For the "using Republican talking points" watch, Hillary Clinton warns that terrorists will devour your children if Barack Obama is elected president.
« False Hopes | Main | Three Ways »
Be Afraid
07 Jan 2008 03:35 pm
Comments (52)
I'm not so sure she's adopting a GOP talking point. She isn't saying, so far as I can tell, that terrorists would be *more likely* to attack if Obama gets elected; she's just saying she's better equipped to handle things in the event of another attack. The GOP talking point is that the mere act of electing wussy Democrats will INVITE terrorist attacks, while electing steeley-eyed Republicans will make all Islamofascist evildoers quake with fear and call off any plans to attack again.
This new "they'll attack to test the new president" line of argument from Hillary is a dumb way of trying to heighten the possibility of another attack in people's minds, but it's not the same as saying an attack will be invited only by electing Obama, as opposed to her.
I'll vote for Obama and rub some bacon fat on my kids. That should make them devourproof.
Bloix,
I don't think Obama could be confused with a Republican. Just because people of all stripes like him and are comparing his popularity to Reagan's doesn't mean that he himself is acting like a GOP candidate.
If she's choked up and on the verge of tears just because she's down in the polls, imagine what a terror attack would bring out. Or would she be okay with that because the bad stuff would have happened to other people?
If that sounds harsh, please keep in mind that I'm listening to this person channel Karl Rove and Dubya while telling us all that the country is falling backwards and only she can save it. I don't see how anyone can look at the combination of tears and sleaze and not come away with the impression that she's not delusional about what kind of person she is.
Obama is not trying to be the Republican candidate by triangulating the right. He's actually trying to triangulate the Broderian wing, convincing them that he's the "centrist independent" candidate.
I can see that now-- people who fall for the irritating "post-partisan" Broderian platitudes are ga-ga over Obama, which effectively disarms them, heading off a possible Bloomberg run as well as shoring up support for himself against those who might otherwise support McCain.
One of Hillary's main appeals to me was the possibility that she was just the sort of vindictive, Machiavellian schemer we needed to deal with the Republican party. It seems that she's not qualified to handle that role. Her attacks against Obama are too blunt. What she should be doing is doing what Bush did to McCain-- co-opting the mantle of "hope" and "change."
This is in line with Josh Marshall's claim from earlier today about Hillary's missteps-- she should be running Bill's 1992 campaign instead of his 1996 campaign. Similarly, she should be running something close to W's 2000 campaign rather than his fear-of-a-terrorist-planet-with-Dems-in-charge 2004 campaign.
Matt--Good to see you've gone off the deep end again.
Let me know when you've stopped being paid by the Obama campaign...and I'll be back.
Also, I am not "hiring" a President Hillary, I am electing one. Maybe if you weren't such a corporate Democrat you wouldn't be using bullshit corporate-speak. Jesus. I actually respect the public sphere.
I don't understand what Team Clinton is doing with the myriad messages coming out of their camp, as if they're trying on a bunch of clothes to see if they fit. Why doesn't she just stick to her guns and just say she's the one who can get s*** done?
One of the reasons Obama looks so great right now is that his campaign stuck to their same message even when he was way down and the situation was looking somewhat dire. When he was down in the polls his campaign didn't turn into consulting mode and cast about for what worked. He just stuck to his guns and was confident.
Now Clinton has one stumble and it's like a pundit pinata exploded, scattering a million messages on the floor.
Hillary has one main advantage over Obama. She has gotten s*** done and can probably get s*** as president. She needs to stick to that message. The other shoes just don't fit.
She should have reminded everyone she was there when The Towers fell, feeling the earth shake and choking on the dust and debris. Oh, also start talking through a bullhorn.
Speaking of Hillary, did anyone else catch that she said that she's worried that we're about to 'start slipping back'. Does that mean she's worried that after 12 years of Reaganism, 8 years of centrism and 8 years of right-wing rule, the country would start slipping back towards the progressive side?
She doesn't get it. People are sick of this sort of fear-mongering. Perfectly illustrates why Obama is going to crush her tomorrow.
Her attempts to be Karl Rove in a pants-suit are good comedy, though.
Sweet Jeebus, katie, do we have to remind you what Big Time said in 2004 about Kerry?
if John F. Kerry is elected, "the danger is that we'll get hit again" by terrorists.
That fear-mongering bullshit pissed me off then when Cheney said it and it pisses me off now when Hillary says it.
She's lost my vote in the Virginia Primary.
i cant imagine that in the event of a terrorist attack...we would want someone who was so busy running for president he couldn't be bothered to hold a single hearing as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee/Subcommittee on Europe.
We gave him a leadership position, one that is vital for our keeping in good standing with our European allies, and he couldn't be bothered to show up. How can you count on him in times of a national emergency? He'll probably be too busy running for re-election.
Hillary Clinton warns that terrorists will devour your children if Barack Obama is elected president
I thought computer games were already devouring our children.
"He'll probably be too busy running for re-election."--Katie
You criticize Obama for being in permanent election mode? As opposed, say, to the CLINTONS?!?!?!, who've been in mud-slinging, politics-of-personal-destruction, permanent election mode since 1974 or so? Honestly, if that's the best you and Hillary have got...
Katie: i cant imagine that in the event of a terrorist attack...we would want someone who was so busy running for president he couldn't be bothered to hold a single hearing as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee/Subcommittee on Europe.
I can't imagine electing someone who, in response to 9-11, decided we should attack Iraq.
sure..dont address the fact that he failed to actually do the job he was elected to do.
Keep on throwing those republican talking points!
She gets things done. I don't need anything else. It's the best argument. He did nothing.
hlah-
Me neither. I'm so glad that Bush can't run again. :)
Obama talked the big talk when he held his position of little power, but has been voting the exact same way as Hillary on every single vote since arriving in a place where votes and opinions have repercussions.
Stop drinking the kool-aid and look at the record!
She gets things done. I don't need anything else. It's the best argument. He did nothing.
Petey, are you single?
I think we've found your soulmate.
She gets things done.
That's true. She did a great job of giving an incompetent war-mongering president the sign off to invade Iraq. It's a great argument . . . if you're a neo-con.
I predict after she loses NH, she'll say, "None of this worries me — Sept. 11, there were times I was worried.”
Hillary's new "vote for me or the Terrorists will kill you" strategy is brilliant, really. It's as if the past 6 years haven't happened. And she's a Democrat? Haa.
I love the smell of toast in New Hampshire. That burnt toast smell...smells like..victory.
but has been voting the exact same way as Hillary on every single vote since arriving in a place where votes and opinions have repercussions.
So clearly he's much worse than her!
hmm..still a SHOCKING lack of substance coming out of the Obama-drones. I guess the supports are just as vague as the candidate!
I'm not the one claiming one is better than the other SoCal.
It just sounds like he's talking 'hope' and 'change' but not exactly following up on all the talk.
Just take a closer look at the actions.
Katie, the following is a list of Senators who possessed the magical power to not vote for the biggest screw up in the last "35 years."
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
Why is it just taken for granted that Hillary Clinton is somehow more qualified for the presidency than Obama? She's the former first lady - big fucking deal. I could pose for photo ops and look good in a pantsuit, too. This qualifies me to be president? Hillary's one big policy initiative (healthcare) was a failure, and her and her husband's lying and irresponsibility helped Republicans take over Congress for 12 years and the White House for 8. Hillary does have four years of experience in the Senate on Obama. She also has a longer track record of embarrassing votes and equivocating on Iraq. If this is "experience" I'll take "naive" Obama any day.
I partly won't vote for Hillary because of her jaw-dropping arrogance and sense of entitlement. I partly won't vote for Hillary because I don't long for a return to the 1990s and think we need a clean break from the Clinton/Bush dynasties. But mostly, I won't vote for Hillary because her foreign policy is almost identical to George W. Bush's.
katie at 4pm:
Matt--Good to see you've gone off the deep end again.
Let me know when you've stopped being paid by the Obama campaign...and I'll be back.
Yes, you know from substance. Clearly.
Anyway, did Matt stop being paid by the Obama campaign after 4pm? Or did you break your pledge for another reason?
Sometimes...I just like to try to pull people away from the kool-aid. I hear its a killer. Well, if we get stuck with President McCain come Jan 2009, you only have yourselves to blame for thinking that big bad 'Washington' and the Republican smear machine can be changed or subdued with pretty words.
Ah, the "your candidate can't win a general election, but mine can" tack.
I would accept that somewhat from a Petey (although it's still wrong), but from a Clinton supporter, that's just absolutely laughable.
Ironic, katie, your frequent use of the "kool-aid" metaphor. You might want to lay off it yourself.
This whole line of attack against Obama that he has done nothing is really pretty desperate and sad.
It would be one thing to take on his record on the merits -- actually look at what he did as an organizer, state legislator and Senator. But to just say that he is only pretty words and has "done nothing" is pathetic.
A message of substance over form is not a winner if the one making it does not even engage in a substantive debate.
I gave a specific instance (a far more important one than anything he did before he was a Senator) where he did nothing.
I'm not saying he's never done anything in his life, its obviously not true, I'm saying that he was the head of an important committee and he failed to do anything. Do you want to address this issue at all?
I'd love to hear what you have to say, it seems pretty cut and dry to me.
Given that Obama merely proposes occasional conventional border raids into Pakistan in pursuit of al-Qaeda -- whereas Hillary refuses to rule out nuking Pakistan in pursuit of NON-NUCLEAR terrorist threats -- I know which one I'd trust more in such a crisis. Experience doesn't substitute for an absence of brains.
Still no response to his 'leadership' as Chairman eh?
30 minutes later and the silence is deafening.
Part of the problem here, katie, is that Clinton is the one who is running on experience. So SHE is the one who is begging for criticism of that experience, such as her votes for the Iraq authorization and the absurd Kyl-Leiberman attempt to start something with Iran. Obama is not running on his experience as a senator, so people are less inclined to pore over his voting record or his attendance at committee meetings.
BTW, senators don't win the presidency, in part because their accomplishments are too wonky and their failures are indeed disconcerting to people who go to work everyday and can't fathom why a lawmaker would ever skip any vote. The less a senator makes of his or her experience, the better their chances of winning the presidency. And let's face it: ALL THREE Democratic candidates ran for U.S. senate because they planned on running for president. It's a nice thing to put on your resumé, but usually it's the fact that they got elected in the first place that counts the most. Once Hillary was elected and then reelected, people thought she had enough cred to go for the WH. Likewise for Obama. And Edwards. That's just the game.
One last thing:
Still no response to his 'leadership' as Chairman eh?
30 minutes later and the silence is deafening.
Here on planet Earth, katie, many human beings work from 9 am to 5 pm. And most of them do not work where they live.
Now, can you think of any reason why commenters here may have suddenly disappeared from commenting duties at 5 pm?
Are you new to the internet?
um no...I just have a job that demands a little more than 9-5. I guess i figured that all you guys must be working away for change at all hours...
Also..i wish he were only skipping hearings and votes, instead of not holding hearings for 3 years while head of a major one.
nothing eh? at least you're not denying he abdicated the only leadership role he's had while representing Illinois. Imagine the bang-up job he'll do as president!
And one other thing, of course for many its a stepping stone, but at least once elected Hillary decided to do the job she ran for.
Katie,
Read this year-old post from obsidian wings
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html
After that, you can google "Obama Coburn Pork Bill"
And then go away.
Thanks.
It is a truism that the country's enemies will often do things to test a new President. Obviously, any new President must be prepared for that. But why anyone would believe these enemies would be any less inclined to test Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama, I have no idea. Nor do I have any idea why one would think Clinton is more likely than Obama to make good decisions in response to these tests. She's had a few of these national security tests in the Senate, and hasn't done so well.
Terroists will eat our children (and us) if Obama type gets elected.
Imagine having David Dinkins as President and you get the picture. (Does Hussein Obama play tennis?)
She can't even handle Chris Matthews.
How the hell is she going to handle Osama bin Laden?
Did you see the HuffPo video? She had to go over to Chris and practically give him a blowjob. He's pinching her cheek, she's rubbing her cheek on his. The commentators were playing "Love Boat" music.
All because he asked her to distinguish her lame "I'll get the troops out of Iraq - someday" line from Obama's.
The whole scene also demonstrated how she'll play the female card when she has to (as well as how desperate she is for some male attention.)
Bottom line: I'd fuck her, I'd never vote for her (even if I wasn't an anarchist.)
Much like the AFSCME mailer, I don't get how this is a big deal. In 2004, Cheney said terrorists would attack again *if* we elected Kerry; Clinton's saying we're likely to get attacked again no matter what, and the important thing is who's in office when it happens. You can disagree that she would be a better option than her opponents -- as I do -- but the premise of her line involves an attack happening during her hypothetical administration as well.
katie: I'm curious, how many hearings a year were held in that subcommittee before 2004? Is it unusual for their not to be hearings in that subcommittee? In your opinion, on what issues should a hearing or hearings have been held? How have our relations with our European allies been worse over the last three years because of a lack of a hearing on said issues? In other words, please provide some context for the factoid that explains why it's such a terrible thing and not just campaign talking point.
Jozef, isn't it a little early for you to be drunk?
katie wrote:"he couldn't be bothered to hold a single hearing as the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee/Subcommittee on Europe."
Who cares? What's the pressing issue that demands such meetings?
What's the big crisis in US/European relations that has been ignored?
The only thing that comes to mind is climate change, but everyone involved in that, around the world, knows the obstacles are Bush and Cheney and there's little to be done but wait for them to leave office so policy can be made rational.
I still am amazed that the Clintons’ have the ego and arrogance to run again, and why they still have so many supporters. Bill blames the press, the Iowa caucus system, etc. Hence, their entitlement justifies using Rove’s 9/11 fear mongering. They are such narcissists, just like Bush/Cheney/Rove.
The public, as it becomes more informed, is resoundingly rejecting them on a very personal level. That must hurt; but they would be smart to leave with some dignity and some political capital. That capital is evaporating fast and it won’t be long before they’re only left with the same capital they had at the low point of Monica and the impeachment.
Compared to Little George, Clinton’s Presidency was stellar. But compared to a non- deviant, Clinton was uninspired and mediocre at best. At worse, he set the tone for dishonesty and cynicism that in some respects enabled this current crowd to say and do whatever they want.... “because they can”. As Slick Willie said regarding why he had his intern give him oral sex, “because he could” .
Just to review: Before the long string of posts relentlessly whaling on Katie, the thread was started by a post in which MY made a transparently false claim about HRC. Maybe as so-called principled liberals, we might worry about why progressive bloggers like MY debase themselves with cheap demogogic smears best left to able practioners of the art like Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Matthews. Silly me. Of course not.
I guess that's been McDonald's plan all along: to fatten up American kids to make them tasty appetizers at bin Laden's cave soirees.
Should Obama have held some committee hearings? Probably. However, considering how European Affairs isn't the focus of Congress since 2006 (since different committee members serve on different committees), if the leadership decides that a certain committee isn't as important than others, it is unlikely to call many if any hearings, especially when it can't control a policy, such as our relations with Europe, when the opposition party has the presidency.
Katie, can you point out a single thing Clinton has done successfully in her career? A single accomplishment? I just want to hear one. I've never heard Clinton say one. I've never heard her supporters say one. If she's so competent, she should be able to say something besides once being First Lady.
but at least once elected Hillary decided to do the job she ran for.
She ran for the job of Bush's poodle? She did do that job extremely well. Well done, Hillary.
Comments closed January 21, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Clinton and Obama both seem to think that the way to win the Democratic nomination is to be a Republican. The problem is that the Democratic nominee can't be more Republican than the Republican nominee.
Posted by Bloix | January 7, 2008 3:43 PM