Clinton: Obama's Too Liberal

Hillary Clinton's campaign seems determined to convince Barack Obama's detractors in the blogosphere that he is so a liberal after all:

Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with "left-wing" intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination.

Progressive record? Heaven forbid! I thought he didn't have experience.

The Tom Edsall article I got that from is well worth reading for his rundown of the GOP field as well.

Comments

He is naive. No wait, he is using right wing talking points. No wait, wait, he is too liberal. Stop! Where are you going? Did I mention he used drugs? Come back!

Posted by DTM | January 5, 2008 12:07 AM

Well, the Rove playbook says to hit the opponent at a point of strength, doesn't it? Of course, bolstering his liberal cred in a Democratic primary doesn't seem like a good way to do it.

I guess the Hyde Park intellectuals shot was meant to emasculate. Shouldn't an Oak Park native know that the U of C crowd is too busy with theoretical equations to become Bolsheviks? It ain't exactly Berkeley.

Posted by Royko | January 5, 2008 12:15 AM

Obama really does have some ultra-liberal votes that will be difficult to defend in a general election. It's not real bright to belittle the criticism as opposed to thinking about it seriously.

We might be in a better place today if we had taken Al Gore's point that that Massachusetts furlough program might be politically damaging.

Posted by Steve | January 5, 2008 12:18 AM

liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights

Apparently meaning his support for videotaping police interrogations.

Shame on Hillary Clinton if she opposes such a simple, common sense measure.

Posted by rea | January 5, 2008 12:24 AM

Clinton aides also encouraged reporters to closely scrutinize Obama's beautiful family, his love of apple pie, and his work caring for injured puppies.

Posted by southpaw | January 5, 2008 12:25 AM

Maybe the idea is to make Obama retort that he isn't that liberal and hope that, in providing evidence for this,he will alienate Democratic primary voters?

Posted by rufustfyrfly | January 5, 2008 12:27 AM

Click the link in my signature and you'll see the office where Obama worked as a community organizer for several years in Chicago. It's in the middle of an incinerator, a closed factory, a waste dump and housing projects. Obama worked out of room at the Holy Rosary Church with two other organizers in one office for the Developing Communities Project. 113th St. and Calumet Ave. isn't the Left Bank of the Seine.

Posted by joejoejoe | January 5, 2008 12:29 AM

Maybe the idea is to make Obama retort that he isn't that liberal and hope that, in providing evidence for this,he will alienate Democratic primary voters?

Or maybe the Clinton campaign is horrible and crotchety and old and negative and I'm relishing every single second of Billary riding off into the sunset so I never have to look at their faces on TV again.

Posted by Old Hat | January 5, 2008 12:39 AM

This isn't surprising. There's a lot to admire the Clintons for, but they have always been conservatives and always will be.

Part of the frustration about things like the Iraq War vote is the frustration of people on the left, who were correct about the Iraq War, and can't stand the fact that our political system has defined the spectrum of reasonable opinion as between the right and the far right.

Obama moves that spectrum several ticks to the left. The Clintons are conservatives who would like it to stay where it is.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 5, 2008 12:44 AM

OK, Steve, name them.

Posted by DTM | January 5, 2008 12:46 AM

Obama really does have some ultra-liberal votes that will be difficult to defend in a general election.

Fuck you, you fucking prick.

Posted by commie atheist | January 5, 2008 12:49 AM

Is this the work of Mark Penn?

A couple of months ago, I thought that the Obama campaign had become tone deaf. Now that description seems more applicable to the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Rich | January 5, 2008 12:50 AM

Matt Y.

I am confused. A while ago, you and your pals (Matt A., Atrios, Daily Kos, etc. -- the whole lot) were for HRC, as she was the weapen against your vapor Right Wing Conspiracy. Earth to you: GOP has no class compared to Clinton attack machine. Get real?

Now, you all were stunned as Obama beat your candidate (HRC or Edwards - take your pick).

Obama did not bow before you. HRC did. Edwards did.

So, Obama was one you did not want.

Now, you realized that this is historic, you do not want to be left out of this situation. So, you are positive about Obama.

What gives?

Posted by eorse | January 5, 2008 1:01 AM

Too liberal!??!

Hillary: LIBERAL Democratic presidents won two world wars, passed the most important civil rights legislation, lifted the country out of the depression, and so on.

In contrast, your husband had a wonderful chance to shrink the gap between the ultra-rich and the middle class, to improve environmental (and vehicle emission) standards, to extend health care to all americans .... and instead he compromised it all away and left us with don't-ask-don't-tell and a poorly negotiated nafta ... and lost the Democratic majority in Congress along the way.

Thanks Hillary, but I'll take a liberal this time.

Posted by chkettntji | January 5, 2008 1:11 AM

eorse, who cares what converts folks to reasoning so long as in the end they get it.

Mark Penn is the death knell of the HRC campaign. You could see the marked difference between the campaigns when Hardball had all three together on split screen...it was like watching two normal men standing with the bitter pimply kid that's trying to make up for being picked on on the playground. Penn is a complete sleeze and so long as HRC takes his advice, she is doomed.

Folks are sick of the vitriol. Folks are sick of the talking points, the dirty tricks, the shouting, the fighting.

Sadly, expect far worse from the HRC corner before this is over. Hopefully she'll go so far, she'll kill off all the other dirty tricksters with her when she goes.

One can hope.

Posted by G Davis | January 5, 2008 1:17 AM

Next she'll go on about he was right on the war, is pro-choice and doesn't like killing puppies. What is her plan exactly? Does she want Obama to win by making Edwards supporters take a second look and go "wow, he actually is a liberal!"? For all of her experience, she does seem fairly retarded.

Posted by Reality Man | January 5, 2008 1:20 AM

A while ago, you and your pals (Matt A., Atrios, Daily Kos, etc. -- the whole lot) were for HRC

Uh-huh. Also, the black helicopters are out to get you.

What this does suggest is that Hillary, in the campaign's current incarnation, has big trouble when she's no longer considered a front-runner. As (at best) a moderate viewed by non-Democrats as Joe Stalin, she can't outflank Obama to the left, but trying to outflank him to the right seems plain fucking bizarre.

Perhaps the intention is to get Obama to run away from the 'liberal' label, but he's already got the Happy Abstraction Vocabulary to do that, and can say 'that's sad old politics'. It becomes easy to cast Hillary as the aging competitor who the game has passed by.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 5, 2008 1:30 AM

Wow. Saying that Daily Kos was for Hillary as President at any time is like saying that we are for Ron Paul now: delusional.

Or perhaps you mean that dKos doesn't daily call for her beheading? Heck, most of us don't think she makes a bad Senator, really. We'd just rather have nearly any of the other Democrats on the field for President than her. What you are apparently calling support, I would express as follows: we wouldn't, y'know, slit our wrists if she became President, as some of us might if basically any of the Republicans managed it.

-fred

Posted by Fred Fnord | January 5, 2008 1:36 AM

It sure is a real head scratcher. Maybe Hilary can still hire Bob Schrum?

Posted by blah | January 5, 2008 1:41 AM

Hillary, why'd you have to go and do that? I'm right there with Kevin:

I just hate the idea that the fever swamp has been able to turn a perfectly decent liberal woman into such an object of malign loathing.

and then you have to go and do that. Goddammit. It is HuffPo. But still.

Posted by lambert strether | January 5, 2008 1:46 AM

The attack on Obama's liberality is aimed at independent voters here in new Hampshire, who can take a ballot for whichever party they want. The conventional wisdom here has been that Clinton has the rank and file Democratic establishment and major groups and bosses locked up, but Obama is clobbering her with independents. Her aim is to get the independents to vote in the Republican primary for McCain, who is popular here.

Of course, that was the conventional wisdom before Iowa. I doubt she still has all those traditional Democrats locked up. And even if she scares away some independents with the ultra-progressive Obama line, she will lose some Democrats herself in the process, and also peel some of Edwards supporters off and push them to Obama. A lot of Edwards supporters are no doubt considering defecting, and their standard complaint has been that Obama is not progressive enough for them. Clinton might help close the Obama sale for them.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 5, 2008 1:56 AM

Hillary's aides? Obama's Koolaid has LSD in it, you guys are tripping.

Posted by Jess | January 5, 2008 1:56 AM

Reality Man you've hit on a good point...HRC tries to tear down Obama by proclaiming him TOO LIBERAL while JE tries to tear him down by proclaiming him a CORPORATE SELL OUT CONSERVATIVE! The two of them look like stooges and Obama wins.

I wish HRC would take her little group of DLCers a long way away and I wish that JE would realize he would be a far better Attorney General than President. I want to be rid of the Clintons, but want desperately to find a good spot for JE where his fire and commitment will work wonders for this country.

Set JE loose on the corps where he can hit them most effectively...use his bulldog tenacity to rip them to shreds in his natural environment...the courtroom.

Posted by G Davis | January 5, 2008 1:57 AM

G Davis, you make a good point about Edwards. Running the Department of Justice does seem a better fit for him, in part because his rhetoric (not so much his policies) would lead CEO's to double down to block any of his initiatives while failing to truly mobilize working people. At DOJ, he could really take the knives out and do a Spitzer job on companies that are breaking the law and clean DOJ up. At times there has seemed to be a little bit of warmth between the Obama and Edwards campaigns, so if Obama gets New Hampshire and Edwards fails to win in South Carolina (the only state her won in the 2004 primary by virtue of being born there), I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards made a deal with Obama to support him so that Obama would make him Attorney General just to make sure that Hillary and her foreign policy don't make it to Pennsylvania Avenue.

I really don't know why Clinton is rolling this attack out at the same time Edwards's supporters are calling Obama a conservative. She seems to be making her strategy in a bubble without taking into account the environment in which those attacks would be made to see if they would be effective. This is a not-ready-for-prime-time type of mistake, which also undercuts her whole experience to get things done meme.

Posted by Reality Man | January 5, 2008 2:20 AM

Wonkette also has a post up pointing out how contradictory this entire line of attack is with Clinton's new strategy:

http://wonkette.com/340917/hillary-is-what-hillary-says-she-is

"Hillary Is What Hillary Says She Is

Hillary is now the new candidate for young people, since that’s what propelled Obama to victory in Iowa and she wants to win in New Hampshire. Because, obviously, despite her age and the common wisdom about needing to appeal to the AARP set, she’s going to boldly declare that children are our future and if we teach them well we can let them lead the way. Also, despite being the candidate for young people, she’s going to continue to question Obama’s experience, which, as every young person who’s ever lost a job to someone older knows, “experience” is totally not AT ALL code for “youth.” Good plan, honey. Do you think you can get your advisers to lay off the hooch and come up with a consistent message? That might help equally as much."

How clueless and lacking in self-awareness can you be?

Posted by Reality Man | January 5, 2008 2:23 AM

Wait, is Hillary still running?

(P.S. While I agree that Edwards has a bright future in the cabinet, I'm not sure that the AG job is the best fit for him. All things being equal I'd say give it to Chris Dodd, who's been really adamant on the constutional liberties question. But I'm not sure Obama (or maybe Clinton?) would want to have to give up a Senate seat, so sorry Dodd. Edwards has generally been good on those issues, and he'd probably make a good AG, but he's hit the poverty issue so hard I can't help feeling that something like HUD would be more down his alley. Then again, that is a rather low-profile job...)

Posted by Lev | January 5, 2008 2:27 AM

Does she want Obama to win by making Edwards supporters take a second look and go "wow, he actually is a liberal!"?

Edwards supporters support him because of his liberal economic populism. Clinton's criticism of Obama is that he's an "ACLU liberal".

As (at best) a moderate viewed by non-Democrats as Joe Stalin, she can't outflank Obama to the left, but trying to outflank him to the right seems plain fucking bizarre.

It's not bizarre because Obama has attacked the others from the right also. He has talked about solving the "social security crisis." He's against mandates for health care insurance and criticized others for supporting it. He has dubbed unions "special interests." Basically, Clinton is trying to follow Obama's attack from the right also but on different issues.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 5, 2008 2:31 AM

he's hit the poverty issue so hard I can't help feeling that something like HUD would be more down his alley.

HUD Secretary is a technocrat's job. Whatever you think of his virtues and faults, Edwards is no technocrat.

Posted by Antid Oto | January 5, 2008 2:41 AM

Well, I am fond of all three of the leading candidates, although Obama just might have the most political talent. Although Obama might break away and seal the deal soon, I hope that all three, Edwards, Obama and Clinton could really have the 'discussion' Hillary talked about through the whole primary season instead of each candidate folding in the tent. If Alan Keyes can still be campaigning, they could stick it out, even after it dawns on her and Edwards that they aren't going to be the nominee. Hillary might form a counsel with Edwards and Obama and build the democratic platform and legislative agenda for her to assist enacting in the Senate. It would be a huge advertisement for the Democratic ticket if they could plan to use the second half of the primary season to really sit down together and, instead of 'debating' combatively, after the winner is established, and discuss the issues and build a policy on national television.

Posted by wetzel | January 5, 2008 2:58 AM

HUD Secretary is a technocrat's job.

Technocrat's job or not, HUD is an unimportant job. Can you name our current one? If you can, is it only because you remember the scandal he's involved in?

Edwards might make sense as a veep choice (he's a southern white male who isn't needed to hold his Senate seat, unlike Webb or Warner), though his being the veep nominee in '04 militates against that. And Edwards would be a sensible choice for AG. But while HUD or Labor might fit his interests (and FEMA might fit his interests but not his resume), they don't make sense for his profile.

Posted by Warren Terra | January 5, 2008 2:59 AM

I'm from Illinois and Senator Obama's my Senator and I have mixed feelings about letting the rest of the country steal him, but I'll inform you about what HRC appears to be referring. While a candidate 12 years ago on a panel debate, Obama, then an adjunct professor at UC Law, said that he would favor a law repealing mandatory minimum sentences for certain state felonies. Personally, I think that's probably a good idea - crimes are individual and have their own sets of facts and circumstances and I believe judges and juries should be trusted to set sentences across a broad range rather than arbitrarily setting floors with which prisons and appellate processes must deal.

I suppose that's "liberal." Maybe it will completely tank his chances for the presidency. If the Clintons are hopping all over it, you can bet that the Republican slime machine will grab it, flog it and never let go. Unlike them, though, I still believe in a place called Hope and trust Obama to deal with the issue's immense ramifications.

Posted by Philip | January 5, 2008 2:59 AM

I have to disagree with the people saying the Clintons' triangulation was a bad thing at the time. The conservative machine peaked in the 90's, by all rights they should have had the Presidency for those 8 years. Clintonism was a good idea for its time, but that time is now past.

Posted by Chris | January 5, 2008 3:16 AM

How about *Solicitor General* John Edwards? Is that too low-profile for JE? After all it's the President's attorney in the Supreme Court, what better job for a trial lawyer?

Posted by Steve | January 5, 2008 3:17 AM

Oh, and Sailer's idea of "ultra-liberal" includes such far-left ideals as "letting black people live." Greg Cochran is an idiot and you could drive a semi-truck through the holes in his methodology.

Posted by Chris | January 5, 2008 3:20 AM

"Can you name our current one?"

His name is Alfonso Jackson, he happens to be black -- another representative of the most ethnically diverse and inclusive cabinet in American history -- and I'm not aware of him being involved in any scandal.

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 3:34 AM

Hillary apparently didn't get the memo about the two recent Supreme Court decisions (now there's a left-wing liberal institution if there ever was one) invalidating mandatory minimums in favor of judicial discretion.

I really like John Edwards for Attorney General. Not directly related to poverty, but his energy there would be amazing.

Posted by Malcolm | January 5, 2008 3:38 AM

Running to the right is in vouge now thanks to Obama's big win.

joejoejoe - How about a google map of Hyde Park. According to a 2007 DiversityInc profile, "Michelle and Barack Obama live today in a $1.65-million Georgian revival Kenwood mansion surrounded by a tall wrought-iron fence."

The man has a very admirable work history but he is not exactly Mother Cabrini.

Posted by dorothy day | January 5, 2008 3:48 AM

The influx of new Clinton shills in the major blogs' comments sections over the past 24 hours- is fascinating.

Posted by David | January 5, 2008 3:50 AM

Ah, the stench of desperation wafting over from the Clinton Camp...

Posted by Helena Montana | January 5, 2008 3:59 AM

Ah, Fred. I had an actual response for you, with links and everything, but the Spam filter is holding it for approval; probably too many links. All I can say is, if you are troubled by your ignorance, don't worry; Google is your friend. Skip the official biography his flacks wrote and you can't miss it.

Posted by Warren Terra | January 5, 2008 4:07 AM

"joejoejoe - How about a google map of Hyde Park. According to a 2007 DiversityInc profile, "Michelle and Barack Obama live today in a $1.65-million Georgian revival Kenwood mansion surrounded by a tall wrought-iron fence."

One of the admirable things about NJ's Corey Booker is that -- unlike Obama and Edwards -- he has walked the walk. For years when he was a Newark councilman he lived in a housing project.

Obama's rise makes me feel bad for Booker. Had Seven of Nine's divorce papers not been leaked, Obama would still be a back bencher in the Illinois State Senate and Corey Booker would be the most promising young black Democrat in America. I don't agree with his politics, but he is arguably smarter than Obama (accepted into Stanford, Rhodes Scholar, Yale Law) and certainly has more executive experience.

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 4:11 AM

Dave,

You noticed that too?

I thought it was just me.

Posted by Chris | January 5, 2008 4:24 AM

Fred,

Have you seen the doc "Street Fight"? Corey Booker strikes me as admirable and a fighter, but I could never see him giving the amazing speeches that Obama has. Obama has more presence and more charisma. But Booker may also get better with time.

Oh, and here's your Alphonso Jackson scandal. As a rule of thumb, if he's a close buddy of the prez, he's probably a slimeball.

Posted by Ben | January 5, 2008 4:45 AM

Ben,

As I (and others, e.g., Sullivan on this site) have pointed out, Iowans chose the two best public speakers in race. Is being great orators reason enough to elect either of them president? In my view, no. But it certainly makes it easier to get elected.

As I also said, I wasn't aware of Jackson being involved in any scandal. Now, thanks to your link, I am aware of some accusations from a year and a half ago that appear to have reached the kerfuffle level at that point, before falling into the memory hole. That suggests to me that there wasn't much merit to them.

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 5:09 AM

All it really points out is that Clinton is in real bad trouble and she knows it. If she doesn't finish first in NH, she's cooked pretty much. So they're going to desperation tactics.

The other thing tho is the stuff about St. John. It occurred to me that the whole 'McCain Comes Back' thing has the same air about it as 'Saddam is going to nuke us all'.

That is, I think the WH has been working the phones behind the scenes for McCain in an attempt to salvage one of the Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace candidates.

max
['I don't think it's going to work.']

Posted by max | January 5, 2008 5:14 AM

Now, thanks to your link, I am aware of some accusations from a year and a half ago that appear to have reached the kerfuffle level at that point, before falling into the memory hole. That suggests to me that there wasn't much merit to them.

Stay classy, Fred.

(and notice, those results are both recent and don't require adding keywords like "scandal")

Posted by Warren Terra | January 5, 2008 5:15 AM

I thought he didn't have experience.

Obama lacks crucial experience as First Lady which apparently is now critical in gaining the White House.

Posted by El Cid | January 5, 2008 5:40 AM

I never said Obama was Mother Cabrini. I just pointed out where he worked. I lived in Hyde Park in the early 90s when I was making $10/hr, probably in a similar type setting to what Obama lived in when he started as an organizer, a tiny apartment with no A/C. It's a nice place to live but it's not simply a wealthy enclave. It's an urban neighborhood with almost everything under the sun, from rich to poor, every race and religion of people.

For what it's worth --- median household income:
Hyde Park, Chicago, IL: $44,142 (source Wikipedia)
Chappaqua, NY: $222,847 (souce Money Magazine)

Posted by joejoejoe | January 5, 2008 5:48 AM

"(P.S. While I agree that Edwards has a bright future in the cabinet, I'm not sure that the AG job is the best fit for him. All things being equal I'd say give it to Chris Dodd, who's been really adamant on the constutional liberties question. But I'm not sure Obama (or maybe Clinton?) would want to have to give up a Senate seat, so sorry Dodd. Edwards has generally been good on those issues, and he'd probably make a good AG, but he's hit the poverty issue so hard I can't help feeling that something like HUD would be more down his alley. Then again, that is a rather low-profile job...)

Posted by Lev | January 5, 2008 2:27 AM"

You bring up good points. AG wouldn't be a perfect fit for Edwards's history and resume, but that position for some reason never seems to perfectly fit anyone's resume the way that Secretary of State or Defense do.

Also, Fred, before Ryan's divorce papers were made public, Obama was already beating him by a rather wide margin at the polls.

Posted by Reality Man | January 5, 2008 5:57 AM

"Obama is who we THOUGHT HE WAS!!!"

Posted by Coach | January 5, 2008 6:15 AM

His name is Alfonso Jackson, he happens to be black -- another representative of the most ethnically diverse and inclusive cabinet in American history -- and I'm not aware of him being involved in any scandal.

Oh, you mean the guy who said this about awarding government contracts:

"Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

Link to more details, including pending grand jury investigation for perjury:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/cats/alphonso_jackso/

Posted by rea | January 5, 2008 6:16 AM

Actually, it's not the stupidest attack in the world. It depends on why they think Obama got the turnout he did. I'd say, given the large numbers of young voters, people voting for him already believe he's progressive, so telling them that isn't going to be all that shocking. However, if Hillary thinks he's drawing large numbers of, dare I say it... Republicans, and here I don't really know how big that pool is (it could be large enough to matter), then Clinton's trying to carve Obama out of the centrist niche he's somehow miraculously occupying. Clinton's supposed to be doing all that precious left-to-right of center triangulating after all.

Posted by gerontion | January 5, 2008 6:17 AM

Clinton's trying to carve Obama out of the centrist niche he's somehow miraculously occupying. Clinton's supposed to be doing all that precious left-to-right of center triangulating after all.

I find the entire thing funny. Obama's been trying to triangulate Edwards and Clinton to get independents and Republicans to vote for him (as already detailed), but now that Clinton's trying to do the same thing to Obama after his victory in Iowa, we are supposed to get oh so mad at her.

Posted by Dan the Man | January 5, 2008 6:26 AM

Obama is more liberal than Clinton. Why wouldn't she call that too liberal? She has to claim something. If some Obama supporters are annoyed because she has the nerve to campaign against him, well, they're over-excited like Edwards supporters last week.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 5, 2008 6:46 AM

Thomas Edsall is a thoroughly dishonest thoroughly rightist commentator, who I would never trust. I found the commentary meaningless.

Posted by Jennifer | January 5, 2008 6:52 AM

However, if Hillary thinks he's drawing large numbers of, dare I say it... Republicans, and here I don't really know how big that pool is (it could be large enough to matter), then Clinton's trying to carve Obama out of the centrist niche he's somehow miraculously occupying. Clinton's supposed to be doing all that precious left-to-right of center triangulating after all.

New Hampshire is a tiny state-- any pool of anything couuld be large enough to matter. The Republicans' only chance to beat Obama (or indeed to win at all) is still called "Hillary Clinton". McCain's too numerous deals with the devil will do him in against either Obama or Edwards in a general election, but against Hillary, he still has a chance (the other GOP nominees don't even have that... picture Obama at a debate giving a detailed description of events in the Middle East followed by Huckabee telling us he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night).

Hence, if I were Hillary, I would do exactly what she is doing now: try to get crossover help... McCain supporters who should realize that their vote is best used for her, and not McCain himself (even if Romney ends up winning NH).

Of course, the real problem for her is the very system that she and Bill and their friends have set up to benefit her and her presumed money and organization and name recognition-- to wit the compressed primary schedule-- undermines her ability to do this kind of thing with the kind of tact and subtlety necessary to get away with actually doing it. But it won't stop her from trying.

Posted by the talking dog | January 5, 2008 7:04 AM

I likes this from the Edsall article :

The challenge Huckabee represents is reflected in his fights with the GOP's leading anti-tax organization, the Club for Growth, which the former Arkansas Governor has dismissed as the "Club for Greed."

I wasn't aware of that, but he did.

I hope that the Democratic campaigns are gathering up these talking points. They will come in useful in the Fall.

Posted by Marshall | January 5, 2008 7:16 AM

Good one, talking dog. I'd like to see an Obama v. Huckabee campaign for the simple reason that neither candidate is a pre-programmed robot.

One way or another we're all gonna have to survive the upcoming 11-month campaign slog.

Posted by Bill | January 5, 2008 7:24 AM

That rancid little clown. This will bite her in the ass like a mongoose.

Obama's death penalty reform was passed unanimously in the legislature, got the endorsement of COPS and PROSECUTORS, and started out completely divisive and doomed. Just -- look:
http://www.samefacts.com/archives/barack_obama_/2008/01/obama_against_police_torture.php

Not only is it not too liberal, but it's - all by itself - more than she's ever accomplished in her damn life. Or ever could.

Posted by Phoebe | January 5, 2008 7:44 AM

What they are getting at is the pastor of Obama's church, who apparently is a more scary, militant type who will frighten whites.

Posted by bob h | January 5, 2008 7:44 AM

So Obama has a progressive record on protecting the rights of criminal defendants. Perhaps a President with that background might show the courage to say no to torture. For the Clinton people to make this type of attack sickens me. But remember in 1992 it was Bill Clinton who flew back to Arkansas to make certain that an Arkansas inmate was executed. The inmate was retarded, so retarded that he asked to save his desert from his final meal until after the execution.

The sign of class is how people behave when things are not going their way. The Clinton crew is not behaving well. In a way they are justifying the fear and concerns that many had about a Clinton candidacy.

Posted by Stuart Shiffman | January 5, 2008 8:51 AM

Hillary's supporters should realize that THIS is why so many of us don't support her. Any Democrat who uses Liberal as a smear doesn't deserve to be the nominee.

Posted by Soullite | January 5, 2008 9:24 AM

This is obviously correct:
The attack on Obama's liberality is aimed at independent voters here in new Hampshire, who can take a ballot for whichever party they want.

Both Obama and HRC are trying to occupy a lot of the same political space. Basically relying on inborn factors to maintain their "progressive" cred while embracing various positions to the right in order to draw in "independents." Obama being black and staunchly anti-Iraq War gets him a lot more leeway in this regard than HRC being female, WJC's wife, and rather irredeemably pro-Iraq war. Iowa was the first test of who could pull off this schtick, and HRC decidedly lost. I was pretty amazed at some of the anecdotals of former GOP voters attending Obama rallies, planning to support him etc., because he never seemed to me to have pushed the Lieberman buttons that hard. It's a pretty deft trick, and I'm impressed that he's pulled it off as well as he has. No wonder HRC is scared.

Posted by DrBB | January 5, 2008 9:31 AM

picture Obama at a debate giving a detailed description of events in the Middle East followed by Huckabee telling us he stayed in a Holiday Inn Express last night

Were you awake during the 2000 and 2004 elections? There's a huge part of the electorate that would vote for the Holiday Inn guy, specifically because he's a regular guy like them rather than some fancy-pants intellectual who knows what he's talking about.

Posted by KCinDC | January 5, 2008 9:35 AM

"A lot of Edwards supporters are no doubt considering defecting, and their standard complaint has been that Obama is not progressive enough for them. Clinton might help close the Obama sale for them."

Uh, no. Especially not if HRC's attack on Obama from the right has the effect of making him run even further to the right than he already has (Social security crisis? People didn't want to vote for the Democrat in 2000 and 2004? WTF is that?)

This simply confirms that HRC will say anything she thinks republicans want to hear. Obama's response to this tactic is going to speak volumes.

Posted by lobstakilla | January 5, 2008 9:53 AM

Wait 'til Hillary starts telling New Hampshire that these times are too dangerous to have a former Young Black Panther running around in the very same White House that she spent so much time in gathering experience as the President's wife.

Posted by El Cid | January 5, 2008 9:56 AM

By the way, can we stop the anti-intellectual dodge that if a candidate (like at times Obama) says something rather insulting to some liberal or progressive arguments that it's about "bloggers"?

As though if I weren't reading this "blog" then I'd feel perfectly fine when completely reasonable arguments I made were dismissed or belittled, because hearing it on C-SPAN or reading it in a newspaper makes it a more mature argument?

Many strong arguments can be made for Obama, but this thing about 'he sure showed them bloggers' seems to avoid the substance of any criticisms, since I'm certainly not likely to waste my time these days in letters to the editor for such issues.

Posted by El Cid | January 5, 2008 10:03 AM

"Link to more details, including pending grand jury investigation for perjury:"

Sounds like another high-tech lynching for an uppity black. These things don't always end as intended hoped for by Congressional Dems, so I at this point, I would withhold judgment. But since this is actually being investigated now, according to this link, I will elevate my previous characterization of it from a kerfuffle to a scandal, albeit a picayune one.

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 10:04 AM

Technocrat's job or not, HUD is an unimportant job. Can you name our current one? If you can, is it only because you remember the scandal he's involved in?

Alphonso Jackson may not be terribly well known, but his predecessor Mel Martinez turned the job into a stepping stone to the Senate, and previous HUD secretaries have included ex-presidential contenders George Romney and Jack Kemp.

Posted by John | January 5, 2008 10:05 AM

"Alphonso Jackson may not be terribly well known, but his predecessor Mel Martinez turned the job into a stepping stone to the Senate, and previous HUD secretaries have included ex-presidential contenders George Romney and Jack Kemp.

Posted by John | January 5, 2008 10:05 AM"

The job's power has been much reduced by the Bush administration. In addition, Martinez didn't want to run for the Senate. Bush and Rove made him because the Senate race was in 2004 and they wanted to ensure that Cuban Republicans went to the polls. Martinez wanted to run for governor when Jeb's term was up. Rove ran Martinez's campaign for him and did it in such a slimy manner, Martinez lost life-long friends in the Republican Party of Florida who were his primary opponents (implying one of them had a gay affair or something like that). In fact, at least one paper in Florida withdrew their endorsement of him due to the tactics.

Posted by Reality Man | January 5, 2008 10:40 AM

I don't think Edwards is looking for a stepping stone to the Senate.

Posted by KCinDC | January 5, 2008 10:53 AM

"The job's power has been much reduced by the Bush administration."

How?

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 11:04 AM

For years when he was a Newark councilman he lived in a housing project.

How is this "walking the walk"? Cripes. Presumably if you're a city councilman, you can make enough money to get a decent apartment in the Ironbound. He was a city council member, not a dominican friar.

What the hell is wrong with you, Fred? Getting pissed off at every politician who talks about the poor just because he has a decent place to live? Damn, you're such a bitter, vicious human being.

Posted by Tyro | January 5, 2008 11:10 AM

Hillary: LIBERAL Democratic presidents won two world wars, passed the most important civil rights legislation, lifted the country out of the depression, and so on.

Slightly off-topic, but I'd tread very carefully before claiming Woodrow Wilson as a "liberal".

Martinez didn't want to run for the Senate. Bush and Rove made him because the Senate race was in 2004 and they wanted to ensure that Cuban Republicans went to the polls.

Please. Even Republicans have some agency over their own decisions.

Posted by right | January 5, 2008 11:13 AM

Especially not if HRC's attack on Obama from the right has the effect of making him run even further to the right than he already has

Presumably Obama is smart enough to simply let Hillary's criticism stand on its own and allow her to self destruct, rather than "taking the bait", as it were.

Posted by Tyro | January 5, 2008 11:14 AM

Matthew,
I just see her calling him progressive and liberal. I didn't see her say "too" much of one or the other.
She must really be stewing though because she felt she had this thing wrapped up for years.

Posted by Mark E. | January 5, 2008 11:14 AM

How the hell did that rich New York governor Franklin Roosevelt dare talk about poor people in the South and the Heartland? God, the nerve of that man -- he even had his own train.

Huh. Sure, he dragged my pathetic pseudo-colonial South out of its dirt road, hookworm, literally starving worker niche, but hey, how dare that rich Yankee have helped my ancestors?

After all, my Southern grandparents only sat around the radio forcing their children to listen to FDR's fireside chats in absolute silence, and sure they cried when he died, and closed down their businesses and stuff, but it was really their way of expressing how offended they were at his damn uppity Yankee rich guy expensive suit self meddlin' in their affairs.

Posted by El Cid | January 5, 2008 11:18 AM

I'll note that the events of the past week have confounded a lot of my previous perceptions: Hillary was supposed to be the uber-disciplined campaigner who didn't slip up and delivered the votes. Obama was supposed to be the candidate with lots of enthusiastic supposed to everyone pats themselves on the back with while he "loses with dignity." Edwards decided to try a "go for broke" strategy that some of us figured "just might work" on the basis of being perceived to be more conservative than his policy platforms were.

Now we have Obama actually turning out to deliver what he said he could deliver and Hillary flailing around.

Posted by Tyro | January 5, 2008 11:20 AM

I read that quote very differently - not as HRC's campaign saying she was going to "go after him" for being too liberal, but as saying his supposedly liberal, progressive past achievements would now receive a lot more scrutiny than they had before he became the front runner. As in - is he really as liberal/progressive as he makes himself out to be? Not attacking him for being too progressive, but questioning whether he's as progressive as his relatively unscrutinized resume suggests.

Posted by Imelda Blahnik | January 5, 2008 11:21 AM

Not that I think it will work, but the strategy is designed to take away the more moderate independent votes, the ones he won with in IA.

Posted by riddle | January 5, 2008 11:22 AM

"Damn, you're such a bitter, vicious human being."

Tyro,

Judging from your frequently vitriolic comments, the line above sounds like projection. Maybe President Obama will include mental health coverage in his universal health care plan and you'll be able to talk to a professional about the anger and hostility issues you seem to have.

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 11:26 AM

Fred, you're the one irrationally lashing out at politicians who talk about poverty and lashing out at politicians for the sin of wanting to help the poor when they have money. I simply dislike people with your execrable, immoral attitude.

And it is immoral, Fred, and I hear it from Republicans over and over again. Because when you attack politicians for caring about the poor while they also manage to get a good place to live and send their kids to good schools and get themselves insurance, you're attacking me.

Posted by Tyro | January 5, 2008 11:30 AM

Not to overthink this, but wouldn't HRC be praying that NH independents all jump on the Straight Talk Express to save McCain's sorry jowls from uppity evangelicals? How does attacking OBL as too liberal (!) help that?

Posted by lambert strether | January 5, 2008 11:33 AM

Give Hillary a dollar and tell her to keep the "change"!

Posted by V. Ray | January 5, 2008 11:35 AM

Give Hillary a dollar and tell her to keep the "change"!

Posted by V. Ray | January 5, 2008 11:36 AM

But, but, he's a closet rightie who repeats right-wing talking points! What do you say now, nutroots? Your bile directed at Obama over the last few weeks has made me think some of your detractors actually have a point. That is something I NEVER thought I'd say.

Posted by waka waka | January 5, 2008 11:52 AM

The people who are saying this is about indy votes in NH are right. But thinking it will work seems to misunderstand voters at a fundamental level, which could explain Hillary's now-struggling campaign.

Indies and Republicans aren't attracted to Obama b/c of his policies...indeed, many of them are attracted to him in spite of his positions. They like him because of his rhetoric and his politics. Indies like the whole "post-partisan" thing. GOPers who think of liberals as snearing elitist are disarmed by someone who says he'll always listen to them, even when he disagrees, and then affirms their worldview by using their language.

Noting that he's voted for some liberal things completely misses the point of his appeal.

Posted by Michael | January 5, 2008 11:53 AM

The Rove playbook says that you attack the opponent at their point of strength -- not attempt to bolster their strength. God knows what Mark Penn is thinking with this line of attack.

Obama really does have some ultra-liberal votes that will be difficult to defend in a general election.

1. Name two. Be specific.

2. Even if true, which I doubt it is, I can't for the life of me see how this is a smart strategy on Hillary's part in a primary. Moreover, Obama is not Dukakis and his campaign has to date shown more deftness at counterattack than any other in either party this cycle.

Posted by Gee | January 5, 2008 11:56 AM

Obama's campaign advisor Axelrod ran cricles around HRC's union-busting advisor Mark Penn in Iowa, which is why it was such a crushing victory. Also, Obama has turned out to be a great campaigner and his campaign has a lot of shrewd veterans and smart staffers.

Krugman, Kos, Atrios etc. were technically correct to point at some of his talking points but they were making mountains out of mole hills. His legistlative record - easy to find for anyone the slight bit curious - is thoroughly liberal.

Iowa shows Obama has the energized youth vote and can increase turnout. Now that he has demonstrated his viability, the black vote will get behind him with an "almost religious fervor" - as the NYTimes Bob Herbert put it. They will no longer feel taken for granted (remember "Sista Souljah?)

On top of all that, you have the smart money increasingly flowing to Obama. Yes Clinton's campaign has many loyal, sincere volunteers, but because it had that inevitable frontrunner aura for so long, it accumlated a lot of opportunistic careerists and "professionals" who will jump ship sooner rather than later.

I feel a slight pain for Hillary's feminist supporters, and my advice for Obama's supporters is to take the high road against them and the Petey's of the world, even if Obama himself should continue fighting back the way he has been. Edwards would be great as AG or even VP.

Posted by Peter K. | January 5, 2008 11:57 AM

Tyro,

I don't know how you can honestly characterize this sentence of mine as "lashing out":

"One of the admirable things about NJ's Corey Booker is that -- unlike Obama and Edwards -- he has walked the walk."

And it is significant that Booker chose to live in a housing project for years. I know where he went to high school -- it wasn't a Hawaiian prep school, to be sure, but it was in one of the best public school systems in NJ, in an affluent town with very few non-Asian minorities. Living in a Newark housing project was a hardship for Booker, but it gave him an insight into the lives of the constituents he represents -- an insight he didn't get from his affluent upbringing.

"Because when you attack politicians for caring about the poor while they also manage to get a good place to live and send their kids to good schools and get themselves insurance, you're attacking me."

What's with you and the angry verbs -- "lashing", "attack"? I'm not attacking anyone, just stating opinions. Seriously, pal, you need another outlet.

I don't have a problem with politicians living in nice homes, except that if you want to campaign as a populist and run on class warfare, it seems rather inauthentic to do so when your mansion is as palatial as Edwards's. I certainly don't have a problem with politicians getting themselves insurance (why would you think I would?), but schools is another issue. When Democratic politicians extol the virtues of public education and oppose subsidized school choice for low income parents -- while they send their own kids to elite private schools -- that's the height of hypocrisy, and they deserve to be called on it.

Posted by Fred | January 5, 2008 12:06 PM

All things being equal I'd say give [Attorney General] to Chris Dodd, who's been really adamant on the constutional liberties question.

No, put Dodd in charge of Homeland Security. Who better to ride herd on them than a true-blue constitutionalist? Dodd custodiet ipsos custodes!

But I'm not sure Obama (or maybe Clinton?) would want to have to give up a Senate seat, so sorry Dodd.

I don't know the laws regarding special elections in Connecticut, but surely Ned Lamont would like a chance to run again against somebody NOT named Lieberman....

Posted by Bubba Dave | January 5, 2008 12:32 PM

Fred,

I'll first warn that I'm an Obama supporter, so you know where I'm coming from. And I was a poor black kid who went to a mix of public and Catholic schools, thanks to a Mom who sacrificed. Both school systems helped me, in different ways; I actually learned a lot in public school that I suspect I'd never had gotten in Catholic schools.

This is a fight I know well. My Mom passed in Nov., and up until the last couple of months of her life, she was neck-deep in the school choice fight. She had a much different perspective on what good, and ill, I got from the respective school systems. And although we fought about the wisdom of school choice, I strongly respected her opinions, and her energy in pushing those opinions into the public sphere.

To me, sending your kids to private schools -- elite or not -- while supporting stronger, better public schools is not a point of hypocrisy. It's the simple recognition that not everyone has those same chances, those same paths in life, and that the public school system is the single best way to make education happen across the country, if you can get it to work. It would, indeed, take a top-down overhaul of the school system in the country to see me support school choice; otherwise, it's still a muddle, a mess, and a patch work of crazy schemes, in my opinion -- and trust me, I've heard and read the arguments for years, thanks to my Mom's passion on the subject.

To your "housing" point, it's...unlikely that someone with no money can take any populist/progressive platform to a national level. If that unfortunate qualification for high-level elective office makes you seem them as hypocrites, I understand, yet cannot agree. People with money do lose track of what it's like, but they are also human; some recall better then others, some pour their money and energy back into the communities they came from, and others run from it. I cannot see where you can generalize based solely upon the size of one's house, or one's wallet, the size of their heart and commitment to progressive values.

Anyway. Thanks for reading.

Posted by Woodrow | January 5, 2008 12:49 PM

To me, sending your kids to private schools -- elite or not -- while supporting stronger, better public schools is not a point of hypocrisy. It's the simple recognition that not everyone has those same chances, those same paths in life, and that the public school system is the single best way to make education happen across the country, if you can get it to work.

I am also an Obama supporter. I would never vote for or against a candidate because of where his or her kids went to school.

But I do think it is massively hypocritical. The fact of the matter is tht the theory of the public schools, as liberals extol them, is that everyone benefits from going to school together, getting a common curriculum, learning not to lord over people with less money, etc.

When a person pulls his or her kid out of the public schools, that person is saying that his or her kid's individual achievement is more important than the social benefits of the public schools. That's a defensible position. But then, if that same person says that poorer people should be stuck in the public schools and should not have the same option, that person is saying that the individual achievement of poorer kids is NOT more important than the social benefits of the public schools. Further, that person is also rejecting the very theory of public education that he or she extols, i.e., that it should be a COMMON experience for all kids.

So, yes, it is hypocritical. The truth is, a lot of Democratic opposition to school vouchers is due to two things: (1) a vision of the separation of church and state that goes a little too far-- we don't, after all, believe that it is wrong to give a Pell Grant to someone who goes to BYU or Notre Dame; and (2) teachers' unions. There is a very good reason to oppose Republicans' voucher plans-- the vouchers aren't large enough to help the poor. But if liberals REALLY believed in the theory of public education they were extolling, and had the courage of their convictions, they would send their kids to public schools. In truth, when it comes to one's own kids, every parent values that kid's achievement over the social benefits of public education. Which is why it is wrong to oppose a generous voucher program that would allow poor parents to make the same choice.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 5, 2008 1:05 PM

"But, but, he's a closet rightie who repeats right-wing talking points! What do you say now, nutroots?"

I say: he repeats right-wing talking points, which does not bode well and never has, regardless of whatever the Clinton team's calculus may be in making these comments.

Posted by lobstakilla | January 5, 2008 1:09 PM

I don't have a problem with politicians living in nice homes

Ok... that's not surprising. What you have a problem with is when politicians....

except that if you want to campaign as a populist and run on [pansy-right-wing-talking-points redacted], it seems rather inauthentic to do so when your mansion is as palatial as Edwards's.

My response: you're a hypocrite lashing out at people irrationally. Basically, you're playing the role of a "sister punisher," trying to bash anyone who is wealthy and successful from caring about the poor.

You're trying to enforce some class-conformity among the rich, lashing out at the rich for having the audacity to care about the poor.

This is, actually, why we are to be wary of having the ambition to acquire wealth, because in doing so, those people surround themselves with people like you who will attack them for having the audacity for caring about the poor. In actually, Edwards' moral strength comes from the fact that a lot of immoral, hateful people were going to attack him for, being rich, talking about the poor, and he resisted the peer pressure of those sorts of sick hypocrites.

You know, in the bible, we don't really internalize Christ's warnings about the love of money and such things. I mean, we realize in the abstract that materialism is bad. However, you, Fred, make it clear to me what the danger is. People who become rich and successful end up being surrounded by people like you (well, like you, but actually rich), who start condemning any of their fellow rich people who care about the poor. It can obviously be difficult to resist this peer pressure from a bunch of people who are going to call you a phony and inauthentic.

As to Booker, I don't have any feelings here or there regarding why he lived in a housing project. However, it strikes me as a bit more inauthentic, because, assuming he made a decent salary as a city council member, he probably could have gotten himself a normal apartment in that city. Now, I'm not going to attack Booker; I think he's what's needed for Newark, but tell me-- who's more inauthentic?

Posted by Tyro | January 5, 2008 1:11 PM

Personally I support the complete demolishing of this locally funded / locally directed model of public education.

I want the awesome, heavy hand of the Federal government in there, and schools to be funded as part of the standard revenue system, so that no longer are school qualifications and agendas determined by the backwards idiot redneck anti-science fools I grew up under, nor is one school incredibly well funded and staffed because it's in a nice suburban neighborhood whereas some rural black community school has fund raisers to help pay for basic school supplies.

I'm sure this isn't possible, but there ya go.

Posted by El Cid | January 5, 2008 1:13 PM

Alphonso Jackson is in the midst of a grand jury probe now.

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/071004nj2.htm

Obama voted for Casey's confiirmation, Clinton did not. Other than that their votes on Iraq have been identical.

In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. Just last week, in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, Obama conceded that his position on the war is not the "polar opposite" of Clinton's.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_slams_cli.html

Anyone here want to defend a Casey confirmation as a liberal vote?

Posted by taters | January 5, 2008 1:19 PM

learning not to lord over people with less money

Lording over people with less money has always been an essential feature of public school culture (and perhaps private school culture, as well).

Unlike many of my fellow liberals, I can't bring it in myself to get a teary-eyed over the glories of public education. However, I will say that a politician who lives in a decent home and has kids who go to good schools (public or private) should say, "what I have is what everyone else should have, too." If you don't say that, then you really are a hypocrite.

The Republican who lives in a nice neighborhood and sends his children to a good school, public or private, who doesn't fight to make sure that all kids, poor or rich, attend equally well-equipped schools is the hypocrite in that case, because he makes the laughable claim that his children, not others, are somehow owed nice schools as a virtue of his station in life. All the Democrats realize that in a way that the republicans don't.

Posted by Tyro | January 5, 2008 1:22 PM

Woodrow:

I'm an Obama supporter too. And I'm a gray haired white lady, not exactly the "demographic" that seems to be supporting Obama right now. But so what? I also know what it's like to not have a lot of money and perhaps not have a lot of choice. I don't know what my daughter would have achieved, had it not been possible for her to go to a private school where she was encouraged to learn and "fly". This was due to a small inheritance which, it was decided, would be for spending on her education. And she went to public schools too. She did well there. So the issues of "choosing schools" still reverberates for me, though I might not agree with you on how to solve it. As for Obama, I heard his "victory" speech in Iowa. And all I can say is, it's the first time in a long time I've heard any politician suggest that there is actually hope for a better future, for all citizens of this country, not just the wealthy few. No, he's not very "specific", but for the past 30 years or so, this country has been battered by increasingly "conservative" and out-of-touch politicians who care only about lining their own pockets, that most of us here have fallen prey to despair. And the war in Iraq has become a bottomless pit. In Obama, perhaps there is a way out of this "slough of despond" that is the US right now.
Anne G

Posted by Anne Gilbert | January 5, 2008 2:29 PM

Woodrow:

I'm an Obama supporter too. And I'm a gray haired white lady, not exactly the "demographic" that seems to be supporting Obama right now. But so what? I also know what it's like to not have a lot of money and perhaps not have a lot of choice. I don't know what my daughter would have achieved, had it not been possible for her to go to a private school where she was encouraged to learn and "fly". This was due to a small inheritance which, it was decided, would be for spending on her education. And she went to public schools too. She did well there. So the issues of "choosing schools" still reverberates for me, though I might not agree with you on how to solve it. As for Obama, I heard his "victory" speech in Iowa. And all I can say is, it's the first time in a long time I've heard any politician suggest that there is actually hope for a better future, for all citizens of this country, not just the wealthy few. No, he's not very "specific", but for the past 30 years or so, this country has been battered by increasingly "conservative" and out-of-touch politicians who care only about lining their own pockets, that most of us here have fallen prey to despair. And the war in Iraq has become a bottomless pit. In Obama, perhaps there is a way out of this "slough of despond" that is the US right now.
Anne G

Posted by Anne Gilbert | January 5, 2008 2:29 PM

It is Clinton desperation time. Next they'll be saying he's a crack dealer. Oh, wait, they basically already said that. Maybe next they'll be saying he's closeted Muslim. Oh, wait, they basically already said that. Next they'll just say, "Look! He's BLACK!!" Damn, already said that.

Posted by jim | January 5, 2008 2:41 PM

"Hillary's aides point to Obama's extremely progressive record as a community organizer, state senator and candidate for Congress, his alliances with 'left-wing' intellectuals in Chicago's Hyde Park community, and his liberal voting record on criminal defendants' rights as subjects for examination."

Hillary Pads Campaign With Radical Chicanos:

"Just weeks after naming the leader of an extremist Mexican group to co chair her presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton has added yet another controversial Chicano illegal immigration advocate to her team. The Clinton camp announced with great fanfare this week that the Speaker of the California Assembly, Mexican Democrat Fabian Nunez of Tijuana, is the latest national co chair of her 2008 campaign. A renowned advocate of illegal immigrants and organizer of huge marches, Nunez actually declared war on California governor a few years ago because the governor supports securing the southern border as well as legislative measures to help curb the state's illegal immigration crisis. Nunez has for years been a well-known figure in the Chicano and La Raza movements, delivering fiery anti-American speeches and organizing street marches that have featured up to 100,000 rowdy, Mexican flag-waving protestors.

At one such rally in the mid 1990s, Nunez referred to U.S. lawmakers as rednecks and vowed to bring Washington to a standstill to protest what he considered to be anti-immigrant legislation in California. Nunez was also an activist in a Los Angeles pro illegal alien group (One Stop Immigration and Education) that was federally investigated for misappropriation of federal and state grants. He will undoubtedly have a great relationship with Hillary's other radical Chicano campaign co chair, Raul Yzaguirre, who for three decades headed the extremist group National Council of La Raza."

Source: Judicial Watch

However, there's no argument about the government boondoggle that serves as a bottomless money pit, for the Clintons political aspirations. Hillary Clinton has had more than enough time to formulate an aside for this debacle. So, why not ask her about it yourself New Hampshire? It’s your tax dollar at work - what are you waiting for: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | January 5, 2008 2:54 PM

If Obama were somewhere near Rep. Barbara Lee, D Ca. in his
policy and votes i would support him. Implying that Social Security needs fixing other than stopping the spending of funds
mandated exclusively for SS is just shopping in the center of the road. The speech in Iowa was cool but no one politician is the
answer. We need a committed Congress and President to correct the criminal damage done by Cheney and the lacky Bush. Is Obama electable? Given that a majority of the electorate wouldn't
support the ERA and Voting Rights Act I'm not sure Obama is the answer to bring these voters into the big tent. Scream all you like
this is a racist country. Hundreds of years of slavery and denied
rights bode poorly for his chances in a general election.

Posted by Dr. Tettrazini | January 5, 2008 2:55 PM

Huh; let's see... follow me, for a second... [Full disclosure: I'm for Edwards]

HRC's campaign is pointing out that Obama is a liberal.

I've always believed being a "liberal", or a "Progressive Liberal" was to be on the Left, and a good thing.

Those who don't believe "liberal" to be a good thing were politically on the Right -- which was a bad thing.

HRC is supposed to be a Liberal, which would be a good thing. Obama is also a Liberal; also a good thing.

And HRC's campaign is suggesting Obama's long-time involvement in Liberal movements is -- a bad thing?

Um ... what, exactly, are HRC's people talking about?

(That said, go Edwards!)

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | January 5, 2008 3:28 PM

Unlike many of my fellow liberals, I can't bring it in myself to get a teary-eyed over the glories of public education. However, I will say that a politician who lives in a decent home and has kids who go to good schools (public or private) should say, "what I have is what everyone else should have, too." If you don't say that, then you really are a hypocrite.

The Republican who lives in a nice neighborhood and sends his children to a good school, public or private, who doesn't fight to make sure that all kids, poor or rich, attend equally well-equipped schools is the hypocrite in that case, because he makes the laughable claim that his children, not others, are somehow owed nice schools as a virtue of his station in life. All the Democrats realize that in a way that the republicans don't.

I don't believe that the Democrats do realize that. They certainly don't advocate it.

Indeed, I think that the Democrats are extremely afraid of alienating middle class suburban voters with ANY real attempt to reduce the competitive advantage that the upper and middle classes have over the poor in education. They have been this way ever since liberals took it on the chin in the 1970's over school busing.

Look, the Republicans are just as bad. But on the education issue, there are precious few politicians from either party who are willing to advocate the sorts of changes that would actually give poor kids a chance to succeed.

Posted by Dilan Esper | January 5, 2008 4:31 PM

Dilan Esper and Tyro,

As I'm a libertarianish sort, Im not sure whether you'll appreciate my input, but I think you give conservatives too little credit here.

The conservative position (which is supported by many more people with children in public or parochial school than with children in prep school) is simply that you get what you pay for.
If you want a school that is responsive to your needs and will teach your children as you believe they should be taught, you need to choose it and pay for it yourself. More money buys more choices (and usually better choices) but this is true in any situation, and might be more true when trying to place your children in a good public school than when trying to place them in a good private school.

Also, I always thought that the point of public school was simply to guarantee every American an education. That whole communitarian "It's important that we all do this together" vibe really gives me the creeps. Too much social control, not enough learning.

Posted by heedless | January 5, 2008 5:35 PM

LOL..interesting responses in this thread.

The reason I was advocating for JE as Attorney General is the power and independence of the position. Look at the departments he would be in control of, the duties he would be tasked with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice

Can you imagine what a person of JE's passion and caring for the American people and our constitution could do with free rein over all that?

I think he would be far more effective in such a position where being adversarial is a bonus...as opposed to the position of President that sets the tone of our governance approach.

If we're going to solve all the huge problems we face, we all have to contribute where our personality, training and instincts fit best.

If Obama doesn't get the nomination, I'd love to see him on the Supreme Court. I see him very effective there, though not as well utilized as the face of the nation both at home and across the globe.

I wouldn't be disappointed if HRC went home.

Oh, and btw...Dodd would be most effective as Senate leader. He knows the system inside and out, would be very happy to take on amending the nonsense rule book that is so completely out of control and is largely the reason that we can't get anything done in government.

Biden would be very effective in the State Department. He knows his history, both past and recent. I don't agree with some of his ideas concerning foreign relations, but he does have an uncommon knowledge of world affairs. I'd certainly listen to him.

Oh and Lindsey Graham would make a fine Judge Advocate General. I don't know if that's an appointed position, but the man is fair and cares deeply about the honor of the military.

Posted by G Davis | January 5, 2008 6:22 PM

Barbara Lee has endorsed Obama.

Posted by idabw | January 5, 2008 6:57 PM

This is just a slightly different tack in Hillary's "Obama isn't really presidential material" strategy. She has a very fine line to walk with Obama. She has to defeat him, but she can't tear him to little pieces either, otherwise she won't be able to put him on the ticket. This is her campaign's second most important goal, so she will avoid laying a glove on him unless she feels she absolutely has to in order to win the nomination. And if that day ever comes, we'll all know it.

yours/
peter.

Posted by peter jackson | January 6, 2008 1:44 AM

I'm with Fred!

Posted by Elroy Jetson | January 6, 2008 2:29 AM

Funny how this is from Tom Edsall, who was saying just the other year that the GOP was there for a generation, and now he's the guy with the mysterious "Clinton staffers," who talk to him unnamed, no really they do, and they say really stupid stuff. Like, they are going to point out that Obama does drugs, he announced, a day before Chris Cilizza of the Post asked the head of Clinton's campaign -- where? -- in New Hampshire, whether he thought Obama might get some attacks from Republicans over drugs, and he said, why yes, they might, and boom, big scandal! How dare a Clinton staffer bring up an issue which Obama brought up 10 years before when a reporter asked him about it!!! The sheer Rovian madness!
I don't know. Do you think Edsall talks to the same "Clinton staffers" that Novak always refers to?
This is not the press. This is a clown war. Get ready for 2000 II, the sequel.

Posted by Jim H | January 6, 2008 3:10 AM

No, really. Read over what this thinly-sourced story has started off on this page: endless belief in something you don't know exists. This is what they did to Gore. Why, he'll do anything to get elected. Why, he has to hire somebody to tell him how to be a man. Why, he has the nerve to say he invented the internet! What a liar!

I listened to Hillary speak in New Hampshire today, and she did criticize Obama, but never for being liberal. Why? He's to the right of her.

Posted by Jim H | January 6, 2008 3:14 AM

I feel like I've visited an alien world reading these posts. The only one who makes sense is Fred.

Obama is a platitude spewing, socialist, empty suit.

I suppose I should feel satisfaction that you all have finally seen the light about the Clintons, but I have no doubt in my mind that only a short time ago you would have defended Hill and Bill to your last rhetorical breath, spewing foam all the way, in response to conservatives saying exactly what you have discovered about them in only the last couple months. Two decades too late but better than never.

Posted by Steve | January 6, 2008 4:14 AM

Hillary is a marxist/leninist tool. Has been for oh about 45 years. Now I don't know if that makes her more "liberal" than ole Barak, but she ain't Barry Goldwater people. That said, I have to chuckle at the three top democratic candidates for president. Hillary, well, I think the record speaks for itself. Obama, unfortunately every screwy move he ever made will now be dropped on the general populace by that pissed off dude from Illinois, and he's got that funny name, and he's a commie also. Edwards? Let's get a little more detail on how he's been fighting for the little guy from that $28,000,000.00 dollar mansion and ambulance chasing horror. Yeah, that's the ticket. Ya'll keep thinking that in your little red bubble.

Posted by Donald | January 6, 2008 8:23 AM

Obama really does have some ultra-liberal votes that will be difficult to defend in a general election. It's not real bright to belittle the criticism as opposed to thinking about it seriously.

No one who uses the term "ultra-liberal" should be telling others what's real bright -- unless he's a professional concern troll.

Posted by truth machine | January 7, 2008 7:13 AM

I will not trust Obama until he can pick a position that will not switch every other debate. & for any of you "you're a racist!" types who see this, it has nothing to do with him being a black president.

Posted by wandering | January 7, 2008 12:39 PM

Obama positions include:

Unfettered access to abortion including partial birth abortion.

Eradicating sentencing guidelines

Single payer health system

More taxes and no renewal of tax cuts

Major new environmental regs

and on and on

He is very liberal and talk of a uniting the country rings hollow to me when one considers he positions. These position do not represent where the country is or where it sees common ground.

The republicans are not going to give him a pass on these positions. They will point out to independents (the middle third of the electorate that decides elections) that these positions are outside the mainstream. He will end up after months of scruntiny looking like a vapid liberal selling false promises of uniting the country.

He will lose the general election if he gets the nomination and has to run against McCain. That much I feel pretty certain about. Better to say now that he is too liberal than to deny it and hope no one notices later.

Posted by Peter Franklin | January 7, 2008 8:59 PM

How did this thread get taken over by right-wing nutjobs? It's weird. I feel all greasy now.

Posted by gerontion | January 7, 2008 9:06 PM