Parsing

From a technical point of view, this John Edwards ad is pretty awesome:

Substantively, though, I'm not in love with this particular critique of Clinton precisely because it's not a substantive critique. All politicians try to "have it both ways" to some extent, and anyone would be acting like this if they were a front runner. Her position on Social Security is the correct position, and there's no sense in helping Tim Russert portray it as cowardly. But more to the point, Edwards leads off with some revealing Iraq clips.

The correct point to make about Clinton on Iraq, though, isn't that her positions require too much parsing, the point to make is that her vision of an enduring American training mission in Iraq is a bad idea on the merits. She says we should keep troops in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces. In fact, we shouldn't do that. Absent political chance in Iraq, the training mission makes things worse. We're arming and equipping the parties to a civil war, pouring gasoline on the fires of violence. If a pony happens to emerge, it might make sense to re-evaluate the anti-training view, but given the current situation we shouldn't be doing this training mission. Clinton's position on this issue is wrong and that's the problem with it.

Meanwhile, like GFR and Ezra I'm not really sure that Clinton did play the gender card. Anyone who's ever ridden the, um, "Wellesley College Senate Bus" can tell you that "In so many ways, this all-women's college prepared me to compete in the all-boys club of presidential politics" is standard-issue Wellesley talking points and not some nefarious piece of political messaging. I think it is true, though, that Clinton is counting, politically, on the fact that people probably subconsciously assume that a woman is less hawkish than an analysis of her policy positions would suggest.

UPDATE: Edwards campaign sources want to emphasize that Edwards did make a policy argument during the debate (though focused more on the idea of "combat missions" than the training farce) but that the MSM isn't interested in policy arguments.

Comments

"Meanwhile, like GFR and Ezra I'm not really sure that Clinton did play the gender card."

Ugh.

From AP's Ron Fournier:

Clinton's advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss internal matters, said there is a clear and long-planned strategy to fend off attacks by accusing her male rivals of gathering against her. The idea is to change the subject while making Clinton a sympathetic figure

Is this really so complicated?

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 2:34 PM

"Substantively, though, I'm not in love with this particular critique of Clinton precisely because it's not a substantive critique."

Clintonian triangulation is a substantive issue.

It's the meta issue that underlies all the various specific ideological problems with the Clintons.

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 2:36 PM

As much as it pains me to admit it, Petey is right on this issue. Hillary's Wellesley comments are the strawman set up to deflect from Mark Penn's post-debate "gender card" media blitz.

Posted by br | November 2, 2007 2:43 PM

This ad is absolutely brutal. The music makes it seem a bit rough for TV, but it fits YouTube pretty well. I wish we could see a similar one running on television.

And yeah, her triangulating is an issue. It's the defining characteristics of the Clintons. No, triangulation isn't contradiction--it's taking a "centrist" position that lets you play everything to every side and giving you the flexibility to toss under the bus whoever is most convenient at the time. If Hillary wins, expect a Sister Souljah every month, except exchanging her with trade unionists, anti-war protesters, and the netroots.

Posted by Zephyrus | November 2, 2007 2:49 PM

But if she assumes that people subconsciously assume that she's less hawkish because she's a woman, then she'll make her stated positions more hawkish than they really are so people will arrive at her true position when they subconsciously apply their female filter. And if you're are an exception and are not applying the female filter, then maybe she's not as hawkish as you think. You gotta watch this meta stuff...

Posted by Jim Barnett | November 2, 2007 2:51 PM

I don't think it's fair to use these ridiculous student-council "debates" to reach much of any conclusion at all about what kind of a president someone would be policy-wise. It's just too easy to play the gotcha game, and most of that stuff isn't determined until the rubber meets the road. And, there's nothing inherently wrong with political triangulation. Once in office, that's known as "governing." Above all, from a field all of whom broadly reflect our own political bent, we need to try and pick the person with the best judgment and temperament to be head of state.

Posted by Bill | November 2, 2007 2:53 PM

Triangulation is the political tactic on which you position yourself as the voice of common sense between what you portray to be the extremes of both parties. In other words it's about being positioned as a moderate.

The point of the attack and of the new battle lines drawn for the next couple of months is to portray Hillary as a continuation of Bill's truth-parsing ways, as a flip-flopper; she's being Kerried.

Substantively, I totally agree with Matt. There's no there there. I am not a fan of Hillary's but her position on immigration was the typical one you would expect from a frontrunner. Don't state your concrete support to the unpopular measure by Spitzer, show your understanding and put the blame on Bush while spewing platitudes about comprehensive immigration reform.

However, we re in politics as dog show and we are playing a meta game judged by arbitrary standards which signify presidential leadership or qualities we want. They really don't.

To me the crucial questions in this is whether Edwards is doing Obama's dirty work and whether the seeming disillusionment with Obama that was expressed last week by various bloggers was justified. In a multi-candidate race, going negative isn't the best tactic for the attacker as the one who goes negative also loses; especially when we re on a debate. It is no coincidence that the most desperate of the major candidates is engaging in that candidate. It concerns me that Obama seems to disappoint voters favorably disposed to him, but what need is there to do anything while Edwards does it for him?

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 2, 2007 2:55 PM

Hillary's response ad may have backfired. I'm not sure:

http://www.youtube.com/v/Ciq8WtsxwoQ

Posted by drfranklives | November 2, 2007 2:56 PM

sorry, this "not a substantive critique" is the worst type of wonkery. quite simply, this ad works. it may not compare the virtues of SS plans or timelines for w/drawal from iraq, but who cares? it is not a blog post, a class-room discussion or an article - it is a marketing piece designed to move people in a certain direction and it does that. Matt, stop thinking that politics and political science are the same thing.

Posted by notchris | November 2, 2007 2:58 PM

Bill said:

>>It's just too easy to play the gotcha game, and most of that stuff isn't determined until the rubber meets the road. And, there's nothing inherently wrong with political triangulation.

Is your last name Clinton by chance?

Whining about "playing gotcha" is not a winning argument. It's the surest sign that someone fucked-up. Let's not bicker and argue over who killed who, right?

This is exactly why Hillary would be the worst candidate against the GOP. She is already having her "for it before I was against it" moment..for at least the third time.

Posted by jim | November 2, 2007 2:59 PM

> Substantively, I totally agree with Matt.
> There's no there there. I am not a fan of
> Hillary's but her position on immigration was
> the typical one you would expect from a
> frontrunner.

Is it so utterly hard to understand that to the extent that there are swing voters out there they aren't Kevin Drum's beloved mushy middleists but purple state conservatives and Reagan Democrats who despise Democratic candidates /because they never take a strong position on anything/?

Yeah, when you are sailboat racing the leader is supposed to watch what the followers do an mimic that to avoid any game-ending mistakes. /This ain't sailboat racing/ - human emotions are involved. And the emotions of the people who decide the presidential elections for the last 15 years have been opposed to the mushy and in favor of the firm.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 2, 2007 3:05 PM

One other thing regarding this statement: "I think it is true, though, that Clinton is counting, politically, on the fact that people probably subconsciously assume that a woman is less hawkish than an analysis of her policy positions would suggest."

I think the opposite is true and that's why I am genuinely scared of a Hillary presidency.

It's because she as a woman is perceived to be weak, she has all the more incentive to advocate and follow hawkish policies. Because of the gender Hillary almost has to position herself as a hawk so that she can survive in a general election. All things being equal, Hillary is going to have much more incentive to implement a military solution during a crisis so she won't be attacked for being a woman.

Now obviously, we re in a chicken or egg dilemma. We can't prove whether Hillary's became a hawk primarily out of political calculation or out of genuine policy preferences. I don't know. I would submit however, that Hillary as a hawk is a post-2002 invention. I would also remind people of the flap she had during her first senatorial campaign when she visited Palestine and said some reasonable things, only to backtrack after she came under intense attack from supporters of Israel.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 2, 2007 3:05 PM

Where it says "attacked for being a woman" read "attack for being weak (because the unspoken assumption is that she's a woman)".

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 2, 2007 3:08 PM

Good work, Petey.

This has absolutely nothing to do with her boilerplate Wellesley statements, which I thought were relatively positive, and everything to do with her camp's post-debate spin, which was silly.

It's confusing how anyone would confuse the two.

Posted by bob | November 2, 2007 3:18 PM

Geez, I was hoping this comment thread would be filled with memories of riding between Cambridge and Wellesley.

Clinton's centrist beliefs are not the greatest, but all of the leading GOPers are vulnerable to flip-flopper charge. I don't think she's playing the gender card either, and if she is, so what? All of her competitors on both sides of the aisle are playing the gender card as well.

Posted by American Citizen | November 2, 2007 3:31 PM

Ah, its official name was the "Wellesley College Senate Bus?" I never knew...

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | November 2, 2007 3:35 PM

"To me the crucial questions in this is whether Edwards is doing Obama's dirty work and whether the seeming disillusionment with Obama that was expressed last week by various bloggers was justified. In a multi-candidate race, going negative isn't the best tactic for the attacker as the one who goes negative also loses; especially when we re on a debate. It is no coincidence that the most desperate of the major candidates is engaging in that candidate. It concerns me that Obama seems to disappoint voters favorably disposed to him, but what need is there to do anything while Edwards does it for him?"

It doesn't matter. The two of them are drafting, and have been for quite a while.

One of the two will pop out on Jan 3rd, but they're both helped by riding together to cut down on drag until close to that date.

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 3:38 PM

depressing.

i'm no fan of hrc--i hope she does not get the nomination--but i wish the democrats were not directing their fire against her while letting bush and cheney go unscathed.

jesus, it's like the democrats heard that the eleventh commandment is "speak no ill of a republican", and figured that it applies to them too.

when are they going to get a clue, and start attacking the people who really screwed this country up?

republicans are happy to turn the word "democrat" into an insult; when are democrats going to start saying 'republican war', 'republican deficit', 'republican budget crisis', 'republican cronyism', and 'republican incompetence'?

we should be hearing a detailed accounting of the damage that the republican party has done to this country over the last seven years.

instead we get a warmed-over swift-boating of a democrat, this time by other democrats. even using the same damned music they used against kerry.

great, guys--transform yourself into republican attack-dogs, and savage democrats. the rnc should be loving this one.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 2, 2007 3:42 PM

Policy differences don't matter. Character differences do. Triangulation matters because it is a character issue.

Obama or Edwards can only win by making HRC's triangulation the issue. Arguing over small, irrelevant differences in policy is political masturbation.

HRC is vulnerable only on triangulation. But her vulnerability is great.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 2, 2007 3:53 PM

Oh bitzer, you fool.

This ain't a "warmed over swift-boating." It is recut video of the candidate herself saying something. It's "I voted for it before I voted against it" all over again. You don't think democrats should be wary of that?

Of course they should attack republicans too, but primary campaigns--like all campaigns--are won on contrast. Twas ever thus.

Posted by southpaw | November 2, 2007 3:57 PM

hi southpaw. love ya too.

so win the primary on contrast.

show me your contrasting ability to attack republicans.

show me the contrast between people who can successfully diagnose how the country got screwed up and those who don't know where to place the blame.

show me the contrast between people who can advance their candidacy without hurting their own party and people who only know how to hurt their own party--between people who know how to run *for* the democratic nomination and people who always run *from* the democratic party.

the fact that primaries are about contrast in no way means that candidates have to engage in fratricide.

you fool.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 2, 2007 4:01 PM

kid bitzer's right. This tone of ad should be saved for the general. It makes the Dems look ridiculous (because Hillary is preferred by the majority of Dems).

Posted by Bill | November 2, 2007 4:09 PM

The GOP spends their debate time--and the camera time, and the next 24-hour news cycle time--attacking the Dems. Painting whomever wins the Dem nomination as weak and whatever other adjective they can come up with.

The Dems--in their presidential winning wisdom, spend their time attacking each other with GOP supplied talking points. No wonder these bozos lose elections.

Posted by jenniferm | November 2, 2007 4:17 PM

"kid bitzer's right. This tone of ad should be saved for the general."

The direction of the Democratic Party for a decade to come is going to be decided in the next 90 days.

We'll all come together in February, but now is the moment for clarifying some things.

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 4:23 PM

look, it's perfectly plausible for a candidate who's lagging in the polls to run genially off in his own unique direction without ever drawing a negative inference about the person he's actually running against. it just hasn't ever worked.

but you don't have to take it from me:

"Indeed, Hillary Clinton was among the most persistent voices in February 1992 urging her husband to go after the ascendant former Senator [Paul Tsongas]. And Mr. Clinton did—in a lavish, ugly and utterly dishonest series of public attacks and negative ads that absurdly portrayed Tsongas, who still resided on Mansur Street in Lowell, as a tool of Wall Street interests and a foe of Social Security, Medicare and Israel."

http://www.observer.com/node/37032

Posted by southpaw | November 2, 2007 4:23 PM

but southpaw, bill clinton was a classic example of a democrat who ran away from the democratic party.

he spent his whole career apologizing for his party membership, acting as though he was better than those damned democrats. it's called 'triangulating'.

and as a result, the party did not prosper under him. he didn't give it any coat-tails.

so it's no surprise to me that clintons like to get ahead by trashing democrats. it's one of the things i don't like about them.

the democratic party is coming back now, but it is more due to bush's world-class hopelessness than to anything either clinton has done to build the brand.

they don't build the brand, and they don't even attack the competition.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 2, 2007 4:28 PM

> The GOP spends their debate time--and the camera
> time, and the next 24-hour news cycle
> time--attacking the Dems. Painting whomever wins
> the Dem nomination as weak and whatever other
> adjective they can come up with.
>
> The Dems--in their presidential winning wisdom,
> spend their time attacking each other with GOP
> supplied talking points. No wonder these bozos
> lose elections.

So you advocate that the Democratic Party go to a system like the GOP's where a Central Committee decides who the candidate will be, and after a bit of posturing Fox News and Rushbo are given their marching orders and that person is nominated?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 2, 2007 4:31 PM

"the democratic party is coming back now, but it is more due to bush's world-class hopelessness than to anything either clinton has done to build the brand."

Yup.

And that's why it's worth fighting this nomination battle hard to get the best candidate.

We're likely to win the next general election. Who we put in the office is going to determine the direction of the Party for a while to come.

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 4:34 PM

cranky, if the only options were the republican politburo or the democratic circular firing-squad, then, yes, i think it would be preferable for the democrats to adopt the politburo model.
we have a duty to the constitution and to our children to keep republicans away from the levers of power until their party reforms beyond recognition.
so as little as i would like a democratic politburo, i guess i'd opt for that over more republican destruction of america.

but, you know, those aren't really the only alternatives, are they? i mean, your question was really kind of stupid, don't you think?

you can have a non-fratricidal primary that is not a back-room deal, either.

you just make your case that you're the best candidate to kill the republicans. and you do it without demonstrating your killer skillz on other democrats.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 2, 2007 4:36 PM

Cranky, is that what I said? I don't think so.

The debates are televised on cable TV nationally by national media and talked about, with sound bites over the next 24 hours. The GOP candidates use this time as a way to collectively tell the NATIONAL audience this party is better than that party. As individuals they work their campaign on the ground in the states that will determine their candidate.

The Dems on the other hand, take the NATIONAL TV exposure and attack each other, over issues THEY ALL PRETTY MUCH AGREE ON. Rather than say, spend this wonderful TV time as a way to tell the American public how they, as a party, differ with the current POTUS and his party.

All I'm saying is, these debates are a way to show off the DEMOCRATIC PARTY for what it stands for--we should not be using this time to provide more ammo to the GOP. That is why we lose presidential elections.

Posted by jenniferm | November 2, 2007 4:44 PM

> but, you know, those aren't really the only
> alternatives, are they? i mean, your question
> was really kind of stupid, don't you think?
>
> you can have a non-fratricidal primary
> that is not a back-room deal, either.

Quite honestly no, I don't think the question was stupid - and not just because it was mine. If one were to propose your theory to 30 committed Democratic activists (or better yet campaign managers) I bet 20 of them would agree with you wholeheartedly. Problem is that those 20 would come up with 25 different systems to accomplish what you propose (competitive selection without criticism), none of those 25 systems would be compatible, and none of the 20 would agree to budge their position.

To me that leaves open ugly competition the only possible choice. If you have a better system please describe in detail - I'd love to hear 2 or 3. Or 25.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 2, 2007 5:25 PM

The suggestion above that dems can't vet their candidates through a vigorous primary system because the opposition might hear something negative about the front runner that will be used in the general is juvenile. The opposition's guns are already loaded.

HRC is being challenged because her positions do not represent the views of millions of democrats. What are they supposed to do: roll over and play dead for her?

HRC wants the nomination of a party that, to a large extent, she does not adequately represent. In poll after poll, 50% of voters say they will never vote for her.

It is her responsibility to assuage the fears of the party whose nomination she is seeking, not sweep them under the table and demand a coronation.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 2, 2007 5:29 PM

This last democratic debate was a sick joke. I know it feels good when the media wind machine blows your guy's way, but Petey, et. al, should be a bit more circumspect. Russert and Williams went after Clinton for almost the entire debate. To Edwards and Obama partisans without a sense of history this seems just swell. But we've been down this road before and we should all know better.

I realize that this is politics and during the primary all the candidates have a duty to try to win, even by going after one another if need be. But when they try to re-enforce the negative media narrative against the front runner--that is a dangerous game indeed.

I don't really like HRC and I wish this weren't so, but she will almost certainly win the nomination. And at that time Edwards and Obama's attacks on Clinton's "parsing" and "triangulation" will be used by the media to excuse their own prejudices. By this point everyone will simply "know" these things about HRC--just as everyone "knew" Gore was a liar (thanks, Bradley), and Kerry was a flip-flopper (OK, in this case there wasn't a primary challenger making this claim).

Hillary's "for it before I was against it" moment is the sort of thing that could be "discovered" (or more likely created by gotcha questions--sheesh, did no one here read Waldman's essay on Russert?) about any politician anywhere, as long as the media decided that this narrative was one they wanted to sell. Yeah, Kerry said "I voted for it before I voted against it", but Bush threatened the veto the bill Kerry voted for and then signed the one Kerry voted against. Why was nothing ever made of that? In fact, Kerry voting for one version of that bill and against another was perfectly reasonable. But the media despises nuance, and Petey and Obama and Edwards are perfectly happy to play along.

I was an Edwards supporter before I saw his disgraceful pile-on performance in the debate and afterwards.

Posted by Rob Mac | November 2, 2007 5:33 PM

cranky--
maybe i expressed myself badly.

when i say a 'non-fratricidal' primary, i don't mean that it would not involve dem voters around the country voting *for* this democrat and so *against* that democrat.

clearly only one can win the nomination, and in that sense, one dem will 'bump off' the other dems.

so i'm not talking about any change in the method of selecting a nominee. i'm certainly not suggesting that we should come up with a new 'method of selection' in the sense of some new theory about how the party should arrive at a nominee, by acclaim or short-straws or pseudo-random digits drawn from the bowels of pi.

i'm talking about the same kind of primaries we already have. but a non-fratricidal primary would not do the rnc's work for it.

by 'fratricide' i mean campaign rhetoric that attacks fellow democrats and yields a wounded front-runner and a list of catch-phrase criticisms for the rnc to exploit. i mean a collection of campaigns that give bush a free pass, give the republicans a free pass, and spend all their time criticizing other dems.

you think that's the only way for parties to run competitive elections? you're wrong. just see how the republicans did it for the last bunch of years. their main plank? demonizing democrats. declaring them traitors, unamerican, unmanly, untrustworthy, extreme, weird, unreliable, etc.

if the republicans can have their eleventh amendment, the democrats can have their own version--one that reads "speak no ill of a democrat" instead.

Posted by kid bitzer | November 2, 2007 5:37 PM

> This last democratic debate was a sick
> joke. I know it feels good when the media
> wind machine blows your guy's way, but
> Petey, et. al, should be a bit more circumspect.
> Russert and Williams went after

So why exactly did the Democrats agree to those moderators rather than DeLong, Yglesias, Feingold, or some other reality-based people who are mentally and verbally sharp? Why have the Democrats allowed themselves to be pushed around on the whole debate stage (except for one brief pushback against Fox)?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 2, 2007 5:47 PM

and econobuzz--
i'm no fan of hrc's. i'll vote for her if it's the dem choice, but i hope she won't be.

mostly i just want to vote for a *non-wounded* candidate.

christ, if you people really think that you can't choose a nominee without savaging other democrats, then you go to it, okay? just try to make sure that for every time you stab a fellow democrat, you get in about four or five good slashes against the republicans.

digby was just writing last week about how the republicans are making bush disappear. they realize what a failure he is, how widely hated he is, and so they are trying to distance themselves from him. they're air-brushing him out of the photo altogether.

and the democrats are *letting* them. that's the sickening thing. by spending all their time attacking each other, they are abetting the republican consipracy of silence about bush.

they are making hrc look like the problem, when gwb is the problem. as digby said, they are feeding into the meme that clinton is still in office, and that a vote for change means a vote for republicans!

(and you know what's really stupid? i don't even *like* the democratic party that much. i'm no die-hard partisan. it's just that, when your country and your constitution are under attack by fascists, you have to band together to fight back. and the democrats, alas, are the only thing we have to fight back with. god save the republic.)

Posted by kid bitzer | November 2, 2007 5:49 PM

> just try to make sure that for every time you
> stab a fellow democrat, you get in about four or
> five good slashes against the republicans.

I'm in 101% agreement with that. Only Biden seems to have figured that out which is more than a little scary.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | November 2, 2007 5:57 PM

"they are making hrc look like the problem, when gwb is the problem"

No. gwb isn't the problem because he's not on the ballot. hrc is the problem because she is on the ballot.

"i'm no die-hard partisan"

Right. And that's why you don't care who the Democratic Party puts up.

I am a Democratic partisan. So I do care.

And thankfully, the folks who turn out in Iowa are a lot more like me than they are like you.

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 5:58 PM

petey, you're an edwards guy, right?

so here's what i don't get.

you dislike hrc and wjc because they tore down the brand, right? you agree to as much up above.

so how come you think it's okay when edwards tears down the brand?

does being a democratic partisan mean its smart for you to spend your energies attacking other democrats? re-using the rnc's flip-flop attack, down to the music, and turning it on hrc instead of kerry? you know that's what this edwards ad does, right? it tells the country: "our front-runner, who may be our nominee, is just another flip-flopper like that guy kerry was. we pretty much agree with the republicans about that."

that's what being a partisan means?

Posted by kid bitzer | November 2, 2007 6:09 PM

"does being a democratic partisan mean its smart for you to spend your energies attacking other democrats?"

'Tis a primary election, not a coronation.

Not being a partisan, you wouldn't understand primaries.

Posted by Petey | November 2, 2007 6:21 PM

I dropped off the money exactly as per... look, man, I've got certain information, all right? Certain things have come to light. And, you know, has it ever occurred to you, that, instead of, uh, you know, running around, uh, uh, blaming me, you know, given the nature of all this new sh**, you know, I-I-I-I... this could be a-a-a-a lot more, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, complex, I mean, it's not just, it might not be just such a simple... uh, you know?

Posted by Eddy Go | November 2, 2007 6:45 PM

Petey: "I am a Democratic partisan. So I do care."

I'm getting more the sense that you're an Edwards partisan.

"'Tis a primary election, not a coronation."

And a smarter Edwards partisan would acknowledge kid bitzer's comments on what he sees as the effective way to run a primary election.

Posted by rilkefan | November 2, 2007 7:18 PM

Hillary Clinton is not "the brand."

Posted by Clark | November 2, 2007 7:25 PM

The drivers' license thing is what ticked me off about the ad. A gratuitous gotcha question with no probative value designed solely to piss people off. JHC, she's running for President -- her opinion about the state DMV is irrelevant. She should have grabbed a pen & paper, scribbled a single word, and replied, "Here's my answer, I'll reveal it if the senator tells us whether or not he believes in Santa Claus (or the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy)."

Posted by Matt B | November 2, 2007 7:46 PM

"are feeding into the meme that clinton is still in office, and that a vote for change means a vote for republicans!"

Are you high?

There is no meme that Clinton is in office.
The Republicans are running on "Democrats will let terrorists go free and get you killed" and "they are going to tax you and make you go to government run camps to see a doctor."

Hillary Clinton is a problem - voted for the Iraq War and Kyl/Lieberman. For the past two years, if not longer, HRC's primary concern is her presidential campaign. You can't blame her opponents for pointing that out. Senator Clinton is the one who decided to always take the safe position. HRC hasn't been out front fighting the Bush administration. When there was a tough vote, she always waited to see what Obama was going to do. When it came time for policy proposals, she waited until Edwards release his and then offers a more moderate/centrist/half-assed version.

Hillary Clinton is not a leader.

Posted by Edwards/Reed 2008 | November 2, 2007 9:37 PM

Christ, this stuff is incredibly boring.

When are we going to get a candidate that refuses to attack Iran because Iran has no nuclear weapons program?

Everybody is nitpicking the candidates on sound bites and TV ads and terms like "triangulation" when in fact not one single candidate has taken a solid position based on the facts on NOT GETTING THE US INTO ANOTHER WAR! Not one single candidate has pointed out clearly and factually that there is "NO THERE THERE" about Iran and that this whole "crisis" is made up by Bush and Cheney for the exact same reasons they made up Iraq!

Get a clue, Every single one of these bozos (with the sole exception of Ron Paul on the Republican side and maybe Kucinich on the Dems side) is going to get another war started within a year of being elected - and if Bush starts it first, they are going to CONTINUE IT AS WELL AS CONTINUING THE IRAQ WAR!

Christ, wake up!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 10:09 PM

Once again, for the morons - and Matt - here are the only two questions for the candidates that MATTER:

1) Do you believe Iran has a nuclear weapons program - not a nuclear ENERGY program - a nuclear WEAPONS program?

2) Do you believe that a military attack on Iran is a legal and viable option IF the Iranians DO have a nuclear WEAPONS program OR if the Iranians continue to have a nuclear ENRICHMENT program absent any proof of a nuclear WEAPONS program?

Yes or no. It's that goddamn simple!

I'm telling you, not one single candidate will answer "No" to those two questions except possibly Paul and Kucinich. (And Matt won't answer because he's afraid to!)

And that means war is inevitable.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 10:14 PM

Here's what I don't get ...

It's a year from the general election, months from the primary;

We're talking about a video that's circulating on You Tube among political junkies;

And yet any of us who might have reservations about HRC can't express them because if we do,

We might give the Republicans ideas.

As if the Republicans need us to come up with their attacks.

Posted by Not Yet Converted | November 2, 2007 10:30 PM

Matt - next time you see Ezra - tell him we are all rooting for him on Hardball, BUT - He has to be more direct and more forcefull (with quick followup) when he refutes Matthews b***s***

Matthews does not speak for "guys." In fact - he is total schmuck neanderthal compared to Pat Buchanan.

Posted by Comment | November 3, 2007 12:00 AM

Are people aware that the Edwards ad was in rebuttal to the Clinton youtube called
The Politics of Pile On
Therefore the style of the rebuttal was framed by the original Clinton ad.
That ad suggested that they were unduly focused on her. The Edwards ad was a brilliant recast of that ad and much better than her original and it very cryptically pointed out her inconsistencies.

I really liked it. It got the message through at many levels, and it has gone viral. Over 100,000 views in 15 hours. That is phenomenal. That is the proof of its effectiveness. The Clinton ad is now being seen more. 49,000 views in three days.

The criticism of the ad should include the first salvo by the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Rene | November 3, 2007 2:46 AM

I think it is true, though, that Clinton is counting, politically, on the fact that people probably subconsciously assume that a woman is less hawkish than an analysis of her policy positions would suggest.

It seems to me that it's entirely possible that Clinton is aware of this fact in formulating her policy positions. If she, as a woman, takes a dovish stance, she'll be thought of as extremely dovish. Essentially, she's forced to take a more hawkish line than her male counterparts to appear equally positioned.

Posted by TW Andrews | November 3, 2007 11:57 AM

So you advocate that the Democratic Party go to a system like the GOP's where a Central Committee decides who the candidate will be, and after a bit of posturing Fox News and Rushbo are given their marching orders and that person is nominated?

Well, that system (though I think your characterization verges on hyperbole) has certainly been rather more effective over the last half-century than whatever system it is that the democrats have been using.

Posted by TW Andrews | November 3, 2007 12:11 PM

Besides all of the other attacks one can expect from the malignant Right on Clinton as President, the most serious one will be that she is "soft on terror".

Therefore the one thing that really worries me about a Clinton Presidency is that she will be inclined to take hawkish positions and actions precisely to prove that a woman President can be tough. (The success/failure of a Clinton or Obama Presidency will be read by the pundits as precedent-setting. It will be a major burden for each of them.)

As for leaving Iraq ASAP or staying for the long haul, I think a case can be made for either. The simple, sad, horrible truth is that we have created enormous chaos, harm and death in Iraq. And I don't think anybody can guarantee with any degree of confidence that one particular course of action will be more or less likely to end the horror. If we withdraw, and there is a brief but not overly savage civil war, great. But if we withdraw and the worst happens (genocide),I think we must be prepared to re-enter (with allies)in sufficient force this time to establish security.

Now,would everybody please stop using "triangulation" as a curse word? Politics is the art of the possible, and compromise is a fundamental requirement in any democratic society. Only monarchies and dictatorships can enforce one single point of view - as the past 6 years have proven.

I believe Ted Kennedy made the point well when he said (if I am remembering correctly) that he should have accepted the deal Nixon offered on health care. It wasn't all that he wanted, but it would have put us on the right road. But he stuck to his principles, and about the only health measures the U.S. ranks first in are per capita cost and plastic surgery.

We are a large, diverse, and often deeply divided country. It is impossible to please all of us all of the time, but politicians who refuse to compromise are either totally ineffective or utterly divisive.

Posted by lc | November 3, 2007 10:14 PM