’d think some Democrat would seize his mantle. But after Gore wins a Nobel Prize and Karl Rove loses his job, Democrats embrace Rove’s issues, not Gore’s.

    Hillary Clinton needs to be challenged on the issues as surely as America needs to debate its future. But this isn’t the way to do either.,0,3788760.column

  31. Mrs. Smith, there isn’t much space to write on, that’s just the way it is.
    What admin advised me to do when writing longer posts, was to write it somewhere else (I use word documents) and just paste it in here.

    Has this story (novak) been talked about in the Big Media? Any tv show discussing it? Matthews? or did it sort of die off in the papers online?

  32. Remember we all talked about how Hillary could receive a Comeback label to her if she did well in the Nevada debate? Well, NYPost gave it to her! 😀 I saw this the other day but forgot to post it.


    November 16, 2007 — LAS VEGAS – Anyone gambling on a knockout punch here last night to end the Clinton Dynasty in the Democratic Party bet on the wrong fighters.

    Hillary Rodham Clinton won by a narrow decision.

    Neither gentle Barack Obama nor harsh John Edwards landed the killer blow on Clinton that would have further fueled the stories from recent weeks predicting Clinton’s near-certain demise.

    Actually, last night’s event didn’t even qualify as a decent Vegas boxing card.

    The debate was more like the new and cleaned-up Disney version of Vegas that has overtaken the Strip and turned it into some sort of glittering family attraction.

    On stage last night was Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs.

    “The Princess” was cool, but made no blunder to compound her disastrous performance in the previous debate.

    Obama, playing “Happy” the dwarf, tried a couple of times to gather his rage but managed only a few squeaks at her.

    “Grumpy” John Edwards, who played “Happy” during the 2004 presidential race and is trying out a new role this time, came closest to sullying “Snow White’s” dress.

    Until, that is, she accused him of slinging GOP mud.

    In the first round, Obama and Edwards both went right after Clinton. But she managed to turn those jabs into a debate on health care – possibly her strongest suit. And she kept on the topic for 15 minutes, lacing into Obama for allegedly leaving 15 million Americans out of his health-care plan.

    “That’s about the population of Nevada, Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire,” said Clinton, hitting all the early voting states.

    With Edwards, she simply welcomed him as if he were a little kid in short pants.

    But the most astonishing moment of the night came when the candidates were asked simply whether they supported giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens – the very question that upended Clinton in the last debate.

    Obama’s answer was so confusing that the two transcription services covering the debate transcribed conflicting answers for him.

    Edwards first claimed he didn’t understand the question. After it was repeated for him, he refused to answer.

    It was the one issue that was Clinton’s greatest weakness going into the debate.

    But last night, she finally stuck to her latest position and it was “Grumpy” and “Happy” who were left flip-flopping around on the canvas.

  33. Politicos Roger Simon has a funny start on one of his latest article…

    “”LAS VEGAS — The (rhymes with rich) is back.””!!!! Love this part!! 😀

    In a Democratic debate here Thursday night, Hillary Clinton was not the passive, parsing, punching bag that she was at the last debate in Philadelphia two weeks ago.

    She gave as good as she got. And those who tried to kick her stubbed their toes.

  34. If Hillary’s a (rhymes with rich), what does that make us?

    “So,” the woman asked, “how do we beat the bitch?” And Sen. John McCain laughed.

    It was, he said, an “excellent” question. Yes, he went on to express respect for Hillary Clinton, to whom the woman referred. But not once while answering that question at a campaign stop in South Carolina recently did he suggest that it wasn’t appropriate to call Clinton a “bitch.”

    Can you imagine if the Democratic front-runner were Sen. Joe Lieberman and the woman said, “So, how do we beat this Hebe?”

    Can you imagine if it were Gov. Bill Richardson and the woman said, “So, how do we beat this spic?”

    Can you imagine if it were Sen. Barack Obama and the woman said, “So, how do we beat this coon?”

    I guarantee you, McCain would not have laughed and if he had, we would now be writing his political epitaph. But the woman asked, “How do we beat the bitch?” and McCain did laugh and now shrugs off any suggestion that he should have done more.

    He’s wrong.

    I get that many people don’t like Clinton. I don’t like her much myself, and my reasons echo the consensus. She seems cold, calculated, brittle.

    Here’s the thing, though. I find that I can’t name a single female national political figure I do like — not respect, not agree with, but “like.” Oh, I can name you many men who, their politics aside, strike me as likable: McCain, Bill Clinton, John Edwards, even cranky old Bob Dole.

    But women? Not so much. Nancy Pelosi, Janet Reno, Condoleezza Rice, Madeleine Albright … I cannot see myself — we are speaking metaphorically here — cuddling up to any of them. They all seem formidable, off-putting, cold.

    Which suggests the problem here is not so much them as me. And, if I may be so bold, we. As in, we seem unable to synthesize the idea that a woman can be smart, businesslike, demanding, capable, in charge, and yet also, warm.

    Consider one of the many anti-Hillary smears now circulating online. It purports to be a compendium of profane, ill-tempered tirades she has unleashed upon subordinates. Your first thought is, what an unlikable person. Your second is, or should be, wait a minute. Does George Bush never use potty language? Was Bill Clinton never brusque? Does Dick Cheney always say thank you and please?

    But it’s different, isn’t it, because she’s a woman? With the men, toughness reads as leadership, authority, getting things done. With her it reads as “bitch.” There is a sense — and even women buy into this — that a woman who climbs too high in male-dominated spheres violates something fundamental to our understanding of what it means to be a woman. Indeed, that she gives up any claim upon femininity itself.

    Nor is that assessment only perception. To the contrary, it has been quantified in a number of scholarly studies and papers. For example, in “Formal and Informal Discrimination Against Women At Work: The Role of Gender Stereotypes,” a research paper published this year, authors Brian Welle and Madeline E. Heilman report that the woman who succeeds at what has traditionally been men’s work — and what is a presidential campaign if not that? — risks being seen as “hostile, abrasive, pushy, manipulative and generally unlikable.”

    Sound like anyone you know?

    We demand certain “feminine” traits from women — nurturing, caring, submission — and the woman in whom those traits are either not present or subordinated to her drive, ambition and competence will pay a social price.

    “How do we beat the bitch?” the woman asks. She asked it without blinking, without a second thought, righteously. And John McCain laughed.

    That’s telling. The ostensible purpose of a campaign is to reveal the candidate. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, it seems, is revealing a whole lot more.

    Miami Herald columnist Leonard Pitts Jr.’s column appears Sunday on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is:

  35. Re.: Tom Hayden.
    Not to put to fine a point on it but Obama was 8 and 1/2 years old (not ten) when the sixties ended.

  36. Russert must be PISSED that he failed to derail the Clinton high-speed campaign train. This morning, he’s back to out-of-context, selectively edited attacks, and flat out lying, AGAIN.

    What an ASS.

  37. Good article Realist, I still think the media should have pounded on this one a bit more. I actually think if the questioner was referring to Pelosi, there would have been a bigger outcry, because she ‘at least’ wears skirts every once in a while…..ridiculous. I love how Hillary dresses.

    Well, if you didn’t think Russert had a big enough head as it is, you sure would think so after witnessing his big ego display on his show, as you say terrondt, this is old news!! And he should be ashamed not proud of his moderating skills.

  38. “yeah, the idiot was still touting the debate he moderated. ”

    What else has he got? It was the last time in his career that Timmy Russert will ever get to ask Senator Clinton question.

    Plus, I’m sure all his Georgetown Social Club drinking buddies are still slapping him on the back and giving him “attaboys” and “you put that bitch in her place”, just like back in the frat house.

  39. I am usually not the biggest fan of long articles posted here, as I usually prefer a link, but this is a Moreen Dowd article from NYtimes, and you have to be registered in order to read the whole article so I thought I would post it. I especially LOVED the first line, 😀

    The debate dominatrix knows how to rattle Obambi.

    Mistress Hillary started disciplining her fellow senator last winter, after he began exploring a presidential bid. When he winked at her, took her elbow and tried to say hello on the Senate floor, she did not melt, as many women do. She brushed him off, a move meant to remind him that he was an upstart who should not get in the way of her turn in the Oval Office.

    He was so shook up, he called a friend to say: You would not believe what just happened with Hillary.

    She has continued to flick the whip in debates. She usually ignores Obama and John Edwards backstage, preferring to chat with the so-called second-tier candidates. And she often looks so unapproachable while they’re setting up on stage that Obama seems hesitant to be the first to say hi.

    With so much at stake, she had to do it again in Vegas, this time using her voice, gaze and body language to such punishing effect that Obama looked as if he had been brought to heel. It was a mesmerizing display, and at an event that drew the highest television ratings of any primary debate this year. The momentum Obama had gained from a vivid speech at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Iowa drained away by the end of the first half-hour.

    Other guys, like Rudy, wouldn’t even be looking for a chance to greet Hillary, as Obama always does. Other guys, like Rudy, wouldn’t care if she iced them.

    But she can tell that Obama does care, that he doesn’t want her to not like him or be mad at him, that he responds to the sort of belittling treatment that she sometimes dished out to her husband and his male aides at the White House, yelling at them and calling them wimps if they disappointed her.

    Obama may be responsive to Hillary’s moods because he lives with another strong woman who knows how to keep him in line. Michelle said she let her husband run for president only when he agreed to give up smoking, and she’s a master at the art of the loving conjugal put-down.

    When Hillary walked onstage Thursday, Obama stood to her left waiting to shake hands and say hi, as he and Edwards had done with Chris Dodd. She turned her body away, refused to meet his eyes and froze him out. Again. And he looked taken aback. Again.

    For the rest of the night she owned him. He was so off his game that he duplicated her dithering performance from the last debate on the issue of whether illegal immigrants should get driver’s licenses. After a tortured exchange with Wolf Blitzer, he ended up saying he favored it — one more sign that the law professor is oblivious to the visceral nature of campaigns.

    Hillary brazenly leapt away from that politically devastating position and said she didn’t support the licenses anymore. And Obama didn’t even call her out on her third reversal on the matter.

    She was willing to absorb the flip-flop criticism to cut her losses on an issue that could have dragged her to defeat in the general election.

    Obama and Edwards, who both seemed shaken by a few seconds of pro-Hillary booing, let the front-runner set a ludicrous standard: that any criticism of her shifts on issues is “mudslinging” and a character attack.

    She is a control freak — that’s why her campaign tried to coach wonky Iowa voters to ask wonky questions — and her male rivals are letting her take control.

    The Democrats should not be afraid to mix it up now, while they have a chance, and get all the doubts and disputes out on the table. Taking some flak clearly made Hillary stronger.

    If Rudy’s the nominee, he will go with relish to all the vulnerable places in Hillary’s past. At the Federalist Society on Friday, he had barely spoken the word “she” before the audience began tittering appreciatively.

    He went through a whole faux- bemused riff on Hillary’s driver’s license twists without ever uttering her name: “First, she was for the idea, and supported Governor Spitzer, who wanted to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Then she was against the idea. Then she was for and against the idea. And then finally she said it should be decided on a state-by-state basis. This is the only time in her career that she’s ever decided anything should be decided on a state-by-state basis. You know something? She picked out absolutely the wrong one. Right? I mean, this is one of the areas that is given to the federal government to deal with under our Constitution, the borders of the United States, immigration.”

    Rudy laced his speech with faith references, including the assertion that America has “a divinely inspired role in the world” and a mission to “save a civilization from Islamic terrorism.”

    Hillary has her work cut out for her. Rudy will not be so easy to spank.

  40. Well, that’s typical Dowd, painting Hill as an Ice queen. But can you imagine what great fun it would be to watch a Hillary v Rudy face off. I’d buy tickets to see them debate live.

  41. Oh mj, the GE debates is the big carrot for me here, apart from of course seeing Hillary ELECTED President! I want to see her in a FIGHT!!

    She’s holding back now in the debates because people have the perception of her as a ice queen (by the way I kind of liked that article, she pointed out Hillarys strength, be it a bit unpleasant strength, hehe) so she has to be ‘nice’ and warm, bring people together in an attempt to make people like her.

    But as we all know, to really know her is to love her. 😛 hehe (take that oblahma)

    A necessary strategy for her, and a very effective strategy in general, to stay above the fray. But the little sneak peak we got in the last debate almost sent chills down my spine!! I want more!!
    She is tough as few, and can be as ‘bitchy’ as she wants to in a GE debate (I hope.). Of course she is also good on facts, and needs only to stick to those to prove the ‘other guy’ wrong.

    God I hope she doesn’t opt for the nice role there as well. But thats kind of impossible, as whomever the repuglican candidate is, will go on full attack against her, which means she would have to fight back, I can’t wait!!! 😀

  42. She’s also a warm person. Seh’s just tough as nails. I have to say reading that piece, I thought hell yeah, this is the person we want dealing with the middle east. Smart, decent and tough.

  43. Thanks, Gorto,

    I thought there was something wrong with my browser..Good idea..for the cut n’ paste word doc..

    Mrs. S.

  44. The Democrats and Iran: Best and worst lines of the debate
    By Shmuel Rosner
    Tags: Israel Factor, Democrats

    When I wrote about the Democratic debate more than two weeks ago (not the one in Las Vegas yesterday), I said that “On the one hand, Tehran’s nuclear aspirations dominate the political agenda, but on the other, political considerations feature heavily in the debate. The issue of Iran is no longer just a question of international policy, but also of internal politics.”

    This debate – or to be more specific, the part of the debate that touched on Iran – was also the focus of our latest question for the Israel Factor panel.

    We sent the panel an edited transcript of this part of the debate, and asked for their opinion (The transcript we sent is here). First, who was the candidate whose views seemed best from an Israeli perspective? The panel ranked six of the participants in this order: Clinton, Edwards, Obama/Richardson, Biden, Dodd. The average marks they got (on a scale of 1-5) are below:

    Clinton: 3.86
    Obama: 2.86
    Edwards: 3.14
    Biden: 2.71
    Richardson: 2.86
    Dodd: 2.14

    However, as we know, averages can be misleading, so here are some more details about the numbers above.

    The praise for Clinton was across the board. Almost every panelist gave her the highest mark (by the way, the two that didn’t rank her first, gave a higher mark to Richardson).

    The other almost unanimous rank was the one given to Dodd. All the panelists but one gave him the lowest score (the one who didn’t thought Obama was worse, but he was the only panelist to give Obama less than a 3).

    THere’s more…

  45. Concerning Modo Dodo: it doesn’t take a Dolly Levi to see she has a crush on Obama or a Don King to see that she is trying to promote a fight, but when she looks to Rudy to ride to her rescue it becomes obvious that she has taken leave of her senses.

  46. If Obama was truly a pot dealer as Hufftington seemed to suggest, I doubt dems would care much about his history. However, in GE, this is another story. It’s fine he used cocaine in the past, but if somebody has concrete evidence he’s actually a dealer, he’s toast.

  47. He wasn’t a pot dealer. It doesn’t fit his MO. He did the coke in highschool. By the ime he was at Harvard, he was planning on running for President.

  48. Factshub has now more info. on Edwards.

    1. Sen. Edwards on the Constitution: ‘Who Cares?’

    2. Sen. Edwards Falsely Claims Hillary Didn’t Support Universal Health Care ‘Earlier This Year’

  49. Taylor Marsh rocks with this headline – “Obama Swallows Prince of Darkness Swill”

    I guess after Thursday’s pounding, Mr. Obama and his team are ready to grasp at anything. We’ve now entered the moment where leading Democrats would rather listen to right-wing rants than give the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination the benefit of the doubt. Not very impressive on Mr. Obama’s part, I must say.

    The guy who dropped a dime on a covert CIA operative is back and Mr. Obama is buying into his baloney. The conservative cauldron is sure bubbling today. Question is why is anyone paying attention to this guy?

    [snip: quote from Novak]

    Yeah, yeah, Clinton agents are everywhere trying to destroy Obama. News flash to the ignorant: In case you hadn’t noticed Clinton is a little busy still trying to convince voters that she’s got answers to their problems. Her focus is not on Mr. Obama. It’s on you, the primary voters in Iowa, but far beyond Iowa as well. She doesn’t have a one-state primary strategy. Ya dig?

    But let’s swallow Novak’s National Enquirer gossip regurgitation in one gulp, shall we? Evidently, the Obama campaign needed a snack today.

    [snip: quote from Obama statement]

    Excuse me, but there’s no proof whatsoever Novak has anything valid. Secondly, why is Mr. Obama automatically firing at Clinton because of some screed from the Prince of Darkness? How desperate is he anyway? But most importantly, Mr. Obama is impugning Hillary Clinton’s integrity based on an unattributed rumor in the opening paragraph of a syndicated column from a Republican operative. A man who was so mad that Joseph Wilson blew Mr. Bush out of the water on the Iraq war he was willing to out a covert CIA operative (who just so happened to be working on WMDs, let me add), in order to send a message across her husband’s bow. Since when do Democrats take the word of a Republican over a respected member of our own party?


    UPDATE: Peter Daou, Clinton’s Internet director, has addressed the suckering of Obama by Novak, if that’s what it is. But given the track record it’s not wrong to wonder. Seriously, who’s actually swiftboating whom? It’s not like Mr. Obama and his team haven’t traveled in pushing this stuff themselves. I covered Obama’s “D-Punjab” smear of Clinton back at June that was also covered in the New York Times, as well as the smear on Bill Clinton that Politico covered in “Oppo Bounty.” Then there was his “oops” apology for it. There was also Obama’s team trying to dig up dirt at the Clinton library. [TM quotes more from Daou]

    Plus, final comment from Clinton campaign:

    It’s telling that the Obama campaign would rather spend the day throwing mud in Bob Novak’s sandbox than talking about the issues.

    Our statement was crystal clear: Democratic voters should be concerned about any Presidential candidate inexperienced enough to fall for Republican talking points. The Clinton campaign has nothing to do with this item. / archives_view.php?id=26570

  50. In the comments section, JoeCHI wrote:

    My guess is that Joe Wilson will come out with a statement questioning why any Democrat would be so gullible as to believe anything that Novak writes.

    Further, Wilson will question why any good Democrat would choose to align themselves with Novak against another Democrat?

  51. The Politico bags Edwards on PAC contributions:

    John Edwards doesn’t accept contributions from political action committees, but the lion’s share of his contributions have come through one particular PAC — ActBlue. And that could be a multimillion-dollar problem for the Democrat’s presidential campaign.

    The former North Carolina senator has received more than $4.3 million from people who contributed through the PAC’s website, an increasingly common fundraising technique. But it’s also a technique that may not jibe with the clean elections program Edwards plans to use to bolster his cash-strapped campaign.

  52. TheRealist, you make an excellent point. Dowd’s editorial comments are as you say “about who she hates”. That is the primary motivation behind her editorials. She is perfectly willing to distort the truth to support that narrative, to coach Obama on how to win, and to root for Rudy if Obama fails. Mercenary.

  53. DOWD:

    “Hillary brazenly leapt away from that politically devastating position and said she didn’t support the licenses anymore.”

    Except she never did.

    What is it with supposedly well-educated adults that they do not comprehend that states are sovereign ? Hillary SAID she was against it on the federal level, and has maintained that position. She acknowledged that Governors can and may address it differently, which a president would have NO CONTROL OVER.

    Good Grief.

    And what the hell is an “Obambi” ? Is that supposed to mean he is like a little deer caught in the headlights ?

  54. I’m not sure if anyone has commented on this but it’s a really fantastic skill that Hillary has. She doesn’t go too far.

    For instance, when Campbell Brown asked the inane question about what HRC meant when she talked abut the boys club, she replied “Campbell!”
    The tone was perfect and the point made. When Campbell laughed and tried, “I was just curious”, I might have said, “Really! What part of all boy world was unclear to you?” But I’m a smart a** and she resisted and went on to a full and good answer. Well done, Hillary.

    She did the same with Edwards and Obama — hit back and moved on.

    I see by the several columnists take on Obama that it is almost time for the “Where’s the beef?” ad. Now that I know that some of you don’t go back that far, an explanation. Mondale used it against Gary Hart a million years ago. It was a popular fast food ad featuring a tiny little old lady looking at a competitor’s hamburger and its tiny patty and piping up, “Where’s the beef?” It worked on the restaurant and it worked on Gary Hart who was creeping up on Mondale.

  55. Obama is so wrong. The ’60’s were not about generational conflicts. They came about through a shift in the balance of power. When blacks can’t vote, when women stay in their place, when gays stay in the closet, when labor can’t organize, then you get the ‘quiet America’ Obama daydreams about.

    And there was Eisenhower’s warning about the Military Industrial Complex – that speech launched the 60’s as much as anything. Eisenhower called for the very conflict that Obama now wants to turn his back on.

Comments are closed.