Debate Recap

Commenter Ryan sums up my feelings about the debate based on the clips I saw:

It's really strange... each time Hillary really goes for the jugular (fairly or unfairly), I am repulsed. And then 30 seconds later, I realize that that's the whole rationale for her candidacy! She (and Bill) will simply do whatever it takes to win. And she's really whip smart, and was quicker than Obama in this debate. I think it will come down to whoever the media spins as the "winner" of the early flare-up -- otherwise, another draw.

It's an uncomfortable truth, but there you have it -- the very tendentiousness of some of her attacks on Barack Obama is sort of the point. Those of us who remember Florida 2000 from the butterfly ballot to the "bourgeois riot" to the rigged Supreme Court ruling appreciate that the other side plays to win and there's no real honor in letting the country fall under a spell of catastrophic malgovernance. But still, if voters are considering being persuaded by the merits of Clinton's arguments about Obama and the war, or about the "present" votes or whatever else they ought to be aware that this is all basically bogus. What's more, I think it's worth pointing out that Clinton seems to have gotten herself firmly into "flip-flop" territory on the war at this point; hawk was bad, substantively and politically, but this may be worse.

Comments

The problem with cheering for dishonest campaign tactics is that it's the same as hoping for a dishonest president.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 22, 2008 8:40 AM

As I've said, I'll vote Obama in the NY primary. If he loses, I'll still fight like hell for the Democrats come November.

And I wonder how Ryan will feel when Clinton is dissecting McCain or Romney come October if she's the nominee. I fear, after the current administration, I am fully depleted of repulsion.

Posted by SavageView | January 22, 2008 8:42 AM

People who think HRC is a street fighting lady have another thing coming in the general election. As the establishment candidate, she should have had this nomination sewed up already. John Kerry was doing at least as well her around this point, and he didn't even have to get his spouse to start distorting his opponents' records. Instead Hillary will be battling until at least Feb 5 with some skinny, funny-named black guy no one even heard of four years ago.

Obama's tenacity is the story here. What does he have to do for the media to recognize this, cry before a primary?

Posted by sweaty guy | January 22, 2008 8:44 AM

Barack Obama missed a golden opportunity when he was asked if Bill Clinton was the first Black President. He should have replied:
"Bill Clinton's pimp hand be STRONG -- he keeps his bitches in line and ho's them out to rich men." Obama could then have noted that he despises that particular small segment of black males.

Posted by Don Williams | January 22, 2008 8:44 AM

I thought the line of the nite was when Obama said sometimes he didn't know who he was running against...her or Bill.

And he called her out on some of the less than factual comments she and Bill have been making about him.....good to see!

I'm with Andrew Sullivan on this one:

"Obama did great, but he's a cool character, with a wry sense of humor. He's not made for brawling. And sometimes, you've got to brawl in politics. Stylistically, he's a one-off. I like that about him."

Posted by lauren | January 22, 2008 8:45 AM

What I think is hilarious is the media's depiction of Bill Clinton's angry attacks on Obama as defense of a spouse. Oh, right. We've seen how much Bill loves Hillary over the past 15 years.

Wild Bill needs MONEY! He's flogging Hillary's tail to rich men when Obama comes on his turf and interferes with his business. If Hillary doesn't become President then the gravy train leaves Bill at the station.

Maybe if Wild Bill put some heavy bling on his pimp hand and backhanded Obama across the mouth, then the media might realize what's going on.

Posted by Don Williams | January 22, 2008 8:53 AM

I wonder whether in my lifetime Democrats will ever overcome the need to define their campaigns in Republican terms. We need Hillary in the general, and in office, because she can play at their game! Well, great! What's good for Rovian Republicanism must be good for the republic!

Posted by Bill | January 22, 2008 9:01 AM

All the points Hillary attack Obama on were red meat to democrats.

The first attack was aimed at his praise for republican ideas. Hillary hit him hard on that and his response was to say that even Hillary praised Reagan. Hillary shot back at him she was criticising republican ideas while he was praising them.

The second attack was on Obama's Iraqi position where she straighforwardly pointed out that his rhetoric does not comply with his actions.

Both of these are points are important to democrats. We do not need a presidential candidate eager to praise republican ideas just to secure the endorement of a conservative newspaper. Nor do we want the democratic version of GWBush, someone whose rhetoric is not matched by his actions, in office.

The third point she attacked him on was his refusal to embrace univeral health care. She said that if you are not willing to start with universal care you will never even come close to covering even a fraction of the 47 million Americans currently without insurance.

All and all it was a good day for Democrats as it solidifies most peoples conviction that Hillary is our best candidate.

Posted by ken | January 22, 2008 9:04 AM

2 problems with these (at least she's OUR nasty candidate) rationalizations. And let's face it--it's the same rationalization that led all of us to be forced to support Bill Clinton in the first place.

1. I've not seen proof that Dems are nearly as aggressive with their Republican opponents as they are with each other. So maybe Hillary can go after Obama and Edwards like a rabid squirrel, but that doesn't guarantee that she'll be doing that in the general. If Dems are push polling each other in primaries, why don't they ever seem to push poll the Republicans in general elections? And, even while Bill was in office, he was notoriously bad at getting Democrats other than himself elected. Obama seems better--shouldn't that matter? Stuff like that.

2. Obama's whole candidacy is built on the idea that he's not going to go to the gutter and that enough voters will vote for him based on this lack of brawling to allow him to win. So, while he has to play enough hardball to allow him to win, his reveling in brawling in the gutter is not exactly the message that he wants to convey, or, honestly, that he's about. I don't know if this dynamic speaks worse of Obama or of the electorate generally.

Posted by JMS | January 22, 2008 9:05 AM

Yeah, what sweaty guy said. It's easy for the former president to scream down his own party, and attacks on the former first lady by Obama and Edwards backfire a lot harder in a Democratic primary dominated by liberal women than in a general election. All the talk about how battle tested they are is bunk--the Super Rage Anger Bill we see now is NOT the one voters liked in the nineties--especially one that lies about his policy positions as much as he used to lie about his personal life--and Hillary never had to win an election in the nineties.

She fights well with other Democrats. That's all we know.

Posted by Consumatopia | January 22, 2008 9:07 AM

Oh, and who is this Rezko charactor? And what is Obama's relationship with him?

As far as I can tell Rezko is under indictment for corruption and is a very close friend of the Obamas. Close enough to help Obama buy his house and then sell Obama an additional slice of land from an adjacent parcel.

Posted by ken | January 22, 2008 9:14 AM

If the Clintons have such sharp elbows and are going to be able to fight the republicans on a progressive agenda, why did the 1990s see a swing to the right in their policy? They managed to survive not by pushing liberal ideas, but republican ones. The advantages of a balanced budget and welfare reform were not liberal positions but positions they co-opted from republicans after the disastrous 1994 congressional elections. They are experts in the art of political survival, nothing more.

Posted by Mudge | January 22, 2008 9:14 AM

"Wild Bill needs MONEY! He's flogging Hillary's tail to rich men etc etc..."

SIMON: I'm trying to think of a way in which you could be more crude, but it's just not coming.

Posted by ajay | January 22, 2008 9:21 AM

"I wonder whether in my lifetime Democrats will ever overcome the need to define their campaigns in Republican terms. We need Hillary in the general, and in office, because she can play at their game! Well, great! What's good for Rovian Republicanism must be good for the republic!"

Heh. Great post. I was just watching "Batman Begins" last night (a terrific movie). Henry Ducard asks young Bruce Wayne to execute a murderer to show his commitment to fighting crime.

Ra's Al Ghul: You cannot lead these men unless you are prepared to do what is necessary to defeat evil.
Bruce Wayne: And where would I be leading these men?

If it takes this kind of politicking, distortion of the truth, smearing, and pandering to the electorate for Hillary or Obama to become President, what have they really become? A liberal version of Bush?

Posted by Jayhawk Max | January 22, 2008 9:22 AM

Nor do we want the democratic version of GWBush, someone whose rhetoric is not matched by his actions, in office.

Not to quibble about the general awfulness of George W. Bush, but he actually did get a bunch of stuff off the conservative wishlist accomplished: mismanagement of the federal goverment via obsessive tax cuts, incompetent cronies installed throughout the federal government, a right-leaning court, perpetual warfare forever, especially during elections. If I'm a contemporary right-winger, what's not to like? Bush talked all cuddly compassion in 2000, but his people knew a good thing when they saw it. Their attempt at further realignment backfired because they overreached. Reagan had the charisma to be more successful, but he also had a Democratic congress to keep him in check.

Obama talks the same cuddly stuff as Bush did, but if you think he won't strive for a realignment towards the left, with better results than Hillary, you are mistaken.

Posted by sweaty guy | January 22, 2008 9:24 AM

"Oh, and who is this Rezko charactor? And what is Obama's relationship with him?

As far as I can tell Rezko is under indictment for corruption and is a very close friend of the Obamas. Close enough to help Obama buy his house and then sell Obama an additional slice of land from an adjacent parcel."

Oh boy, I really don't think the Clintons want to get in a battle over who has connections with the most unsavory characters.

Posted by anon | January 22, 2008 9:27 AM

Ladies and Gents, you're all missing the point.

What less-informed voters saw was Obama seeming unprepared and definitely unable to think on his feet. Really bad debate for the big O. Obama didn't seem ready last night. What's he gonna do in the face of the billions of dollars funding Freedom's Watch and other shit-flingers from the GOP?

I'm also scared that Hillary will chicken out in the general and move well to the right. But I'm hopeful that our new progressive infrastructure will push back on that tendency more effectively than the so-called liberal media did during the 90's.

Posted by Staph Resistor | January 22, 2008 9:28 AM

Sweaty guy makes a damn good point. Hillary should be winning this thing in a walk. She's got way more institutional firepower on her side than John Kerry did. Heck, she's got a very popular ex-President as her tireless attack dog.

And yet, last night she was forced to do what no sane candidate ever wants to be seen doing--going very negative. And as you pointed out, she's just terrible at it. Your initial revulsion may turn to grudging "street fighter" respect, but I guarantee that the average voter simply will not spin themselves that way. They'll just write her off--exactly as they did in Iowa.

Enough with this "at least she's our asshole" nonsense. It's as naive as the whole "she's vetted and can't be hurt by Republican attacks" nonsense.

She was the freaking frontrunner! She should have won this thing in a walk, and it's very telling of her bad political skills that she didn't. She's never fought a contested primary. She's never won a race against a Republican anyone has ever heard of. John Kerry had more "tough election" experience than she did, and he did way better than her in seizing his nomination. That should tell you something!

Posted by anonymous | January 22, 2008 9:28 AM

Oh boy, I really don't think the Clintons want to get in a battle over who has connections with the most unsavory characters.

That HRC has sleazy connections isn't news and doesn't conflict with her claim to be the second coming of LBJ - if anything it supports it. That BHO, running as the "Mr. Clean" outsider, has sleazy connections does conflict with his campaign.

If the result of a mudfight on this issue is that the voters conclude "they're both crooks," why should they vote for BHO over HRC?

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 22, 2008 9:56 AM

Hillary's strategy seems to be to suggest that Obama embodies everything that Dems find disappointing about the Clintons. She may be right and she may be effective but it is still depressing.

Posted by ao | January 22, 2008 9:58 AM

If the result of a mudfight on this issue is that the voters conclude "they're both crooks," why should they vote for BHO over HRC?

Because HRC is a bigger crook, hated by more people, would be the equally glib retort.

Or maybe you think people in the general election will be tired of hearing about Whitewater? I'm sure the Kerry campaign thought everyone would be hearing that stale old, Nixon-era crap about his service in Vietnam, too. Hillary has a ton of baggage, and if the GOP has a problem with her as a target, it's that they won't know where to start sliming.

Posted by sweaty guy | January 22, 2008 10:04 AM

It's an uncomfortable truth, but there you have it -- the very tendentiousness of some of her attacks on Barack Obama is sort of the point. Those of us who remember Florida 2000 from the butterfly ballot to the "bourgeois riot" to the rigged Supreme Court ruling appreciate that the other side plays to win and there's no real honor in letting the country fall under a spell of catastrophic malgovernance.

This strain of analysis is spreading all over the internet today like a toxic gas.

I'll try to put it as simply as I can: You cannot beat the Republicans at their own game. They're better at this toxic ju-jitsu stuff. Remember thinking John Kerry would cut deeply into their national security advantage because of his military background? Did that happen?

If you think Hillary Clinton's administration would be better for the country than Barack Obama's, then by all means vote for her. But if you just think Hillary is more likely to win because she's a bigger and more unscrupulous asshole than he is, you're making the mistake of your life.

Posted by southpaw | January 22, 2008 10:10 AM

Sweaty guy makes a damn good point. Hillary should be winning this thing in a walk. She's got way more institutional firepower on her side than John Kerry did.

I don't agree. Hillary has a better opponent than Kerry did, and she is also on the wrong side of the original Iraq war vote.

If I had to choose based on debate performance, I would definitely go with Hillary. She is excellent in these things. Obama is ok, but his speech is way too halting, and he doesn't think on his feet well enough. Basically, his glibness level is just too low.

I still support Obama based mostly on the Iraq war issue and electability. But, if Hillary ends up with the nomination she will have earned it, and we'll have a very sharp campaigner and debater. We will be alright either way.

Posted by Jim W | January 22, 2008 10:14 AM

The assertion that Hillary is the Democratic Party's best candidate is laughable.

Simply put, many people (myself included) who are disgusted by the Bush administration are not necessarily beholden to the choices made in the primary.

If Hillary is nominated, I will vote for Romney, McCain, or Bloomberg before her. I also don't think I'm alone in this regard - the antipathy she generates is remarkable. The fact that legions of Democrats are sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to both acknowledge and address this point is telling.

Though I probably align closer to the Democrats than the Republicans in terms of policy, as an organizing body, the Democrats are insipid, dysfunctional, and inspire uncertainty rather than hope. Obama is the only candidate that transcends these institutional hurdles and is the only candidate who gives me confidence that he/she can best the GOP candidate in November.

Posted by Andy | January 22, 2008 10:15 AM

You know Matt, ITA w/you and she is definitly smooth on the attack while Obama isn't. But I fundamentally disagree with you when you say she and Bill will pull off a victory. To begin with: no one unifys the Republican party like the Clintons do and that is something Republicans need to battle voter apathy. Against Bob Dole Clinton only won by 9% and failed again to get a majority despite a great economy.

McCain is popular with Independents and Democrats and Clinton on the ticket will rally the Republicans. I truly believe HRC will lose the election to McCain. At this point, she's entered John Kerry territory on the war and the Republicans will turn this into a national security election and George Bush will help to do so with terror threats and the like I bet. As for the economy, McCain can put a strong governor on the ticket to insulate himself from those kind of attacks.

So while Democrats may go for the democrat they think will play best on the Republican rules, they need to transform the debate to win and Obama does that fundamentally I think. If he is the nominee I think the party would unite behind him far easier, he has a coherent postiion against Iraq, he's insulated himself from Rezko, and he has the appeal to reach Republicans and Independents. And he's proven this.

Hillary Clinton if she becomes the nominee will be the John Kerry of 2008 and John McCain will be the next president of the United States. And I say this with confidence because I think its become fundamentally clear that Hillary Clinton, for all the talk of her winning blue collar democrats and women, has a problem within the democratic party. Michigan showed that exhaustivly. People went out of there way to protest AGAINST her.

Given the AA communitys conservatism and the fact that McCain isn't seen as the devil by many democrats and if Colin Powell and the like stump for him: he'll get a lot of their vote too. And given his flexibilty on immigration and the latino communities conservatism, he'd do well among them too.

But that doesn't seem to be something people recognize yet and won't until it's to late; much like its become clear looking back how big a threat Howard Dean would have been to the Bush admisntration if the Dems had gone for clarity of message rather than attempt to game the system.

Posted by Rhoda | January 22, 2008 10:15 AM

"If the result of a mudfight on this issue is that the voters conclude "they're both crooks," why should they vote for BHO over HRC?"

If they are both crooks, why should either get a vote from Democrats? They can always vote for John Edwards. Obama should not allow Hilary to benefit in any way from airing his dirty laundry; he may have a spot on his shirt, but their whole wardrobe is riddled with hash marks and stains made from various biological fluids.

That's why Obama should not hesitate to point out while his associate is merely under indictment at this moment, MANY of the Clinton's associates have actually been convicted. Moreover, Obama should also point out that neither he nor his spouse ever issued a pardon to any of their nefarious associates, the way the Clintons did before they left the White House.

Posted by eltoro | January 22, 2008 10:15 AM

Andy,

Your last name isn't Sullivan by any chance, is it?

Posted by Jim W | January 22, 2008 10:28 AM

Hill/Bill certainly win the Dirtiest Debater award, with of course most of their Obama-bashing misinformation occurring previously at non-debate events. At the debates then, Obama is forced to waste time setting the people straight on all these lies. Obama is too decent a guy to bring up their unsavorary past, such as Bill's sleazy lying(for which he was impeached), which appears to be the hallmark of Hill/Bill's campaign. Hill loves to share Bill's successes but obviously not his failures, such as Nafta, the cause of US job loss. The media is clearly pro- Hill/Bill, yet Obama responded graciously to Blitzer's disgusting Rangel quote: blacks should vote not for what makes them feel good (ie Obama) but for what's best for the country (ie Hill/Bill). These questions are just media propaganda in disguise. As a white college-educated woman, I believe Obama is best for this country, and although I would like a woman president, it doesn't count when you come in on your husband's coat-tail.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | January 22, 2008 10:30 AM

Matthew's reaction is just the age old intellectual's admiration for thugs. From Stalin to Rove.

If it is effective, it will turn out to be effective without these little swoons from Matthew. His responsibility is to call the lies, because not everyone knows that's what they are.

Posted by Pithlord | January 22, 2008 10:35 AM

That's all fine and good but it won't get her anywhere in Washington. The GOP will shut her down so she'll either have to sign bad bills or no bills at all.

Posted by Jay | January 22, 2008 10:45 AM

"What less-informed voters saw was Obama seeming unprepared and definitely unable to think on his feet. Really bad debate for the big O. Obama didn't seem ready last night. "

What less-informed voters saw was that Hilary Clinton was full of it; she's very good at distorting the records and positions of Obama and Edwards, but when Edwards and Obama catch her on it, and point out how wrong she really is, she changes the subject very quickly, because there was no substance behind her attacks. If that's your definition of thinking on your feet, it doesn't bode very well for Clinton's chances in the general election. Someone like John McCain will tear her talking points to shred. Hilary Clinton better hope that the GOP nominates a triangulator like Mitt Romney, who has even less substance than Hilary does.

Finally, all her quick thinking provided no defense to Hilary Clinton when Obama get a chance to point out the merits of his healtcare plan over hers. She did not once explain why mandates were necessary, and why her plan would work better at achieving the goal of universal coverage than Obama's plan. If fact, Obama did a very good job of pointing out how mandates don't necessarily lead to universal coverage, by pointing out how the Massachusetts mandate plan has led to people who couldn't afford coverage getting fined for not getting health care coverage, without actually increasing coverage for the people being fined. I guess quick thinking and substantive discussions don't mix.

If Hilary Clinton thinks voters won't notice how evasive she is compared to Obama when the discussion actually gets substantive, she and Bill are deluding themselves.

Posted by eltoro | January 22, 2008 10:47 AM

I have a question. Is it the position of Matt Yglesias and Obama supporters that Obama did NOT attack Hillary? That he did not attack her personally?

That the only person saying anything nasty last night was Hillary?

I would appreciate a response.

Posted by Armando | January 22, 2008 10:56 AM

The progressive community that is complaining that Ms. Clinton was being beastly towards Mr. Obama in the debate should grow up. Compared to the crap the Rethluglicans will throw at him if he is the nominee, those were love taps.

Posted by SLC | January 22, 2008 11:08 AM

Armando: Who said that?

Posted by Jay | January 22, 2008 11:09 AM

I wonder whether in my lifetime Democrats will ever overcome the need to define their campaigns in Republican terms.

I wonder whether in my lifetime Democrats will ever realize that Karl Rove did not invent dirty politics.

The idea that running an aggressive and sometimes below the belt campaign is an exclusively Republican practice is kind of stunning in its ignorance of history. Underhanded campaigning has been around as long as civilization itself, and it will never go away.

Posted by Jason C. | January 22, 2008 11:15 AM

Can't we just get a Democrat in the white house first. I'd rather bitch about our guy then their guy.

Posted by Judson | January 22, 2008 11:22 AM

If you want to think about a general election then refocus your cokebottle lenses on what will be facing us all. You look at that debate now and think "who is the toughest badass" or whatever you're thinking, like it's some kind of competition for biggest a-hole. But when general time rolls along, there's going to be two people in front of a podium, and "Who's the biggest a-hole?" is not going to be the question. It's going to be "Which do I want to be president of my country?"

Now imagine that malevolent troll up there, who, along with her husband, has inspired an amazing level of contempt in people who used to respect them both, just in the past two weeks. Imagine her next to John McCain.

I don't understand you people.

Posted by Phoebe | January 22, 2008 11:25 AM

Jason C.,

I want a candidate who appeals to voters and can hold his/her own on the nasty side. To the extent Hillary appeals to Democratic primary voters, it's through an appreciation for her dog fighting skills. That appeal won't translate to general election voters. She'll come off in the general as out-of-touch, angry, and frightening, she'll motivate the Republican base (and if she doesn't, her husband will), and she'll lose badly.

Posted by southpaw | January 22, 2008 11:26 AM

Remember thinking John Kerry would cut deeply into their national security advantage because of his military background? Did that happen?

A bunch of veterans had gotten together and formed a "We Hate John Kerry Club" before the primary season even started. That man had negatives that make Ms. Clinton look like America's sweetheart. Believing Kerry would be a plus on national security was always an act of total self-delusion, one enabled by a press unwilling to honestly cover their chosen man.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 22, 2008 11:30 AM

Remember, in the general election no one will be voting for "electability". If your first reaction is negative now, it will be in the general as well; only in the general, there will be no second reaction.

Posted by Mark | January 22, 2008 11:49 AM

"The truth is there are two hundred white women sexually assaulted in America by black and Latino males for every one minority woman assaulted by whites." –Hillary Clinton, 1994

Posted by Alex K | January 22, 2008 11:56 AM

I have had it with the Clintons. They have taken a primary campaign that was bright with hope and brimming with optimism and turned it into a nasty gutter street fight with surpressing votes, lying and distorting opponents' records, crocodile tears and a disgraceful ex-president badly in need of anger management. They have no sense of decency or shame. Sorry, they are Karl Rove. This is what we expect the Republicans to do, not our part. Obama would bet on the American People seeing that for what it is and having had enough. Easier to do in the general election against the party of Bush, the Iraq War etc. etc. than against the Clintons. I am one Florida Democrat who will definitely not reward the Clintons for their unpardonably bad behavior.

Posted by Moderate Dave | January 22, 2008 11:57 AM

Obama had (and still has) an opportunity to point out the flagrant hypocrisy of Hillary's whiny complaint earlier in the campaign of "piling on" when Barack and Edwards both took aim at her in a debate. Now She and Bill (not just a spouse or garden-variety surrogate but the former President and, arguably still, the defacto leader of the Democratic party) are blatantly mugging Barack without pretense.

Posted by Stephen | January 22, 2008 12:05 PM

Got it. The public is not smart enough to vote for a Statesman, and in the end capitulates to the most clever, tendentious, and aggressive politician.

Well, this state of affairs will obtain until which time the shape of the battlefield changes, and, the public decides to rearrange what they value most.

In my opinion, that change in the landscape is indeed taking place, in the global economy.

My fellow Americans could learn just a little from the British--who have a stronger distaste for politicking per se, and tend "more often" to vote for the plainer-spoken, less contorted figure.

Posted by Gregor | January 22, 2008 12:07 PM

"I have a question. Is it the position of Matt Yglesias and Obama supporters that Obama did NOT attack Hillary?"

I can't speak for everyone. But it's the dishonesty of the Clintons' attacks that I dislike. Do you have some examples of Obama lying about Clinton's record?

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 22, 2008 12:13 PM

Alex K | January 22, 2008 11:56 AM:

Got a source for that quote?

If in fact she said it, is it your contention that:

(a) It's factually incorrect,
or
(b) It's true but you're not supposed to point it out,
or
(c)It's true and she's a flip-flopper because it's inconsistent with the stuff she said in last night's debate about how unfair it is that there are proportionately so many minorities in prison.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 22, 2008 12:24 PM

Enough with this "at least she's our asshole" nonsense. It's as naive as the whole "she's vetted and can't be hurt by Republican attacks" nonsense.

She was the freaking frontrunner! She should have won this thing in a walk, and it's very telling of her bad political skills that she didn't. She's never fought a contested primary. She's never won a race against a Republican anyone has ever heard of. John Kerry had more "tough election" experience than she did, and he did way better than her in seizing his nomination. That should tell you something!

QFT. You people are forgetting what "prepared" looks like, and then what "prepared" gets you.

Hillary people need to coach Hillary to look like a leader, not like a scorned mother. ("You nevva cawll! I carried you, in my womb, fowa nine months! In layboh for twenty-two owahs!")

Obama people need to coach Obama to look like an old-hand, not a buddy. And he does need to learn that there's a point, somewhere, where you have to take the gloves off. I hate that fact, but it's true when it comes to Republicans.

Posted by chris | January 22, 2008 12:33 PM

By "rigged Supreme Court decision", I assume you mean the rigged Florida Supreme Court decision which rewrote, by judicial fiat, the democratically enacted timetables set forth in the Florida election laws.

Posted by Brian | January 22, 2008 12:41 PM

[Kerry] had negatives that make Ms. Clinton look like America's sweetheart.

I think that's, um, factually inaccurate.

Posted by Tractarian | January 22, 2008 12:55 PM

Tractarian:

I found the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" website in December 2003 and thought "uh oh, this guy's got a problem."

Do you know of a similarly organized and dedicated group of Clinton-haters? A lot of people consider the Clintons exceptionally dirty even as politicians go and are frustrated by their continued success, but how many feel they were personally betrayed and slandered by the Clintons? Maybe a few hundred [White House travel office, Jaunita Broderick...] but nothing like the hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans who felt that way about Kerry.

Turning to Kerry for foreign policy or military credibility took an astonishing ignorance of history, and a total disconnect from a large part of the US electorate.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 22, 2008 1:13 PM

Do you know of a similarly organized and dedicated group of Clinton-haters?

Yes.

Turning to Kerry for foreign policy or military credibility took an astonishing ignorance of history

True, but I still disagree that Kerry started out (or even finished) with negatives as high as Hillary's.

Posted by Tractarian | January 22, 2008 1:29 PM

If Clinton is the nominee, Bill will not stop campaigning for her. The GOP will say he's running for a third term, and there's really no doubt that that would be the case.

My bet is that, once low information voters start paying attention, they'll reject this.

Add this to the reasons not to lump in for Hillary Clinton.

Posted by Nigel Aimes | January 22, 2008 1:48 PM

The Clintons repulse me. They are just in this for the win and don't care about the cost. Well, I am a black Dem who has had enough and will not be voting for them in the general election under any circumstances. Consequences be damned!

This time, the devil we know may be worse than the one we don't.

Posted by MJ | January 22, 2008 1:57 PM

If Clinton is the nominee, Bill will not stop campaigning for her. The GOP will say he's running for a third term, and there's really no doubt that that would be the case.

My bet is that, once low information voters start paying attention, they'll reject this.

My bet is that some will remember the Monica mess, others will remember welfare reform and the balanced budget, and they'll break both ways.

If you're lloking for votes from the center it is unwise to beat on those who got them, be they Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 22, 2008 2:12 PM

Gary Sugar is upset about "Clinton's lying about Obama's record."

Can you please tell me which lies those were? And Please provide the quotes from OBAMA when doing so. The Reagan "lie" is true. It is hilarious to me that people can not deal with the fact thaqt Obama did indeed praise Reagan. Now perhapos it was good to do that. But he did.

And his "party of ideas" comment was clearly a compliment to the GOP and implicitly a claim that the Dems have no ideas.

Obama has played a dangerous post partisan game. He got burned.

This outrage is absurd. Obama has distorted Clinton's statements just as much as Clinton has done to Obama.

I find it hilarious that there is still this view of Obama as being some poor innocent. It is rather insulting of Obama frankly.

Posted by Armando | January 22, 2008 2:55 PM

so you love Hillary for the same reason you hate Republicans? Can you really blame those of us who hate them both for the same reasons?

Posted by Soullite | January 22, 2008 3:10 PM

This outrage is absurd. Obama has distorted Clinton's statements just as much as Clinton has done to Obama.
I find it hilarious that there is still this view of Obama as being some poor innocent. It is rather insulting of Obama frankly.

Sorry, I don't share your contempt for honesty in politics.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 22, 2008 3:40 PM

Sorry, I don't share your contempt for honesty in politics.

Honesty in politics is admirable.

It's your belief that Obama embodies it that's hilarious.

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 22, 2008 3:53 PM

If you think Hillary Clinton's administration would be better for the country than Barack Obama's, then by all means vote for her. But if you just think Hillary is more likely to win because she's a bigger and more unscrupulous asshole than he is, you're making the mistake of your life.

Perfectly put, Southpaw. Thanks.

Posted by theomobius | January 22, 2008 4:25 PM

But if you just think Hillary is more likely to win because she's a bigger and more unscrupulous asshole than he is, you're making the mistake of your life.

A mistake about whether unscrupulous assholes win, or a mistake about who's the bigger one?

Posted by Ralph Phelan | January 22, 2008 4:47 PM

Same old shit.

"Let's vote a corrupt, lying bitch into the White House because she can win over some corrupt, lying and senile Republican."

Yeah, that's smart.

You don't even KNOW that, as several people have pointed out. Hillary's never gone up against a serious Republican campaign. And neither has Obama. It's pure speculation, made even more ridiculous by the number of polls that say half the country hates Hillary.

You morons are incredible. You're a pure and untarnished demonstration of how "democracy" (let alone any other form of the state) can never be made to work.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 22, 2008 8:51 PM

Armando requests an example of a Clinton lie. When Obama refers to good ideas as those which are transformative, bringing more people together (such as bringing in Demcrats to vote for Reagan)(which is like Obama's idea that we not think in terms of red states and blue states but instead bring people from all parties together), and then Hillary and Bill behind his back distort this by basically saying that Obama has said he supports all the Republican ideas which Democrats hate, this is a lie. Obama never said what they said he said. The media of course just reports what the Clintons say Obama says and the only time Obama can respond is when he has the cameras on him, ie at the debate. Then he gets accused of avoiding the issues in favor of confrontation. It's set up so he can't win. Russert gave Hillary extended periods of time to bash Obama on Meet the Press, and Obama was not given nation-wide TV time to reply to the lies.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | January 22, 2008 10:51 PM

Indeed. Clinton's lies are going from bad to worse. For instance, at the debate she said to Obama "you never take responsibility for any vote!" That was whopper of a lie and she knows it.

Posted by Tamsin Crozier | January 23, 2008 8:54 AM

Remember that the Clintons' hardball tactics were, often as not, aimed at progressives. They play to win for themselves, not for progressive values--even if it requires executing the random retarded guy here or there or bringing in Dick Morris to tell them what to do.

Posted by Ben | January 23, 2008 2:04 PM

And guess what? Obama did lie (or played dumb) and was immediately echoed by all his friends in the press. Wonder how long those folks will be his friends when St. McCain is the nom. Then maybe they'll start treating Obama the same way they've treated every major dem for 20 years.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012308.shtml

Woefully dishonest (or dumb). Your call.

Posted by Columbia | January 23, 2008 2:20 PM

And for an example of an Obama lie (aside from the one detailed above): here you go

"As we all know (except when playing Hardball), this whole inane kindergarten claptrap began when Obama kept recycling the Jeff Gerth line, aiming it at Clinton."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120707.shtml

"First, he recycled a poorly-sourced claim from hit-man Jeff Gerth, using it to attack a fellow Dem’s character. Gerth’s claim doesn’t seem to be true. So what? Obama ran with it anyway."

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh120507.shtml

And every time one of you all calls Clinton a "bitch" or a "mean mommy" or some similiar sexist nonsense, a female voter gets her wings. So please keep it coming.

Posted by Columbia | January 23, 2008 2:33 PM