Like a Republican?

Paul Waldman says Hillary Clinton is going after Barack Obama just like a Republican would -- without a lot of honesty or conscience. Frankly, I don't have a big problem with that. As Ezra Klein says "The winner of the Democratic primary, after all, will have to run against a Republican." Indeed, the thing that's given me the most doubts about Obama thus far has been the campaign's tendency to whine ineffectually about Clinton campaign gambits.

Dishonest attacks are part of the game and the only way for a candidate to protect himself against them is to turn them into jujitsu. This hear from Obama's camp is, in that light, very good stuff. The Clinton campaign has attacked him unfairly on choice issues so now Obama's got NOW's Lorna Brett Howard on video explaining why Clinton's wrong and why she's flipped from being a Clinton supporter to being an Obama supporter.

Comments

Hillary Clinton is going after Barack Obama just like a Republican would -- without a lot of honesty or conscience. Frankly, I don't have a big problem with that.

I agree that Obama has failed to respond effectively against the Clinton sleaze, and I suppose this has been "good" in the narrow sense that defending against sleazy attacks is a good test for the general. But I think it's a mistake to dismiss the Clintons' antics as problem-free if your ultimate goal is to see a Democrat in the White House and Democrats controlling Congress.

By attacking Obama as visciously and dishonestly as they have, the Clintons may be alienating some very important Democratic consituencies. Black voters. Young voters. Educated, donor-class voters. At the exact time that Democrats should be coming together, the Clintons are tearing them apart. We will just have to see what kind of lasting damage this causes.

Posted by owenz | January 24, 2008 3:56 PM

Check out this excerpt from an email sent out by the Obama camp just now:

"We expected that Bill Clinton would tout his record from the nineties and talk about Hillary's role in his past success. That's a fair approach and a challenge we are prepared to face.

What we didn't expect, at least not from our fellow Democrats, are the win-at-all-costs tactics we've seen recently. We didn't expect misleading accusations that willfully distort Barack's record."

The email is titled "What We Didn't Expect." My question is, why the hell didn't you expect this? I really don't think this is a good angle for them.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 3:58 PM

It's one thing to say that you're worried about Obama's inability to respond to the Republican-style tactics that Hillary's been employing.

It's quite another to say you "don't have a big problem" with Hillary's use of those tactics, especially keeping in mind that attacking in dishonest fashion in a primary will hurt the party as a wholecome general election time.

Matt, you seem to be conflating the two.

Posted by Andrew | January 24, 2008 3:59 PM

Obama's hitting back where he can, but staying above the fray, himself. What's the issue again?

Also, how's Hillary gonna be able to govern if she makes it her business to have Bill running around attacking people who mostly agree with her/him/them in highly personal terms? Self-consciously running to the lowest common demoninator is not a selling point. Also, I'm not as afraid of the Republicans. Bush was ruthless, Cheney was ruthless. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are not.

Posted by David B. | January 24, 2008 4:06 PM

the thing that's given me the most doubts about Obama thus far has been the campaign's tendency to whine ineffectually about Clinton campaign gambits.

Agree with that. And if for demographic reasons, he can't solve the problem, that's his problem.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2008 4:09 PM

The problem is this. If a republican attacks Obama first of all democrats are unlikely to believe in those things. Also, he can easily go on a direct counter attack without any problems. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton will lie and lot of democrats will believe him and attacking him directly can also be counterproductive for the same reason.
Senior Bush never attacked George Bush's opponents like this. this is shameful. Bill clinton is too eager to get back into white house. But rank and file democrats will not see it like this unfortunately.

Posted by cjb | January 24, 2008 4:10 PM

Matt, if you think that Clinton's campaign tactics are OK, then don't complain if Clinton loses in November after winning a bloody and divisive primary. I think that you've got your head in the sand on this one.

The sort of stuff they are pulling in the primary will be a lot less effective in a general election when they are not dealing with a pool of voters of whom 80% voted for Bill at least once.

Posted by ikl | January 24, 2008 4:11 PM

"Bush was ruthless, Cheney was ruthless. McCain, Romney, and Huckabee are not."

From everything I've seen, Huckabee seems to be pretty ruthless himself. He himself acts fairly nicely, but his surrogates have been saying some pretty nasty stuff. Also, did anyone ever figure out if it was Romney himself putting out those anti-Mormon push polls a month ago? The whole thing seemed pretty strange, the company doing the calling was filled with Mormon Romney backers. What I'm getting at is, dont' expect the Republicans to do anything less than what it takes to win.

Posted by mad6798j | January 24, 2008 4:12 PM

It's amusing that some Democrats are telling Bill to 'chill'. As if Bill Clinton cares about supposed protocol of an ex-President when trying to win third and fourth terms for Team Clinton.

While it's not clear Hilliary Clinton has superior legislative experience than Obama, it is clear she and Bill have far superior campaign experience.

Bill Clinton lost a gubernatorial race, then won the next one. Two presidential elections plus a senatorial one. And Obama won his senatorial election against a wing-nut in a no-contest.

Posted by asl | January 24, 2008 4:13 PM

"Hillary Clinton is going after Barack Obama just like a Republican would -- without a lot of honesty or conscience. Frankly, I don't have a big problem with that." - Matt

I promise you'll eventually understand how foolish that is.

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 24, 2008 4:15 PM

I am not ready to accept Rovian tactics as acceptable, certainly not in a Democractic primary.

I'm also not sure I am ready to say that Obama has not responded adequately to the Clintons attacks. Maybe that's the case, but not much time has lapsed since the real attacks began. He lost by a little in Nevada and appears to be heading for a victory in South Carolina.

I don't think Obama has sounded whiney or has been "thrown off his game" as I've seen a number of reports assert either. He's consistently called foul and is using the attacks to emphasize his central message re different kind of politics v. status quo. See for example the new South Carolina ad.

I have no idea if he'll succeed. Attacks like these can accomplish their purpose and are all the mroe likely to do so when launched by a popular former President and effective head of the target's own party. But I don't see Obama as simply floundering around in the face of the attacks. I think people's judgments may be clouded a bit by Kerry's failure to react quickly and forcefully to the Swift Boaters.

Posted by Chunche | January 24, 2008 4:15 PM

The fact that we've come to expect the GOP to act like savages (SC 2000, Swift Boats, etc.) does not mean that we should spare our own candidates from criticism when they do the same.

I didn't expect this campaign to get so nasty either. I thought that the Democratic Party was above this. I am not upset with Obama that he did too.

And I thought that the GOP was serious about national security once, too. (I thought the silver lining of Bush's win in 2000 was that the military would be restructured so as not to tap the Guard and Reserves so much. Whoops).

So, live and learn.

If you go with the most cynical outlook, you'll rarely be wrong, here in Karl Rove's America.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | January 24, 2008 4:17 PM

Frankly, I don't have a big problem with that. As Ezra Klein says "The winner of the Democratic primary, after all, will have to run against a Republican."
**********

The problem with this line of thinking is, Hillary's dirty tactics may prove her willingness and ability to win, but they say nothing about her ability to lead and govern. Bush/Rove were also willing to fight dirty to maintain their death grip on political power. How'd that work out?

Posted by Mike LePost | January 24, 2008 4:17 PM

Again, Matt? This is the same reasoning, essentially, as your post saying that it's OK to go after Obama's middle name and play dirty. Can't you at least conceive of the difference between a primary and a general election? Of there being some sense of propriety in one but not the other? Of it being, to say the least, a put off for a party's leader to attack its own candidate for purely dynastic, nepotistic reasons?? And, if none of that does it for you, how about this--there are barely any differences between HRC and Obama. In the general, Obama would have some huge differences with the Republican nominee that he'd be more than willing to argue about and fight over.

Your obsession with Obama's ability to fight and be partisan is becoming tiresome.

Posted by JEM | January 24, 2008 4:20 PM

And here we have, in a nutshell, why dishonest and unconscionable tactics continue to dominate American politics. Because the people whose job it is to report on these things find such tactics wholly unobjectionable.

Posted by Leo | January 24, 2008 4:21 PM

Two questions:

1) At the end of the day then, how do I tell the difference between the Republican and the Democrat?

2) If a sharp-elbowed, Rove-imitating Democrat appoints a couple of DLC-approved, business-friendly, pro-FISA judges to the Supreme Court who go on to vote with Roberts on everything except (maybe) abortion, well, again, how do I tell the difference?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 24, 2008 4:21 PM

The Lorna Brett Howard ad isn't bad, but did she really have to say she lives in Chicago AND New York.

Posted by asl | January 24, 2008 4:21 PM

Yes, it looks like Obama's finally figured out that he needs to fight back against the attacks instead of whining about them and trying to explain them away with logic. I think John Kerry probably had a good deal of influence on this. He learned this lesson the hard way in 2004.

Posted by Mike | January 24, 2008 4:23 PM

Here's what's really bad about what is going on.

The chief knock on Hillary Clinton is that she is a compromised, dissembling, corrupt, mercenary and triangulating cynic.

In response to this old challenge, what new message is the Clinton campaign trying to put out? Apparently it's the message that Barack Obama is also a compromised, dissembling, corrupt, mercenary and triangulating cynic. That seems to be the direction in which all of their rhetoric tends. It's like they're saying, "We might live in the swamp, but Obama is rolling around down here in the mud and ooze with us!"

Somehow, this doesn't seem to be a very promising message for Democrats. Rather than trying to elevate her own image, Clinton is trying to level the playing field by ruining everyone's reputation equally.

Posted by Dan Kervick | January 24, 2008 4:25 PM

Bottom line: Hillary is going to need the 40% of Democrats (give or take) who vote Obama in the primary. Her and Bill are alienating that very sizeable group as we speak - and it will be interesting to see how far she can push Obama supporters before they decide not to support her in the general.

The whole idea of not getting too nasty with your opponents in the primary is based on the notion that your opponent's supporters may vote for you in the general, as long as they don't hate you. The Clintons are certainly putting that theory to the test.

If Hillary wins the primary using these scorched earth tactics, then goes on to lose the general, she and Bill will end up being about as popular as George W. Bush. Conservatives will hate them, obviously, but so will a lot progressives. And they will deserve it.

Posted by owenz | January 24, 2008 4:27 PM

Ok, quick follow-up. At least some people seem to agree with me that Obama appears to be doing a perfectly fine job of responding to the Clinton attacks.

"A spate of negative press may finally be catching up to Hillary Clinton in South Carolina. A new poll shows her in dangering of losing her second place standing to John Edwards ..."

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/south_carolina_in_flux.php#comments

"Right now -- if media coverage, pundit opinion, and insider chatter among Dems is any guide -- it's hard not to conclude that Obama is winning this particular spin war handily."

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/obama_winning_spin_war_over_whos_victim_in_campaign.php

Posted by Chunche | January 24, 2008 4:27 PM

Oh, Huckabee and Romney put for the effort. But something is lacking. They are D'Angelo Barksdale to Bush's Avon Barksdale.

Posted by David B. | January 24, 2008 4:28 PM

Paul Waldman says Hillary Clinton is going after Barack Obama just like a Republican would -- without a lot of honesty or conscience. Frankly, I don't have a big problem with that.

I do. Do you really think someone who runs a dishonest, amoral campaign is going to run an honest, moral administration? In other words: the Clinton camp is lying to us now, during the campaign. You think that's good because you want them to be effective liars during the general. But you presumably don't want them lying to you when they're in office. But the Clinton camp will have every reason to lie to you if they've been twice rewarded for dishonesty - first in the primary and then in the general.

There's another point to this, which is that the ability to survive against a tough Republican campaign doesn't require the ability to campaign like a Republican. It requires the ability to effectively provide a contrast with the Republican party. The Clintons always want to fight fire with fire, but this is a recipe for disaster - see, for example, Hillary's desperate attempts to meet the GOP's hawkish rhetoric, which will only leave her as the "GOP lite" option come November. If the GOP uses fearmongering as a tactic - and they're bound to do so - Clinton is the candidate most ill-equipped to respond, because she accepts the basic premise of the culture of fear and will be unable to out-terrorize the GOP. Obama, on the other hand, can change the argument entirely by talking about the damage the warmongers have done to America's national security, and about how fear is not the answer. Clinton has nothing like that to offer.

Posted by Christmas | January 24, 2008 4:29 PM

As I stated on a previous thread, the attacks on Senator Obama by the Clinton folks are love taps compared to what the Rethuglicans will throw at him in the general election, if he wins the nomination.

Posted by SLC | January 24, 2008 4:31 PM

The chief knock on Hillary Clinton is that she is a compromised, dissembling, corrupt, mercenary and triangulating cynic.

Hmm.. looks like about five chief knocks to me... I think we should add incompetent/negligent (did not, for example read the intelligence report before authorizing Bush's Iraq fiasco), and proven record of failure (failed, for example, quite miserably on healthcare). I want to see reasons to believe that Hillary has changed for the better in terms of incompetence and failure (which I see as linked).

Posted by zavulon | January 24, 2008 4:32 PM

must say, I am tired of hearing Obama supporters whine that the Clintons are playing dirty and that we are risking deep intra-party divisions if Hillary now becomes the nominee. To me, there is a veiled threat here that if their preferred choice (Obama) does not win the nomination, they will somehow withhold their support (or time, or money, or whatever). It's one thing to play dirty, as the Clintons are doing. AND THEY ARE, don't get me wrong. But they have never said that they will not support Obama if he is nominated and I think they have been *extra careful* to not say anything that could do permanent damage to an Obama candidacy. Even on the anecdotal level, I know many Hillary voters who are very open to Obama and will happily support him if he wins the nomination. Many of the Obama supporters I know, on the other hand, do not make the same promise. I don't like it.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 4:32 PM

Conservatives will hate them, obviously, but so will a lot progressives.

Actual progressives would already hate Bill and Hillary Clinton if any of them remembered or cared about what happened in the 90s.

Posted by Christmas | January 24, 2008 4:32 PM

I'm a hard-core Democrat, just ask my Republican wife. But Hillary and Blow-Job Bill's attacks on Obama have led me to refuse to vote for her in November should she be the nominee.

I've repeatedly told my mother (a Democrat and Hillary donor and supporter) that I was happy with any of the Democratic candidates but Gravel and Kucinich. No longer. If Hillary loses the election in November because of her sleazy tactics and loss of die-hard Democrats like me, she has no one to blame but herself.

I should mention I fall into the "young voter" category - 33 years old.

Posted by guachi | January 24, 2008 4:32 PM

Folks, there's nothing wrong with Bill Clinton that castration and a dozen courses on ethics would not solve.

Posted by michaelwu | January 24, 2008 4:34 PM

This skirmish with the Clintons reveals two central problems with Obama going forward. First, it's quite difficult for him to turn battle into a referendum on the Clintons' honesty, because the low-information, "core" Democratic voters that he needs to peel away from the Clintons have (a) mostly heard and have already overlooked the Clintons' habit of not telling the truth, and (b) aren't part of the demographic that gravitates to "authentic reformers who will tell you the truth." So it's a mistake for Obama to turn this into a "who will tell you the truth" election. The voters who truly care about honesty and authenticity are already with him.

That said, it's a mistake to think that this is a dry run for general, since Obama is highly restricted in the kind of attacks that he can launch against the Clintons -- beloved figures in the party -- in a Democratic primary. He won't have the same restrictions against the GOP candidate.

That said, if he gets past the Clintons and moves on the general, he'll have another, more endemic problem, which is a central paradox of the Obama candidacy. His candor and intelligence inspire devotion from his "wine track" base, but they leave him exposed to the kind of political smears we've seen the Clintons. The nuanced, intellectual observations he makes appeal to folks who like that he respects our intelligence; but those statements can be easily distorted. As with this "party of ideas" and "Reagan was a transformative president" business, Obama's educated base of supporters understand what he means, but low information voters that he needs to start grabbing in bigger shares may not. And in the general, I can see this pattern working itself out with the GOP smearing Obama in a way that leaves him unable to win over those working class whites and Latinos he'll need.

I still think Obama will be a stronger candidate than the Clintons for other reasons, but I'm quite a bit more concerned about his political savvy than I was two weeks ago.

Posted by Ryan W. | January 24, 2008 4:35 PM

I think they have been *extra careful* to not say anything that could do permanent damage to an Obama candidacy.

Please spare us. They've done nothing of the sort, which is what is surprising people.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 24, 2008 4:35 PM

Dan Kervick makes an important point. Clinton's campaign doesn't have a clear message yet. I don't think that Matt remembers very well how the Clintons got into office in 1992. It wasn't by sliming the opposition. Bill Clinton's campaign had a clear message on the economy and it was a winning message that year. What is HRC's message for the general election this year? Seriously. So far it seems like "competence" - and that is usually not a winner in the general election. If she is the nominee, HRC should probably try to run on the economy like Bill did in 1992. It might work. But based on her attempt to win ugly in the primary, Democrats shouldn't be overconfident about this.

Posted by ikl | January 24, 2008 4:37 PM

Name one thing, Tim.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 4:38 PM

I think that the Clintons' ability to essentially beat up on an opponent who has basically already elevated himself above the fray says next to nothing about their ability to campaign in the G.E., and exactly nothing about their ability to lead and govern. All else being equal, people without principles fighting people who hold fast to theirs will always have an advantage - but no matter which Democrat wins the nomination, s/he will quickly realize that they won't have a choice as to which role they get to play once the race turns into Donkey vs. Elephant. I don't think that anyone, even a Clinton, is going to win playing the role of the brawler who will do anything to come out on top.

Meanwhile, due to the unspeakable incompetence of the Dubya bunch, there are a whole lot of voters, from both parties, who will be voting in this election with the zeal of the converted - and I don't think that they will forget what they saw in the primaries.

It will be a tragic waste of opportunity if they end up voting while holding their noses, whoever comes out on top in the end.

Posted by Joe Bleau | January 24, 2008 4:40 PM

HRC refuses to say whether Obama's qualified. That's a pretty clear indication she's not going to be all the way for him in a general.

And, I concede on an intellectual level, that if Hillary gets the nomination, I should support her. But, if it comes down to canvassing or giving money, the thought of "another 4 more years of this crap" is kind of a deterrent. "Better than Romney" may not, as a practical, emotional matter, supersede the inertia when she evidently wants to be coronated.

When Clinton ran as an "optimist" who had actual empathy with people in 1992, it didn't have that effect, even though during the campaign season, he killed a retarded guy to score cheap points.

Posted by David B. | January 24, 2008 4:45 PM

Sorry Matt, I'm not done insulting you for this one. When Clinton gets documented for her 935 lies that led to disaster, what will you say about this sophomoric post you wrote today? "I was only 27 when I wrote that, and lots of other Democrats also thought dishonest campaign tactics were just part of the game, and I had no idea that a dishonest candidate would necessarily make a dishonest president".

Posted by Gary Sugar | January 24, 2008 4:46 PM

You don't have a probably with dishonesty? I hope you mean that it's a necessary evil, not that there's not anything wrong with it.

If so, I agree, but with that in mind I think that I'd like my president to be someone who seems to regret rather than celebrate the dirty necessities of contemporary American politics. Whether that's Obama, I don't know, but it's certainly not Clinton.

Posted by SeanD | January 24, 2008 4:47 PM

Having expressed my caveats about Obama's political savvy, a lot of folks are missing the crucial distinction between a primary and general election. Think of the primaries as a spring tryout to see who will win the starting quarterback job. You need to show the coach you have better skills than other guys, but you can't go around kneecapping the other contestants or drugging their water. You're on the freaking *same team* -- if you care about the team's overall success, you can't go around trying to destroy a player who might be a better quarterback.

Obama can't talk too much about Clinton fatigue, but you can bet this is going to be a central theme for the GOP.

Posted by Ryan W. | January 24, 2008 4:48 PM

Respectfully, if you think dishonest attacks are part of the game then *you* are part of the problem.

Posted by J. Cross | January 24, 2008 4:52 PM

"HRC refuses to say whether Obama's qualified. That's a pretty clear indication she's not going to be all the way for him in a general."

Good point. But I was saying that they haven't gone even *farther* -- it would be pretty big news if Bill Clinton went out there and said point blank, "Barack Obama is not qualified to be president." As I said before, there is no doubt the Clintons are playing dirty. But I would hesitate to call their tactics "scorched-earth," as many Obama people are. I mean, Michelle Obama says Hillary will "say anything to win" -- an attack that the Republicans will defintiely be using against her if she wins the nomination.

I just think that Democrats who are decrying this big collapse of the party or whatever are just plain nuts. No one, on either side, has said or done anything (yet) to make me worry about permanent damage to either candidate. But I do see a lot of *supporters* (mostly Obama's, but yeah, I'm biased) basically leveling threats at the electorate, saying if the other guy/gal wins, the party is ruined. Come off it. Don't get so invested in one candidate that you view the other as the devil. Sure, I'm a Hillary voter, but I'll happily vote for Obama. If that's not true of you, I'd take a good look on the inside before you start blaming the Clintons or whoever else.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 4:55 PM

Th echo the point some others have made, there's a difference between a primary and a general election. In the general you can hit back and expect most of the backlash to come from people who would never vote for you anyway. By using Bill as attack dog, Hillary is daring Obama to hit back and risk alienating core dems who are Bill's big fans.

In other words, the response to "the Repubs will be 10 times as bad" is that Obama's rules of engagement would be completely different than they are now. Bill is the most powerful and public figure in the Democratic party, folks, and he's using his stature to grind the most promising new Democratic politician in 15 years into the dirt in a bid for power, knowing that Obama's ability to respond is severely handicapped. Does anyone seriously think that this sort of behavior is comparable to anything the Republicans could throw at Obama in the general?

Posted by DK | January 24, 2008 5:00 PM

Ryan, what you say makes sense in an abstract world, but the reality is different. Many people support a candidate because of shared principles, not a shared party label. On this score, if Obama supporters feel that Clinton's behavior contravenes those principles (or vice versa) their refusal to vote for the other candidate makes perfect sense and it is totally ethical. You may not share their issues, but you ought to understand where such people are coming from, rather than suggesting it might be their fault, or that the narrow constraints of party trump everything else.

Posted by sashaqz | January 24, 2008 5:02 PM

But I do see a lot of *supporters* (mostly Obama's, but yeah, I'm biased) basically leveling threats at the electorate, saying if the other guy/gal wins, the party is ruined.

I think that the preponderance of the evidence is that the party is already ruined (Just look at the FISA/telecom immunity debacle, fer cryin' out loud).

The real question is, will the party be content to stay ruined. That's why the Clintonian tactics make me sad - not because she's losing my support (I'll vote for her if it comes to that), but that I see her approach as pissing on an historic opportunity to effect a sea change in American politics, one that we might not see again in my lifetime.

Just winning the election will not save the Democrats, folks.

Posted by Joe Bleau | January 24, 2008 5:07 PM

HRC and her husband have done their best to alienate everyone to their left. If she gets the nomination, how is she going to win them back by November, especially since the customary practice is to head for the center to scoop up as many independents as possible?

Posted by Henderstock | January 24, 2008 5:09 PM

Sashaqz,

I don't mean to imply that party trumps all. It does for me, but everyone makes his or her voting decision differently, and each individual choice is inherently legitimate.

What I am frustrated by is this cyclical argument that the Clintons are divisive, and the reason given is that the person doesn't prefer Hillary in the primary. Though I'm a Hillary voter, I suspect Obama would win a larger majority in the general (though honestly, the polling is inconclusive) and could be "transformative." In other words, parts of Obama's message appeal to me, not because I'm some neutral-minded saint, but because I've listened to the message.

I'm not articulating this very well, but I guess what it comes down to is people complaining that Hillary and Bill are "damaging the party" when they themselves won't put party above all else. What they are really complaining about is that they are *damaging Obama* but they don't put it that way.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 5:10 PM

So, to keep a running tab, Matt...

1) has little knowledge of economics

2) has no problems with dishonesty

About par for a Democrat.

Posted by RJC | January 24, 2008 5:10 PM

Indeed, the thing that's given me the most doubts about Obama thus far has been the campaign's tendency to whine ineffectually about Clinton campaign gambits.

Give me a break. The Clinton campaign has been complaining about the media being against them every day for the past 2-3 months. Hillary even started crying when it looked like she wasn't going to win. Yet it is the Obama team that is whiny?

Posted by Moonlight | January 24, 2008 5:18 PM

And RJC has even less knowledge of economics and is an active proponent of dishonesty.. how like a Republican. Happy now, RJC?

Posted by sashaqz | January 24, 2008 5:19 PM

I don't think Obama has sounded whiney or has been "thrown off his game" as I've seen a number of reports assert either. He's consistently called foul and is using the attacks to emphasize his central message re different kind of politics v. status quo. See for example the new South Carolina ad.

This is exactly what I've been seeing! The Clintons have been workin the refs and now people like Dowd, Gail Collins, news reporters are saying Obama's been "thrown off his game." He's doing far better than expected: huge upset win in Iowa, not far behind in New Hamshire, tie in Nevada. Bill Clinton can talk all the sh** he wants, we'll see what's up after South Carolina and Super Tuesday.

If I were Obama I would be mighty tempted to start mixing it up (i.e. say Lewinsky every chance he gets, "I did not sleep with that woman!) but he should stay above the fray and victory will be that much sweeter. Hopefully he keeps doing what he's doing.

Posted by Peter K. | January 24, 2008 5:27 PM

The other Ryan:

Even on the anecdotal level, I know many Hillary voters who are very open to Obama and will happily support him if he wins the nomination. Many of the Obama supporters I know, on the other hand, do not make the same promise. I don't like it.

You don't have to like it, but it's important to understand that the candidacies are not equivalent. As an Obama supporter, I'd be happy to support Edwards in the general election should Edwards prevail. I would expect to donate money to him, volunteer, work my ass off. That's because Edwards, like Obama, has articulated a rationale for why he should be president: he's fighting for populist programs that aren't being pushed by money-compromised politicians. Obama's argument is that, through unifying rhetoric, a charismatic messenger, and a less polarizing approach to politics, he can win a working majority to enact progressive policies.

We have competing theories on what's the best approach to victory (and to furthering progressive policies). Edwards supporters mock Obama as someone who's running on unrealistic "kumbaya" platitudes and whose mealy-mouthed rhetoric will not lead to more progressive policies. Those are perfectly fair objections to raise -- this is the kind of debate you want to have in a Democratic primary. What policies do you support? What approach to politics is best for the country? Who's the most strongest candidate in a general election? These are the debates you want to have in a primary. Tying it in to the quarterback analogy above, if you're a team player, you go into tryouts trying to show you're the best. If another player shows that he's clearly the better quarterback, you suck it up and play backup for the good of the team.

It seems to me the Clintons have lost sight of the team angle. While Hillary Clinton's candidacy has the potential for any number of themes, such as a 90s restoration, her candidacy has always been simply about *her.* We need to elect her because she would be ready on day one, or have the most experience, or some such vacuous angle. Hers is a vanity candidacy, but a powerful one because of her name recognition, celebrity status and projection of competency. I wouldn't have a problem with her vanity candidacy if she didn't insist on going out there and kneecapping someone trying out for the job *on the same team*.

Again, it's totally fair to compare experience, or call Obama's inconsistencies into question. But distortions and smear-jobs -- under the guise of "we need to give this guy a trial by fire" -- kneecapping a teammate competing for the same job in order to further your own ambitions is just lame. Again, the primary is *not* a dry run for the general because Obama -- nor anyone else -- can fire at the Clintons in a Democratic primary -- the same way he can at a Republican candidate in the general. The general election is an actual football game, the tryouts are where you find out who the best players are that you can put on the field.

As someone who has donated to, volunteered for, supported and defended the Clintons for sixteen years (and as someone who even six months ago named Bill Clinton as the person I most want to meet), I have to say that I can't wait for them to disappear from the national stage. The Clintons' actions in the last two weeks -- blatant dishonesty in furtherance of nothing except their own ambition -- make it very difficult for me to envision even voting for her in the general election. I probably will, once the GOP start playing the misogyny card, but I've lost nearly all my respect for them.

Posted by Ryan W. | January 24, 2008 5:30 PM

Ryan W.:
"It seems to me the Clintons have lost sight of the team angle. While Hillary Clinton's candidacy has the potential for any number of themes, such as a 90s restoration, her candidacy has always been simply about *her.* "

Such a well written post, Ryan #2. I just fundamentally disagree. To me, it's *Obama's* candidacy that is the "vanity" (as you put it) candidacy, as in "I'm the new Reagan, I can transcend the bitterness, etc." Check out Hillary's Iowa concession speech. Sure, the cynic will argue that it was "calucated," but look at the content. She celebrated what a great day is was for Democrats generally and seemed genuine about it.

There is a contradiction in saying, as an Obama or Edwards supporter, that the Clintons are handicapping someone "on their team" or being too hard on a fellow Democrat, and then turning around and not pledging to support the Democrat in the general if she happens to be Hillary Clinton! Or is that not a contradiction?

Gotta step away now, but let me just say, I like our candidates -- all of them -- and I think we're lucky.

Posted by Ryan | January 24, 2008 5:49 PM

Matt, you wrote, "the thing that's given me the most doubts about Obama thus far has been the campaign's tendency to whine ineffectually about Clinton campaign gambits."

I have read this line of criticism multiple times now in different places (though, admittedly, mostly by Clinton or Edwards supporters); however, if pointing out that your rival is lying about your record is whining, then what exactly is a campaign SUPPOSED to do when another engages in dishonest attacks?

Also, I think it is now clear that Obama HAS started hitting back. His recently aired radio ad that states "she will say anything, and change nothing" is probably the roughest thing he has said about Sen. Clinton since the "Bush-lite" comment he made months ago; a label he dropped almost immediately after using it because he believed it was not really accurate.

However, while the "she will say anthing" comment is rough, it is NOT dishonest (if one believes that Sen. Clinton and Bill Clinton have been lying about Obama's record and distorting his words).

Though, I'd imagine that by just having used the "she will say anything" line, the traditional media will now lump Obama's campaign in with the Clintons' as part of their "pox on both houses" narrative.

Posted by Aaron M | January 24, 2008 5:56 PM

Well, this is an amusingly plastic standard you and Ezra have endorsed. Action X, committed by a Republican, is reprehensible. Action X, committed by a Democrat, is getting ready to fight the Republicans.

Actually, repeatedly telling a bald faced lie about your opponent is reprehensible, no matter who does it.

Posted by ostap | January 24, 2008 6:00 PM

"As I stated on a previous thread, the attacks on Senator Obama by the Clinton folks are love taps compared to what the Rethuglicans will throw at him in the general election, if he wins the nomination.

Posted by SLC | January 24, 2008 4:31 PM"

Don't even bother SLC; the Obamabots--after they've spent hours on the internets calling the Clinton's every name in the book, as if they are a virtual crime family--then quickly pivot and are morally outraged by any criticism of their candidate.

Some of the criticism of Obama is indeed bogus. But the idea that this year's primary is particularly nasty can only be believed if you've never witnessed any of the previous ones, or are simply delusional.

The outrage over the "fairy tale" comment being my favorite example. Such a comment is completely within bounds of a politcal campaign.

Every primary that is at all competitive ends up going negative. Every single one.

Posted by Andruw | January 24, 2008 6:06 PM

Dishonest attacks are part of the game and the only way for a candidate to protect himself against them is to turn them into jujitsu

I've bookmarked this page.

In the general, when freelancers on my side doctor photos to show Hillary and her assistant in bed together (and pass them off as real), I want to be able remind Yglesias that Yglesias thinks it an appropriate "part of the game."

Posted by Shinyk | January 24, 2008 6:14 PM

Winners don't complain they save their energy for actually beating the other side. Clinton's tactics are nowhere near the swiftboat Kerry received and his complaints did not help at all.

The whining comes about because Obama's campaign is focused on winning over the media/Village not your average Democratic voter. Some random Democrat in the San Fernando Valley doesn't really care what the various sides are saying about each other in SC.

Posted by what will you do for me | January 24, 2008 6:22 PM

Shinyk, before it comes to that point, the freelancers on your side will be too busy trying to explain how their candidate isn't a psycho/crook/pawn-of-the-Bushes to engage in photoshopping.

Obama's problem is not that he's buckling under attacks. It's that he, not Clinton, is on the defensive from attacks. Once it gets to the point where a candidate has to explain himself/herself because of unfair attacks, he/she has already lost.

Posted by Tyro | January 24, 2008 6:29 PM

The fundamental point isn't that the attacks against Obama are that bad, it's that Bill and Hillary Clinton are making the attacks knowing damn well Obama is greatly limited in firing back.

Bill Clinton is known globally as a bold faced liar. But Obama can't say that because too many Democratic voters have been brainwashed into thinking "Conservatives hate Bill, so I must love him". Obama and his surrogates won't have any such constraints during a general election.

Now, you may think that Bill and Hill being willing to do anything to win is a great attribute. But what exactly has that approach gotten us in the last 16 years, whether it's from the Clintons or from Bush and company?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | January 24, 2008 6:29 PM

There is a contradiction in saying, as an Obama or Edwards supporter, that the Clintons are handicapping someone "on their team" or being too hard on a fellow Democrat, and then turning around and not pledging to support the Democrat in the general if she happens to be Hillary Clinton! Or is that not a contradiction?

Not at all. In the analogy, we're fans for a team. As a fan, I'd want, say, the NY Giants to have the best guys on the field. If I find out that the starting quarterback is a conniving, underhanded schemer who only got the job because he poisoned the water of a better player, I'd experience cognitive dissonance, if not outright disgust. If I started to despise my team's starting quarterback, I'd certainly be less passionate about rooting for the Giants, if not eventually lose outright interest. If I had a choice, wouldn't I want the quarterback on the field who won the job fair and square? Someone I could respect?

Now, I realize that who gets to appoint Justice Stevens' seat is more important than mere sports allegiances. In the end, I imagine a bunch of us will pull the lever for Hillary despite our disgust, simply because she's not a Republican. But money, time, energy, passion? Sorry, I can't imagine summoning up an ounce of energy to help these people.

The weird thing is, there was no reason why the Clintons needed to alienate people like me, which, if anecdotal evidence and the blog reaction are to be believed, looks to constitute a non-trivial percentage of the Democratic base. Two weeks ago, if you asked me whether I would consider voting for a joke candidacy like Bloomberg's over Hillary, I would have guffawed and dismissed it out of hand. Not today. When one begins nodding to Andy Sullivan's anti-Clinton diatribes, it's hard to turn back.

The Clintons outsmarted themselves for no good reason. I don't know if they understand that pushing these smears and distortions -- Peter Dauo's ridiculous propaganda post on Daily Kos yesterday being one example -- really, really pisses Obama supporters off. Now, these smears were likely just part of a broader strategy to bait Obama into becoming "just another politician", but however clever they thought the idea was, it's not working. I doubt the low-information voters are paying attention, and all it does move a few voters from Obama and Hillary to Edwards while deeply antagonizing Obama voters, whom they should not take for granted.

As for Obama being a vanity candidacy, I don't want to get into a back-and-forth, but I think you're way off. Obama's candidacy is about a theory of politics for which Obama is arguing he's the best messenger. He's saying we're at a critical point where the Republicans have tarnished their brand to such a degree that a unifying candidate can pick off enough disaffected indies and weak Republians to usher in a durable Democratic majority. I happen to agree, which is why I support him. I would not have supported this kind of candidacy in 2004-- Hillary would actually be a much better candidate against Bush that year -- but he has the right message for the moment. You're free to disagree, but it's an actual theory.

On the other hand, I still don't know why Hillary is running besides ambition, since any number of candidates have far more experience -- Dodd, Biden, Richardson -- and would be more ready on Day 1. None of her expressed rationales for her candidacy is unique to her, except for the implied argument that she's running for the Clintons third term. But she's not explicitly running on that message.

Posted by Ryan W. | January 24, 2008 6:32 PM

MBunge: "The fundamental point isn't that the attacks against Obama are that bad, it's that Bill and Hillary Clinton are making the attacks knowing damn well Obama is greatly limited in firing back.

Bill Clinton is known globally as a bold faced liar. But Obama can't say that because too many Democratic voters have been brainwashed into thinking "Conservatives hate Bill, so I must love him".

Acceepting this as at least partially true, so what? HRC is supposed to go easy on Obama because of this? Because millions of stupid Democrats have been, um, braiwashed? (Aside, imagine the reaction among the 'bots if I said Obama supporters were 'brainwashed' by his feel-good message/oratory.)

That's some crazy logic--HRC is supposed to say to herself, "Democrats love Bill, so I can't go after Obama too hard, it would be mean, since he is afraid to fight back. Because Democrats love Bill. Oh and by the way, take the election Barack, I don't want to hurt you and the 'bots feelings"

Posted by Andruw | January 24, 2008 6:42 PM

Shinyk, before it comes to that point, the freelancers on your side will be too busy trying to explain how their candidate isn't a psycho/crook/pawn-of-the-Bushes to engage in photoshopping.

Clinton's followed Bush lock-step on foreign policy, so I doubt very much that will be the case.

Posted by Shinyk | January 24, 2008 6:46 PM

Shinyk, I didn't say the attacks would be fair.

Posted by Tyro | January 24, 2008 6:48 PM

Shinyk, I didn't say the attacks would be fair.

Maybe, but I think it more likely that McCain paints Clinton as someone who had enough stones to start a war and but not enough to finish it (which isn't entirely inaccurate). I don't know what Romney would say, but he fights every bit as dirty as Rove and doesn't "waste" time defending himself.

Posted by Shinyk | January 24, 2008 6:56 PM

It's my assumption that a candidate who will speak "without a lot of honesty or conscience" to get elected will also speak without a lot of honesty or conscience to the American people when making policy decisions...like going to war.

Posted by Zack | January 24, 2008 7:10 PM

Matt continues to stubbornly support his concept of "situational ethics".

Shorter Matt - "If lying helps, I say lie."

Matt wants another President in the White House who will face the US on camera, wag her finger in the air, and say, "I did not have sex with that woman."

Or, er, maybe "HE did not have sex with that woman" - whoever the next paramour of Bill's turns out to be sometime in the next four years.

You can't make this stuff up, folks. Matt really does say stuff like this.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 24, 2008 7:27 PM

To clarify and add to that, I agree with what a poster on another site said today:

Does anybody here really think that Bill's sexual history isn't going to be the number one Republican talking point in 2008?

Do we really want a President in the White House whose spouse is going to be continually accused of continued infidelity for the next four years?

And people think Hillary has been "vetted"?

Please.

Not to mention Hillary's past, Whitewater, etc. It will ALL be drug up again and although some of it might backfire on the Republicans, a hell of a lot of voters, especially younger ones, won't remember the Clinton years and how badly that derailed the nation from foreign policy and other issues.

So far, Obama's failings appear to be associating with the "wrong" people - without any clear evidence of wrong-doing on his part other than naiveté.

Matt ignores all of this to focus on Obama's alleged inability to deal with political attacks.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 24, 2008 7:34 PM

Obama today:
"I don't feel like the candidates are getting bloodied up. This is good practice for me, so when I take on those Republicans I'll be accustomed to it."

What Matt & Ezra said. Chill the f out. It's a political campaign.

Posted by UN Plaza | January 24, 2008 7:55 PM

Unless some extraordinary event intercedes it's pretty obvious that Hillary already has the nomination wrapped up. What I don't get is why they felt the need to go negative.
What a sad path for the Democratic party, like picking Humphrey over Bobby Kennedy (had he not been assassinated).

Posted by blindjoedeath | January 24, 2008 8:13 PM

blindjoedeath,

While I agree with you that Clinton has already won the nomination, what I don't understand is that she is acting as if she is fighting for her life. I'm not saying she should be complacent but I do think that it is overkill in the way she has been acting.

Posted by MGJ | January 24, 2008 8:28 PM

let me say it again. I do NOT want a Democratic candidate who can't respond effectively to attacks. if obama can't do it. I'll take Hilary.
these folks who keep whining about Hilary attacking Obama need to get a life. politics ain't bean bag, folks. Hillary has hit Obama with a few solid punches-a couple of which are borderline. Obama needs to respond, not complain about how the Clint ons aren't doing what they expected.
IF Obama can't take Billary's blows, he will DEFINITELY fold when hit by the Republican slime machine.
Now it might be a better world if everybody played by the rules, but the Democratic candidate had better be prepared to win in THIS world.
And lets not hear any nonsense about I'll never vote for Hillary. The next President will probably get to choose as many as three Supreme court justices. I'll crawl over broken glass to vote for the Democrat candidate on that issue alone!

Posted by stonetools | January 24, 2008 8:39 PM

If I were Obama I would be mighty tempted to start mixing it up (i.e. say Lewinsky every chance he gets, "I did not sleep with that woman!) but he should stay above the fray and victory will be that much sweeter. Hopefully he keeps doing what he's doing.

Exactly. What Obama needs to do is something that (I hate to say it) Dubya excels at: attack subtly, through innuendo, without appearing negative.

Something like pointing to the camera, biting his lip, and saying: "I.. will.. never... lie to the American people."

Posted by Tractarian | January 24, 2008 8:42 PM

Paul Waldman says Hillary Clinton is going after Barack Obama just like a Republican would -- without a lot of honesty or conscience. Frankly, I don't have a big problem with that.

It's great to see that what we have learned from these past 7 years of the Bush administration is that Democrats should have unethical and deeply dishonest presidents of their own.

Excuse me while I vomit...

Posted by J.B. | January 24, 2008 9:46 PM

I'm an Obama guy and I 100% agree with Matt. Another poster asked, what is Obama supposed to do when confronted (besides defend)?

You either rise above, or you turn the attack around and destroy her (like the line out of the Philly debate). This is how you deal with knife fighters.

You don't have to be a knife fighter to be president, but you sure better be able to deal with them. Either bring a gun or shine a bright light on them for everyone to see. Barack needs to prove he can do these things.

Oh and count me in for McCain should Hillary be nominated.

Posted by Steve C | January 25, 2008 12:07 AM

For any Clinton supporter to accuse Obama of "whining" when their candidate has quite literally cried to win is the height of hypocrisy. Of course, we know little things like facts or lying don't really bother them; they're basically Republicans with a different set of issues -- the ones that are actually smart enough to vote for Hillary for reasons besides her last name or her vagina, that is. Well, this young, college-educated, liberal Democrat will NEVER vote for her -- and there are plenty more like me. I'll be happy to watch McCain trounce that classless bitch should she get the nomination.

And wow, look how far some of us have come. I was actually looking forward to enthusiastically supporting Hillary a few months ago. And I used to think that the Republicans' attacks on the Clinton's were entirely unfounded. Well, now I know better. And it's only the primary season! Just think of what craven, manipulative, and dare I say racist appeals the Clintons will dream up next! To any Clinton supporters reading this: Don't be surprised if when you go into the voting booth, a large part of the Democratic coalition isn't standing behind you. You dumbasses really fucked this one up for the rest of us. Of course, considering the fact that you're mostly old, uneducated, low-information voters anyway, you're probably not going to read this. Stoopid, stoopid, stoopid.

Posted by Uncle Zoidburgher | January 25, 2008 12:15 AM

The one and only reason for voting Democratic in November is the idea that a Democratic President will behave differently in office than the Republicans have behaved over the last eight years.

Behaving the same as the Republicans have behaved during the last eight years during the campaign removes the one and only reason to vote Democratic in November.

Posted by Splitting Image | January 25, 2008 12:35 AM

I am certain that Matt would prefer to live in the much better hypothetical world in which being truthful is a prerequisite for the presidency. But in the real world, honesty doesn't win elections, it loses them-always has, and until the human condition changes in some magical way, it always will. We can try to argue about why this is the case-I don't think the answer is really that clear-but it would be absurd to blame Mr. Yglesias for even a piddling fraction of it merely because he recognizes that it is the case.

Posted by gerontion | January 25, 2008 12:46 AM

"until the human condition changes in some magical way, it always will."

It won't be magic.

It'll just look like magic.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 25, 2008 1:59 AM

gerontion: "I am certain that Matt would prefer to live in the much better hypothetical world in which being truthful is a prerequisite for the presidency. But in the real world, honesty doesn't win elections, it loses them-always has, and until the human condition changes in some magical way, it always will."

Speak for yourself. Where I'm from, lying DOESN'T help you win elections. It's a bunch of a-holes on the Coasts and in South who accept this type of bullshit. Here in the Upper Midwest -- Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin -- when you run fallacious negative ads, YOU LOSE.

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 25, 2008 2:00 AM

Ah yes, Mr. McMurphy, I forget about the bastion of honesty that is the midwest. Big fans of corn subsidies and the coal industry from what I hear. But I'm sure those are just lies, and the fine people of the states you mention are just objective, selfless members of the nation who care deeply not just about themselves, but everyone else too.

Posted by gerontion | January 25, 2008 2:29 AM

Ooooh, burn on me sashaqz.

It would hurt more if, you know, I was actually a Republican.

Posted by RJC | January 25, 2008 5:37 AM

> Speak for yourself. Where I'm from, lying DOESN'T
> help you win elections. It's a bunch of a-holes on
> the Coasts and in South who accept this type of
> bullshit. Here in the Upper Midwest -- Minnesota,
> Iowa, Wisconsin -- when you run fallacious
> negative ads, YOU LOSE.

Really? Trying going out to your cousin's farm and explaining that he is really running an outdoor food factory that is heavily subsidized by the federal government using money taken from the urban areas and the East, and that he could not survive without what is essentially no different from urban welfare. That's the truth, but it doesn't seem to go down real well in my central midwestern family anyway.

Cranky

And that's before we even start talking about environmental damage and peak oil...

Posted by Cranky Observer | January 25, 2008 7:40 AM

Cranky,

We can all agree that politics involves certain slight of hands, and certain sharp elbows

But this argument that the level to which the Clintons are taking this to is ok , because you know, the Republicans do it even worse is ridiculous at best.

First and fore most, might we take the election results of 06 as some evidence that politics of winning at any cost ran its course?

Also might, we look at what sort of governance those who practice this sort of politics give us?

Not steeler: its a your either against us or with us approach; you cross us and we will hand you your head. Very Republican, and quite freighting coming from a Democrat . . . is this how Clinton is going to govern? How is she going to hold the Democratic coalition together after they cut to pieces the politician who best represents the future of the party and who has brought in so many young activists and who has energized the 20% most reliable part of the base (American Americans).

It is depressing, quite frankly.

Posted by Jon | January 25, 2008 8:23 AM

I'd been reading about Bill Clinton's recent public meltdowns, and after finally having a chance to see them last night I've gotta say: 1) I don't think he's helping Hillary in the long run and 2) I think Obama's response has been perfect.

It is one thing to question your opponent's record or public statements and even cast them in a bad light. It's another thing to selectively edit public comments to draw conclusions that are, as Obama said, "fundamentally dishonest." I get the sense a lot of Bush supporters really believe their own bullshit, but I think most Democrats can tell the difference between spin and lies. The Republican ideas / praising Reagan line is such transparent BS, I don't see that it's going to gain much traction other than with the deeply partisan and cynical - Hillary's core constituency.

By resorting to these kind of attacks - in an unhinged, spittle-flying way - Bill Clinton just reminds voters that he's a serial liar and comes across as unhinged. He also undermines Hillary's candidacy by reminding voters they're really voting for a two-headed monster - she's not running on her own record. And it reinforces all the bad impressions of Hillary Clinton: That she's a compulsive liar who will "say anything" to win.

Obama's line of attack is perfect. Address Bill Cltinon's attacks personally, point out the fundamendal dishonesty of their campaign, and constantly remind voters that the Clintons are running as a couple and not one candidate. The subtle use of "they" whenever referring to Hillary is good.

Hillary can insulate herself from this line of attack if Bubba fades from the picture but let's face it: He's a narcissist who just can't help himself, and she's an empty suit who can't win without her husbands help. If Hillary is going to use Bill on the campaign trail, Obama should tie him around her neck like a noose.

Posted by Mike LePost | January 25, 2008 9:15 AM

What is interesting is that more attention has not been payed to the fact that the longest running job Hillary ever had was as a high-powered corporate lawyer for the most feared law firm in the south.

Talk about your 35 years of experience protecting children as the core of your life's work!

Heh, the first client she defended was a company who was putting rat parts in their canned food as filler. I would love to see the list of greatest hits . . . but I bet the Rs are going to dig it up.

yeah, vetted my ass!

Real nice, real classy. I wonder if John Edward's ever went against a company that was represented by the the Rose Law Firm?

Posted by Bob | January 25, 2008 9:25 AM

I'm an independent voter, and I have a question for supporters of Clinton. Is one of the arguments for a Clinton candidacy that she would be prepared to use underhanded and dishonest campaign strategies against the Republican candidate? That is, regardless of her other merits or flaws, and regardless of whether this makes her more or less likely to win the general election, are you specifically hoping she'll swift-boat the other guy as brutally as certain Republicans have done with Democrats in the past?

I haven't really seen any explicit debate over whether this would be a good thing for the Democratic party, and I think that debate should probably be had before the nomination is made.

Posted by Steven the all-knowing | January 25, 2008 11:18 AM

gerontion: "Ah yes, Mr. McMurphy, I forget about the bastion of honesty that is the midwest."

Well, we gave you prairie populism and Paul Wellstone and Russell Feingold, among others -- so you ought to remember. And negative ads really do hurt you in the Upper Midwest -- but you wouldn't know that since you don't live here.

gerontion: "Big fans of corn subsidies and the coal industry from what I hear."

Corn subsidies? Yes. Coal? I think you're a bit confused. But let's get something straight. Minnesota and Wisconsin receive between 60 and 80 cents in federal spending for every dollar we send to Washington -- among the lowest return in the nation. Iowa gets around 1.10.

gerontion: "But I'm sure those are just lies, and the fine people of the states you mention are just objective, selfless members of the nation who care deeply not just about themselves, but everyone else too."

You're absolutely right. We vote at higher rates than you do, we serve in the military at higher rates than you do, we volunteer at higher rates than you do, and we donate more money to charity than you do. All in all, we're basically better people;)

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 25, 2008 4:47 PM

Cranky Observer: "Really? Trying going out to your cousin's farm and explaining that he is really running an outdoor food factory that is heavily subsidized by the federal government using money taken from the urban areas and the East, and that he could not survive without what is essentially no different from urban welfare. That's the truth, but it doesn't seem to go down real well in my central midwestern family anyway."

No, here's the truth. Minnesota gets approximately 70 cents back in federal spending for every dollar we send to the federal goverment. With the exception of NJ, NH, and CT (which are about the same), every other Eastern state gets more. So who's subsidizing whom?

Posted by R.P. McMurphy | January 25, 2008 4:57 PM

I'm sick of the pro-Obama spin. I have not seen a single problem with what Bill Clinton had said. I have read the full transcripts of Obamas quotes in 2004 regarding the war, and not just the bits that were left out, and there is no doubt in my mind that Bill Clinton was correct when he said that Barack Obama's stance on the war, and his 69 votes on war issues that has followed to be a fairytale. He was definitely opposed to it in 2002 when not a member of the US Senate, but his view had changed two years later to a point that he had no right to be attacking Hillary Clinton's voting record.

Bill Clinton was also right when he pointed out Obama's comments regarding Ronald Reagan as an example of change, and the Republicans being the party of ideas for the past 10-15 years. Even though I understand what Obama meant, Reagan should never be used as an example of change, while the Republican ideas of the past 10-15 years includes the entire Bush presidency! That comment deserved to be taken apart for goodness sake! Both comments were for the purpose of insulting Clinton, and an attempt to attract Republicans. Nothing more.

People tend to forget what led up to these problems in the campaign, but I see it starting at the Iowa caucus when Barack Obama decided to conduct back-room deals for second choice votes to win that caucus. He was able to do so. Then in NH, Barack Obama was mean to Hillary Clinton during the debate, and he ganged-up with John Edwards against her. That deserved some fight back from the Clinton campaign, and when they did, they are criticised for it.

People refuse to look at the full story when it comes to Barack Obama.

Posted by Robyn | January 28, 2008 5:29 PM

I'm sick of the pro-Obama spin. I have not seen a single problem with what Bill Clinton had said. I have read the full transcripts of Obamas quotes in 2004 regarding the war, and not just the bits that were left out, and there is no doubt in my mind that Bill Clinton was correct when he said that Barack Obama's stance on the war, and his 69 votes on war issues that has followed to be a fairytale. He was definitely opposed to it in 2002 when not a member of the US Senate, but his view had changed two years later to a point that he had no right to be attacking Hillary Clinton's voting record.

Bill Clinton was also right when he pointed out Obama's comments regarding Ronald Reagan as an example of change, and the Republicans being the party of ideas for the past 10-15 years. Even though I understand what Obama meant, Reagan should never be used as an example of change, while the Republican ideas of the past 10-15 years includes the entire Bush presidency! That comment deserved to be taken apart for goodness sake! Both comments were for the purpose of insulting Clinton, and an attempt to attract Republicans. Nothing more.

People tend to forget what led up to these problems in the campaign, but I see it starting at the Iowa caucus when Barack Obama decided to conduct back-room deals for second choice votes to win that caucus. He was able to do so. Then in NH, Barack Obama was mean to Hillary Clinton during the debate, and he ganged-up with John Edwards against her. That deserved some fight back from the Clinton campaign, and when they did, they are criticised for it.

People refuse to look at the full story when it comes to Barack Obama.

Posted by Robyn | January 28, 2008 5:30 PM