Kindergarden Cops

Um, seriously, the Clinton administration is attacking Barack Obama based on an essay he wrote in kindergarden. They follow up with an account of something he did in third grade! I suppose you have to respect the commitment to counterpunching and oppo research (Obama says he wants a new kind of politics, but wouldn't share his toy truck with little Jimmy when they were five — how can we trust him now?) but surely someone must have said "won't this look dumb?" when it was suggested.

I'll be very happy when primary season is over.

UPDATE: That'd be the "Clinton campaign" -- it's not an administration yet!

Comments

Clinton administration

Posted by Glenn | December 3, 2007 2:03 PM

Oops, rest of my comment got cut off, including my close italics tag. Hope this fixes it.

Posted by Glenn | December 3, 2007 2:05 PM

"I'll be very happy when primary season is over."

Do you hate Christmas and puppies and ice cream too?

Primaries' Eve is the fun time.

----

And you didn't even cite Team Obama's pitch perfect retort:

“I’m sure tomorrow they’ll attack him for being a flip-flopper because he told his second grade teacher he wanted to be an astronaut.”

Obama is doing god's work in wallowing down in the mud with Clinton. After Edwards gets the nomination, the Vice Presidency is Obama's proper reward for this service.

Posted by Petey | December 3, 2007 2:11 PM

And if you want more substantive primary coverage than kindergarten fights, check out Jon Cohn's ninja-like piece today explaining why Obama's "universal healthcare plan" leaves 15 million without healthcare coverage.

Posted by Petey | December 3, 2007 2:18 PM

(Like any of this means anything.)

NEW HAMPSHIRE (PP): Eminent psychologists, researching photographs taken of Senator Hillary Clinton at a age three, stated that the finger paintings and crayon artwork shown in several of them posed serious questions about the Senator's "fitness to lead a nation or soemthing".

Eminent psychologists at the Portzebie Instutite were allowed to examine the photos, and agreed that the ary shown indicated their creator was "very profoundly, y'know, into something", and "clearly a control freak", and "wears pantsuits to cover a butt as big as a Volkswagen".

After rendering their verdict, the psychologists voted to adjourn and go for pizza with a number of Mike Huckabee staffers.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | December 3, 2007 2:19 PM

I'm glad I'm not running for president. My siblings will never let me forget my stated desire, as a four year old, to become first an astronaut and then a baby pig when I grew up.

Imagine what Hillary would be able to do if she had that material to work with.

Posted by Jim W | December 3, 2007 2:22 PM

Petey wrote:

"Obama is doing god's work in wallowing down in the mud with Clinton. After Edwards gets the nomination, the Vice Presidency is Obama's proper reward for this service."

Haha, funny. Edwards has been persistently attacking Hillary, and if she had any fear of him winning she would have gotten into the mud with him when he began mud-beckoning months ago.

She's sliming Obama because she knows he can beat her.

Not saying it couldn't somehow swing edwards' way due to this, but it's a triple bank shot when obama has been gaining recently.

Posted by blatherskite | December 3, 2007 2:22 PM

Re: "clearly a control freak", and "wears pantsuits to cover a butt as big as a Volkswagen".

No more posts like this, please. I'm getting too aroused to get any work done.

Posted by Jim W | December 3, 2007 2:25 PM

Ummm... I don't think it's all that crazy. Obama was giving his "Aww shucks, jes' l'il ol' me" routine, and decided to make the ludicrous claim that he hadn't been thinking about running for President. What's the proper response? Let the bullshit stand? That's certainly what Democrats used to do with clever lies. Point out that it's pretty damn unlikely, and impossible to prove? Well... that's some pretty weak blustering. Show that Obama has wanted to be President since his days in the madrassa? Now that is funny and effective.

Posted by blah | December 3, 2007 2:28 PM

"Haha, funny. Edwards has been persistently attacking Hillary"

You're a couple of weeks behind the times. He's Johnny Sunshine at the moment.

"if she had any fear of him winning she would have gotten into the mud with him when he began mud-beckoning months ago."

No doubt. I'm just pleased as a cat with milk on its whiskers at the dynamic of the two celebrity campaigns locked in a nuclear exchange with one another.

Posted by Petey | December 3, 2007 2:29 PM

If Obama wins this thing, we need to do some serious revisiting of the "flawless Clinton campaigns/brilliant Bill Clinton" storylines that have been kicking around for years. If you weren't aware that the Clintons were political geniuses whose every move is planned like the computer in WarGames, you'd think they were running around screaming and flapping their arms right now.

Posted by Dave Weigel | December 3, 2007 2:29 PM

Someone - perhaps the candidate herself - in the Clinton hierarchy lacks a certain feel, a sense of proportion, when it comes to responding to attacks and initiating attacks.
In a sense, they really have become victims of the vicious and unwarranted attacks from the verifiable right-wing conspirators and noise machine. They've trained themselves to either attack or counter-attack so well that they cannot turn it off and they cannot determine when it is a good idea to lighten up. Howard Wolfson is the perfect example of this bad trait. Let him speak on TV and within 20 seconds he launches into a personal attack on someone. Occasionally it is effective; for the most part it is kind of creepy.
As a Dem who loves when Dems aggressively do what Republicans have been doing for the last 25 years or so, I do understand and appreciate why the Clinton campaign does what it does.
And whoever wins the nomination is going to have to respond as viciously as the GOP is going to attack in the general election.
But they do need to lighten up and get a better feel for when and how to go on the offensive or else they are going to turn off lots of possibly sympathetic Iowans in the next month.

Posted by frankied | December 3, 2007 2:33 PM

Okay, of course this is stupid/silly/whatever. However...it's also true that, some time ago, some writer asserted (with little evidence) that Clinton's had an evil, long-aborning plan to become president -- and that story not only wasn't sneered at, it was gleefully promoted by some of the same people laughing about this as proof of Hillary's disabling character flaws.

But, what do I care? Like Petey, I'm rooting Edwards on. Did you catch Edwards with Charlie Rose last week? He was terrific throughout, but especially beautiful slapping Charlie down with a smile on his face ("Let me put that in MY words...unless you're running").

Posted by demtom | December 3, 2007 2:34 PM

Who was writing frickin' ESSAYS in kindergarten? I was still eating paste. Another reason to vote for Obama.

Posted by EricW | December 3, 2007 2:48 PM

When they write the history of this campaign, the narrative will be:

Edwards attacks Clinton hard in September and October, drags her back down to the pack, which forces Clinton out of her 'above the fray' stance and into attacking Obama, which forces Obama to attack back and perpetuates the celebrity nuclear exchanges, which allows Edwards to run positive and peak at the right time.

-----

Edwards was underestimated late into the campaigns in both his '98 general election win and his '04 primary better than expected showing. It's quite useful in politics to get underestimated.

Posted by Petey | December 3, 2007 3:00 PM

I'll be very happy when primary season is over.

Why? Then it will be general election season, when the discourse will be substantially more brutal and provocative, and infinitely more absurd and inane. This Clinton-Obama fluff is child's play.

Let's keep some sense of context and humor here. This schoolyard ragging is ultimately over how long each of the respective candidates has wanted to be president. Each campaign is now saying the other candidate has wanted to be president for a long time - hardly the most damning of accusations. The Republicans, on the other hand, are going to be looking to dig up information that shows Obama was an aspiring young Muslim jihadist; or that shows Clinton held women down while Bill groped and raped them. Let's appreciate the friendly season while it lasts.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 3, 2007 3:02 PM

"Did you catch Edwards with Charlie Rose last week? He was terrific throughout, but especially beautiful slapping Charlie down with a smile on his face ("Let me put that in MY words...unless you're running")."

Edwards has really achieved a very high level of performance in those settings, of late. His game is on a completely different level even from those, like Huckabee and Obama, who have decently proficient games themselves.

Dude spent 2005 figuring out how to be as commanding an interview candidate as he was a plaintiff's advocate.

When he talks about how having gone through the process last cycle is a big advantage for him, I don't think he's lying.

Posted by Petey | December 3, 2007 3:09 PM

, which forces Obama to attack back and perpetuates the celebrity nuclear exchanges,

Except, Petey, Obama hasn't attacked back...his campaign has laughed off and dismissed the charges, pointed to the polls, and pivoted to focusing the "problems the country faces" or whatever.

Your theory requires the Obama campaign to do something they're not actually doing. Sorry.

Posted by Michael | December 3, 2007 3:21 PM

Petey, I'm totally in agreement on Edwards' improvement. I first looked into him early in Bush's first term, having read the profile in NY Magazine. When I saw him on Larry King, he was dispensing such pablum, I couldn't believe he was supposed to be this legendary trial lawyer. Didn't really care for his '04 convention speech, either -- he was dwarfed by Obama, Bill Clinton, even Kerry.

But this time around he's a completely different story. Every time I see him, I can't believe he won't be the guy the party'll eventually rally around.

Posted by demtom | December 3, 2007 3:29 PM

Matt -- could we have some (v. limited) guest posting by Petey - say "Friday Petey Blogging" in the last weeks before Iowa and New Hampshire?

Petey has swum pilot fish-like in your waters, giving consistently good value, and has perhaps earnt the right to a few moments in the sun.

Posted by otto | December 3, 2007 3:31 PM

"Except, Petey, Obama hasn't attacked back...his campaign has laughed off and dismissed the charges, pointed to the polls, and pivoted to focusing the "problems the country faces" or whatever."

Obama has already started attacking back, at a bit lower level than the daily incoming fire from Wolfson-ville, but attacking back, nonetheless.

If Clinton attacks further - which they will - you must defend and open up a new would on them, otherwise Team Clinton is going to slowly but surely euthanize Obambi.

So the celebrity nuclear exchanges will have its own internal logic for repeatedly lighting up the December skies,

- Team Clinton euthanizes Obambi,
- Team Clinton gets blowback and vilified for whacking the cute little deer.
- And Johnny Sunshine picks up the pieces as he moves forwards to where the voters are waiting for him.

Posted by Petey | December 3, 2007 3:36 PM

What an odd post. As near as I can tell, Obama flat out lied about his ambition to be President. And Matthew completely ignored Obama's lie and instead complained that Hillary called Obama on the lie. She may have done so in a clumsy way, but, really, what's more important, that Hillary was clumsy in calling Obama on his lie, or that Obama lied in the first place?

(Moreover, Obama's lie was particularly dumb, dontcha think? I mean, who is going to believe this "oh, I really didn't consider wanting to be President until 10 minutes ago" schtick? Serious Presidential candidates are necessarily ambitious - who faults them for that?)

Posted by Al | December 3, 2007 4:02 PM

Al, didn't you want to be President when you were a little tyke? Everyone my age wanted to be an astronaut, fireman, cowboy, baseball player president.

Posted by Dan Kervick | December 3, 2007 4:28 PM

No, Al always dreamed of being a blog troll.

Posted by Jim W | December 3, 2007 4:51 PM

Al,

Obama didn't say he had no ambition ever to run for President. What he has maintained is that he didn't initially plan to run for President in 2008, and that he didn't make a final decision to run until the beginning of 2007. (Most likely, Obama's initial plan after winning his Senate seat in 2004 was to serve 2 terms in the Senate then run in 2016. He may have even considered running for Governor of Illinois in 2010, then running for President in 2012 after winning the Illinois gubanatorial election.)

A kindergarten essay about wanting to be president is not proof that he intended to run for President in 2008 specifically, instead of 2012, 2016, 2100, etc.

Posted by eltoro | December 3, 2007 5:24 PM

Al, that's one of your best troll efforts yet. Completely deadpan. Almost fooled me into thinking you actually believed what you were saying.

But seriously, Al, you've missed your talking points. Even the Corner is attacking Hillary for making such a transparently ridiculous criticism of Obama. Hillary-bashing takes priority over Obama-bashing in the conservosphere. Get with the program.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | December 3, 2007 5:33 PM

Al,

On the other hand, the Clintons have clearly been planning for Hilary to run for President in 2008 specifically (after 2 terms by President Al Gore), since the 2000 election at least. Plans, Al, not vague ambitions expressed by a 5 year old in kindergarden, or even an adult community organizer before he had held any elective office.

Posted by eltoro | December 3, 2007 5:39 PM

AI passes the Turing test. Be afraid.

>>Eminent psychologists at the Portzebie Instutite were allowed to examine the photos, and agreed that the ary shown indicated their creator was "very profoundly, y'know, into something", and "clearly a control freak", and "wears pantsuits to cover a butt as big as a Volkswagen".

Post like that make me doubt if progress is possible at all. The correct spelling is PoTRZebie!!!! (The name of the Institute makes no sense grammatically, but this is a minor point about one of numerous declensions in some exotic language, moreover, probably there is some good joke there. Would Potrzasku Institute be as funny?)

Posted by piotr | December 3, 2007 5:49 PM

If Obama wins this thing, we need to do some serious revisiting of the "flawless Clinton campaigns/brilliant Bill Clinton" storylines that have been kicking around for years.

Yes. I hereby proclaim, for that record, that I will eat my words about Clinton's deftness at running a campaign if she fails to secure the nomination. I simply think she's still on track to win. I guess I'll have a better idea a month from now.

Posted by Tyro | December 3, 2007 5:57 PM

Eltoro, but according to the Clinton press release, Obama said "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."

I don't see anything in there about not planning to run for President in 2008. Seems a pretty flat statement about not planning to run for President. Maybe Clinton omitted the context? I dunno; I can only go by what I read in the attached link.

And I note in the attached link that the Clinton campaign comes up with numerous examples of Obama planning to run for office of the years - not even including the silly kindergarten quote.

Posted by Al | December 3, 2007 6:01 PM

But seriously, Al, you've missed your talking points. Even the Corner is attacking Hillary for making such a transparently ridiculous criticism of Obama. Hillary-bashing takes priority over Obama-bashing in the conservosphere. Get with the program.

You forget them I'm a pro-Hillary conservative. We're a rare breed.

Posted by Al | December 3, 2007 6:05 PM

On the other hand, the Clintons have clearly been planning for Hilary to run for President in 2008 specifically (after 2 terms by President Al Gore), since the 2000 election at least.

But you misunderstand my objection, Eltoro. I don't care if Obama or Hillary or anyone else has been planning to run for President for years. They're all ambitious, so of course they've been planning to run for President. Biden's probably been planning to run since the Carter Administration. The objectionable point is the lying about it. (Hey, has Hillary lied about not planning to run for President? Maybe!)

Posted by Al | December 3, 2007 6:08 PM

Obama said "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for."

Well, he's 14 years younger. If she'd written a similar essay even in junior high it wouldn't be possible for him to have been planning for as long (assuming you're crazed enough to think that saying in kindergarten that you want to be president counts as "planning").

This particular line of attack by Obama was a little silly, but the silliness is swamped by the silliness of the Clinton campaign in dredging up literally kindergarten stuff.

Posted by KCinDC | December 3, 2007 6:21 PM

W, KCinDC, weak. Obama tried to pull an "Aw, shucks" moment, his attempt to portray himself as more noble than the average ambitious politician failed comically, and no amount of weaseliness from yglesias and the peanut gallery will change that.

Posted by blah | December 3, 2007 7:03 PM

>>UPDATE:

Did Matt just correct an error in one of his posts? No way! I thought there was a policy forbidding that or something.

Posted by jim | December 3, 2007 7:29 PM

Does Petey have sock puppets now?

Posted by KCinDC | December 3, 2007 9:17 PM

I think your characterization of her statement is misleading, because you fail to note that one of Obama's claimed advantages is that he supposedly hasn't been running for President his whole life. And also that the press release includes references to kindergarten and third grade, but also to statements made to law school classmates and his brother-in-law.

Read in context, Hillary is making the point that, contrary to his own claim, Obama has indeed been planning a run for the Presidency for decades. In establishing a pattern, going back to his childhood statements is surely relevant.

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | December 3, 2007 9:28 PM

The only pattern relevant CHEERFUL is why they aspire to be President.

Hillary's is personal and about power. To the extent that she is willing to do whatever is political expedient to achieve her ambitions including claiming the experience of her spouse as her own.

In contrast, Barack spurned corporate dollars to work for pennies as a community organizer who believed in active citizenship and providing ordinatry citizens with the information that enabled them to be politically active in our democracy as that is essential to us having good governance.

Obama decided to run for the President out of noble reasons, for the common good. So that Americans could take back the power from corporate interests.

So, while I agree that having ambitions is OK, it is far more illuminating to know the reasons for that ambition.

Hillary is out for Hillary and that could prove dangerous, as we saw with her cavalierly voting to take the nation to war as it was politically expedient.

Obama on the other hand opposed the war, despite it being popular in the polls as he stood on principle and spoke out with moral courage and conviction no matter what his ambitions were. Becasue the reason for his ambitions were to take back America from corporate and special interest.

Clearly, all the disclosures in his book Dreams of My Father are not those of an individual seeking personal glory and power as he shunned corporate megabucks when he graduated from Harvard Law having been the president of the Law review.

Obama's ambitions are borne out of his committment to have the American ideals we all dream of. While Hillarys are nothing but personal.

Posted by savvy | December 3, 2007 10:34 PM

I agree with savvy that the difference here is mostly about why they are running, and Hillary's "I'm in it to win it" approach, and what seems like a sense of entitlement, like it's her turn, and why did we THINK she put up with Bill's garbage for so long, dammit, etc. rather than being in it for the sake of the country, which is what I get from Obama consistently. He really could have listened to everyone who said he needed to wait, and politically he would have been in a much better position - Hillary "waited" in the senate for that very reason, while the country was going to hell in a handbasket - but he has said again and again that the mess is too big, it needs fixing and drastic changing now, etc. If his primary motivation was to be president, he really would have waited.

But even without that aspect, saying with a straight face that Obama's presidential ambitions have been unbroken since kindergarten - wtF?! This is totally in keeping with her campaign's shoot-the-mosqito-with-a-grenade-launcher approach, which we saw first when she howled that Obama should give David Geffen's money back because Geffen said some mean [and spot on] things about Clinton. She and the people she surrounds herself with are a bit unhinged. Not good.

Posted by Phoebe | December 4, 2007 4:28 AM

Al,

Where do you get that Obama lied about wanting to run for President? His statement reads: "I have not been planning to run for President for however number of years some of the other candidates have been planning for." He didn't deny that he ever had the ambition to run for the office. He said however, that he hadn't PLANNED to run for the office for as long as some of the other candidates had.

Al, a plan to run for President is more than a vague ambition to run for President, especially a vague ambition expressed as a young adult before one ever ran for elective office. Even if we use your lax standards, Al, and count vague ambitions as being a plan, then by that standard Obama's above statement is still true. The Clintons have had the vague ambition to run for President at least since Bill first ran for statewide office in Arkansas in the 1970s. Heck, they probably had this vague ambition since the time they first met in college back in the 1960s.

So, no, Al, if anybody is guilty of being a liar here, it is you.

Posted by eltoro | December 4, 2007 3:44 PM

"I think your characterization of her statement is misleading, because you fail to note that one of Obama's claimed advantages is that he supposedly hasn't been running for President his whole life."

Cheerful Iconoclast,

It's impossible for Obama to have RUNNING his whole life for President, especially since you have to be 35 years old at least to serve in that office.

Even if you only mean that Obama always had the AMBITION to run for President, you are still wrong. Obama has never denied that he ever had the ambition to run for President. What he has said is that he didn't PLAN to run until recently; his initial plan after being elected to the US Senate in 2004 was to serve out his term at least. He changed his mind after seeing how responsive many people were to the idea of Obama running for President.

Therefore, Obama is not likely to have planned a Presidential run at all, let alone in 2008, any earlier than 2004 (after his Democratic National Convention speech). Compare that with former First Lady Hilary Clinton, who has been planning to run for the Presidency at least since she won the NY Senate race in 2000. (It's possible she has been planning to run since Bill first won the Presidency back in 1992).Compare that with Joe Biden, who clearly has planned to run since the Reagan administration (Biden ran in the 1988 Democratic primary). Compare that even with John Edwards or even Dennis Kucinich, who 1st ran for President in 2004, meaning that either of them has planning to run since at least 2002, if not earlier. (Edwards certanly has been planning to run for President since winning the SC Senate race in 1998).

Even if you count the ambition to run for President as being equivalent to a plan to run, by that standard Hilary Clinton and Joe Biden far exceed Obama in the length of time they have planned to run for President. Hilary has probably had the ambition to run for President since she 1st met Bill in college. (Heck, she probably had the ambition to run since she was a Goldwater Republican in 1964.)

Posted by eltoro | December 4, 2007 4:24 PM