Amateur Hour

Slate's John Dickerson asks an obvious question on a conference call with Hillary Clinton's campaign: "What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" After an uncomfortably long moment during which neither Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein have anything to say, and then Lee Feinstein tries to step in with a save and starts talking about Clinton's endorsement by high-level military officials. Give it a listen:

That's a hat tip to Jennifer Skalka. Feinstein, the campaign's foreign policy guy, is making the best of a bad situation here. But the more strictly political people walked into a debacle. How could they go forward with that ad without having a good answer to the question on hand? It's inept in the extreme.

Comments

She was a senator from NY during Sept. 11. You'd think they could have come up with some sort of response based on that.

Posted by Brian | February 29, 2008 5:49 PM

I agree with you Brian. Are they working for or against her?? Sometimes I wonder. :-/

Posted by Dee | February 29, 2008 5:52 PM

I agree with you Brian. Sometimes I wonder about her advisers. :-/

Posted by Dee | February 29, 2008 5:53 PM

I agree with you Brian. Sometimes I wonder about her advisers. :-/

Posted by Dee | February 29, 2008 5:54 PM

I agree, they didn't have a strong answer, and that made me wince.

However, Obama's only answer on the same question is "I made a speech against the Iraq war in 2002."

That's not being tested, either.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 5:59 PM

Brian, Dee,

I'm not sure what Hillary did on September 11th that suggested she has the foreign policy chops to be president. Could you be a little more specific?

Posted by southpaw | February 29, 2008 6:01 PM

However, Obama's only answer on the same question is "I made a speech against the Iraq war in 2002."

How about: "I made a judgment in 2002 that contradicted a bipartisan consensus in Congress as well as most of the national security establishment, and that judgment turned out to be absolutely correct."

Posted by southpaw | February 29, 2008 6:05 PM

No shit, Tim K, but Obama never made an ad suggesting otherwise.

Posted by wj | February 29, 2008 6:05 PM

I agree, they didn't have a strong answer, and that made me wince.

However, Obama's only answer on the same question is "I made a speech against the Iraq war in 2002."

That's not being tested, either.

I take it you're a McCain voter, then?

Look, if we frame this as "The person who's the best President is the one who has the most experience", Obama and Clinton BOTH lose this one to McCain. Hell, he could take Hillary's 3 am ad and put his voiceover and campaign logo on the end and use it for his.

However, I seem to recall that ANOTHER President named Clinton beat out a Republican war hero with a significant "experience" differential on national security issues (and this one was actually able to WIN a war in Iraq)- so it's not always about experience.

Posted by eponymous coward | February 29, 2008 6:05 PM

Thank God somebody's finally asking this question. For all this crap about ready on Day One and 3 a.m. phone calls, she's awfully weak in this area herself and somebody needs to draw attention to that. As I've tried to say every chance I get, pillow talk with Bill doesn't count as "experience."

As hard as Hillary's campaign has played up this argument, I'm shocked (seriously shocked) at how impotent they were in responding to having the question turned around on her. Did it occur to no one that this question might be asked?

I know most of the country doesn't follow these campaigns as closely as many of us do, so her campaign's ineptitude is hidden from a lot of people. But when you look at it up close, it's just really appalling how poorly their imaging and messaging have been done. It really is. I don't want her within 100 miles of the White House, but even I can admit she's a much better candidate than her campaign has made her appear to be.

Posted by SDinIA | February 29, 2008 6:09 PM

I used to think that Clinton hadn't run a bad campaign and that she had actually run a very good campaign, but Obama's just happened to be even better. I don't think that theory holds up so well anymore. You can blame this on her advisors, but ultimately who's judgement call was it to hire these people?

Posted by greg | February 29, 2008 6:10 PM

It takes a Potemkin village...

Posted by lampwick | February 29, 2008 6:13 PM

"even I can admit she's a much better candidate than her campaign has made her appear to be."

She's really not. A better candidate, I mean. She was basically handed the Democratic nomination for Senate in one of the bluest states in the country and ran against barely more than token opposition. She also had a good 5 years to substantively distinguish herself as the Dem's chief Bush opponent, yet failed to do so. How many times was Hillary ever at the forefront of any clash with Bush, even in the last two years?

Hillary is not a good candidate. She doesn't have good political instincts and she's not likable on television. None of which means she wouldn't make a great President, but you've got to win the job first.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 29, 2008 6:18 PM

While I hesitate to bring it up, I'd have to say that the whole Monica Lewinsky scandal, not to mention the preceding Gennifer Flowers / Paula Jones fiasco's, really showed Hillary to be cool under fire. She was persecuted by the Right Wing, Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, and many others. Hillary showed herself to be tough minded and thick skinned. Can Obama say that?

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 6:20 PM

Holy crap! That was fast. Obama has a rebuttle 3am ad up already.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/tx_ringing_ad

.

Posted by recusancy | February 29, 2008 6:21 PM

I'm missing Edwards.

Posted by edwardian | February 29, 2008 6:22 PM

Tim K - Your example is just fine. It's just not a foreign policy crisis. And that's the problem with the ad and part of a larger problem with Clinton's 'experience' claim.

Posted by mpowell | February 29, 2008 6:25 PM

This goes pretty well with her speech today in which she implies that she has experience "picking up that phone at 3 A.M. in the morning and dealing with an international crisis." http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29/clintons-blistering-obama-attack/

More thoughts here: http://atruechampion.blogspot.com/

Posted by Steve W. | February 29, 2008 6:25 PM

Hillary didn't cry on national TV after Bill cheated on her, so she'd make a great president. I'm switching!

Posted by Tony | February 29, 2008 6:26 PM

There's this third-party remix of the 3am ad, too. I won't spoil it.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 29, 2008 6:26 PM

This goes pretty well with her speech today in which she implies that she has experience "picking up that phone at 3 A.M. in the morning and dealing with an international crisis." http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/29
/clintons-blistering-obama-attack/

More thoughts here: http://atruechampion.blogspot.com/

Posted by Steve W. | February 29, 2008 6:28 PM

When nothing's working, then nothing's going to work.

The red phone ad is an attempt to double down on a failed bet; the experience schtick hasn't worked, but they either can't think of anything else or aren't willing to walk away from it. So they go with this inane GOP-lite scaremongering, hoping that if they give it just one more push, maybe it'll finally break through for once. At this point, with the nomination slipping away, they have to try something.

To be fair, it's too late to make the campaign about something other than the basic experience thing. It's all they've got, so they'll load it up and try it one last time. Maybe Obama will spontaneously implode or something.

Posted by jimBOB | February 29, 2008 6:30 PM

Clinton's line about being tested in crisis is, I think, meant to be a somewhat peripheral reference to her time as first lady during the time when the GOP was going after Bill. I thinks its difficult for them to raise this issue directly without getting into Bill's shenanigans so they are always hoping that they can leave the reference out there without anyone asking any specifics. I suspect that that is part of what is happening here.

Posted by brent | February 29, 2008 6:31 PM

@Tim K: "She was persecuted by the Right Wing, Ken Starr, Newt Gingrich, and many others. Hillary showed herself to be tough minded and thick skinned. Can Obama say that?"

Oh, for crying out loud. I sincerely hope that anyone who's been in the race to date, or any presidential race in the history of our country, can be demonstrate that they're "tough-minded and thick-skinned" when people start saying mean things about them over a sex scandal. I mean, what, we're supposed to be impressed that she didn't burst into tears on live television in the mid-'90s and hide sobbing in her mom's basement for a week before she could come out and be first lady again? And conversely think that Obama would have under the same circumstances? Cripes.

Posted by moff | February 29, 2008 6:34 PM

"Hillary showed herself to be tough minded and thick skinned."

That's true. She's also demonstrated a remarkable tin ear when it comes to her public statements. Her angry "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" tirade and her off-hand "Tammy Wynette" crack back in the 2000 campaign come to mind. And let's not forget the whole "those states/votes don't count" mantra from her campaign.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 29, 2008 6:38 PM

Yglesias, while your strategy to drive Tim K away by leaving the audio file of the embarrassing phone call set to autoplay is creative, it's getting to be a real pain in the ass to have to shut it off every time I click back to your blog.

Posted by moff | February 29, 2008 6:43 PM

The problem with the Clinton campaign is that they believe their own spin, even if no else does.

No, Obama wouldn't have a great answer either, but he hasn't made "being tested" the theme of his campaign. And for those who think her endurance in the face of personal and political tribulations should count (which is what she basically hinted at when she was asked at the ned of that earlier debate), do you really think that's going to hold up against John McCain, someone who has actually been tested?

Posted by rr18 | February 29, 2008 6:45 PM

I'm not sure what Hillary did on September 11th that suggested she has the foreign policy chops to be president. Could you be a little more specific?

I'm not either. Probably nothing extraordinary. But I would assume her highly-paid advisers could come up with some sort of bullshit answer based on 9/11 that would have diffused the question.

Knowing nothing about what she did on 9/11, I could have come up with something along the lines of: "Senator Clinton showed great resolve during the greatest foreign policy crisis of our generation. As a Senator from New York she reacted quickly to the tragic events of September 11. She was actively involved in assuring a proper response to the needs of the injured and the families of those who lost their lives. And in the immediate aftermath she worked in a bi-partisan manner to lead the military to track down Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and destroy and disrupt its operations. Unlike the President, she has consistently stressed the importance of pursuing Osama bin Laden until he is caught or killed."

You know some general B.S. that the media never follows up on. What is she paying these people the big bucks for anyway?

Posted by Brian | February 29, 2008 6:54 PM

In her 35 years of experience she hasn't learned that she shouldn't allow morons to run her conference calls?

Odd.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 29, 2008 7:11 PM

Short Answer: She's had no foreign policy moment where she's been tested by crisis.

Next question...

Posted by Tony Adams | February 29, 2008 7:21 PM

Horrible. They ran an ad saying "Who do you want in charge?" and didn't answer the question in the ad. So Obama answered it in HIS ad. And they don't have an answer ready for such an obvious question.

Part of Hillary's appeal was supposedly that she would know how to handle right-wing campaign attacks. But in reality, she has responded to a campaign challenge HORRIBLY. I don't want her to BE the candidate. What if she runs a campaign this lousy against McCain?

Posted by Iggy | February 29, 2008 7:25 PM

Hey, where can we listen to the full conference calls. I've seen drips and drabs here and there, but no one I've seen has posted the full audio. Obviously these are being taped. Obviously the various campaigns are trying to get the messages out. How about letting those of us who don't blog have a listen.

Posted by Joe Strummer | February 29, 2008 7:35 PM

"Look, if we frame this as "The person who's the best President is the one who has the most experience", Obama and Clinton BOTH lose this one to McCain. Hell, he could take Hillary's 3 am ad and put his voiceover and campaign logo on the end and use it for his."

Obama and Clinton haven't really done much crisis management, but McCain has?

McCain in a crisis voted to go to war with a country not involved in the crisis? McCain in a crisis was shot down and held prisoner? McCain in a crisis took campaign financing that will probably lead to breaking the law? McCain in a crisis supported the mismanagement of the New Orleans efforts?

The Iraq vote he shares with Clinton is all you really need to know about either.

Posted by Puzzled Reader | February 29, 2008 7:35 PM

"Give it a listen"

Hey, Matt? Playing audio automatically for everyone who comes by your blog, regardless of whether they want to listen or not, is quite obnoxious and thoughtless. It's also apt to drive off countless would-be readers. You might wish to consider stopping doing that.

Posted by Gary Farber | February 29, 2008 7:38 PM

This has been Clinton's basic problem in the race--her claims to being tested are simply not credible. McCain will probably have more luck.

Posted by Korha | February 29, 2008 8:05 PM

Not surprising, but it seems no one here saw Jamie Rubin's response to this question on Tucker today. It was something about "threading the needle" and her trip to China. I'm sorry I don't remember more, but he really went overkill with the "threading the needle" talking point: What do you really need when it comes to foreign policy experience? Evidently a skilled seamstress.

Posted by matt | February 29, 2008 8:06 PM

Hey, where can we listen to the full conference calls

Noooooo Not MORE!

Posted by Beth in VA | February 29, 2008 8:12 PM

Hilarious Matt, loved that it plays automatically. Devilish.

And props to Feinstein for making up sh*t to stretch for time. I've been there buddy, and it almost feels like a real answer.

Suggest that Hillary Clinton puts Mark Penn (Harold Wolfson gets a pass on this because he was asked this same question on CNN or MSNBC and he was clearly uncomfortable with Penn's stupid idea)in a soundproof closet surrounded by life-size cutouts of Clinton with this and "Shame On You!" playing endlessly in a loop.

Posted by Tumblina | February 29, 2008 8:42 PM

So endorsements by generals is Hillary's preferred judgment criteria?

So she must be a Bush-backer because Generals Petraeus and Boykin are big fans of his...

This red phone - wolves at the door - commercial isn't the first time Clinton has reminded me of Bush's political tactics... hopefully there won't be time enough for her to remind me further.

Remember too, that the IRS under Bill Clinton investigated his political opponents with striking regularity. Bush has taken this Clinton idea to a whole new level, but lets not forget it was a Clinton tactic.

I'd like to move on from the whole thing.

Posted by jackifus | February 29, 2008 9:02 PM

AUTOPLAYSUCKSDONTEVERDOITAGAINKTHX

Posted by joejoejoe | February 29, 2008 9:29 PM

I would like to know at which foreign policy moment in Sen. McCain's career he was tested by crisis? (Strangely worded question.)

Posted by Steve V | February 29, 2008 9:31 PM

lampwick wins commment of the night . . .

** "It takes a potemkin village" **

hilarious

Posted by nattyb | February 29, 2008 9:46 PM

It doesn't autoplay for me!

Posted by Tony | February 29, 2008 9:49 PM

warning: snarky comment to follow.

I apologize but....

i live in NY, in Manhattan. I was here on 9/11. not far from where I live. I can tell you this, i never saw HRC cry, or tear up, in public over that attack. if someone has video of that, please link to it.

I'm sorry to have said that, usually i dont like personal attacks. but it just boiled my blood that she starts to well up about how hard the campaign is on her when she has no history of showing that kind of emotion in public.

there is a falseness there that really turns me off. all politicians are oppportunists, i know. but some more than others. and until i get a sense that Obama is like that, I'm going to support him.

He said (in response to HRC's new populist rhetoric): "politics didnt drive me to working folk; working folk drove me to politics."

HRC studied community organizing; Obama actually did it.

Posted by enough | February 29, 2008 9:56 PM

Trials and tribulations of the candidates:

Obama - Grew up black in the 70s. Tough.

Clinton - Attacked by the VRWC. Tougher.

McCain - Imprisoned and tortured by the North Vietnamese. No contest.

I prefer Obama to either of the other options, but on the question of who has weathered the most difficult crisis, McCain wins without really trying.

Posted by heedless | February 29, 2008 9:57 PM

Clinton is a better person than her campaign, not a better candidate.

Posted by 2 cents | February 29, 2008 10:07 PM

I don't think the question was directed at personal crises or challenges; it asked specifically about foreign policy. Frankly I don't think there are many people who could provide a meaningful answer to the question, outside of former presidents.

Posted by Steve V | February 29, 2008 10:13 PM

Steve V, that might be true, but then the Clinton camp shouldn't be acting like she can. It just makes them look that foolish when they get called on it.

Posted by Tony | February 29, 2008 10:42 PM

I pretty much agree with Steve V. - the question is not a good one for anyone except a former President or someone high up in either State or DoD. Possibly a governor of a major state such as California in dealing with something vis-a-vis Mexico. Who else has experience in foreign policy crises who is also capable of running for President?

OTOH, if Clinton is running ads (I haven't seen the one being referenced) saying she HAS been tested on foreign policy crises, then she's fair game for the question.

And the answers provided in the audio don't cut it.

The best way to answer that question is to point to your foreign policy principles and specify how you would react overall, and possibly with regard to specific scenarios. Demonstrate your ability to immediately get input from your Cabinet staff and experts on the area involved, how you would relate to Congress on the matter, etc.

But without a specific scenario, what kind of crisis are we talking about? An invasion of South Korea by North Korea? The detonation of a nuke test by Iran? War breaks out in the Balkans?

More importantly, it would be nice if you could point to the fact that you won't get a surprise 3 AM call because you've renovated the national intelligence apparatus so you always know what the hell is going on and what's likely to be a crisis in advance? Not to mention paying attention to people who give you reports saying "Bin Laden Poised to Strike in the US"...

Bush hasn't done so well in that regard, the poster example being 9/11.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 29, 2008 10:44 PM

Frankly I don't think there are many people who could provide a meaningful answer to the question, outside of former presidents.

OK, but the ad clearly wants us to think, without actually saying so, that she has relevant experience because of her time as First Lady. It's absolutely right that she should be called on that.

Posted by guyx | February 29, 2008 10:54 PM

MY:

Please move the audio off the main page onto this post's own page. As it is, every time I hit your blog, the damn audio starts playing. It's beyond annoying.

Posted by urbino | February 29, 2008 10:54 PM

I have to admit, I squirmed a bit just listening to *them* squirm! Thank you John Dickerson for asking the question that many of us have wanted asked, but apparently no journalist has the cajones to ask her directly.

The interesting thign is, I listened to the entire audio clip, and never heard a real answer to the question.

As for the question of how Obama would answer, he is not the one claiming massively superior experience. He's just claiming that he make the right decisions.

If how Clinton has run her campaign is any indication of how she would run the White House, I would be quite frightened at the prospect of a Clinton White House.

Posted by TomW in WA | February 29, 2008 10:57 PM

1) This Hillary ad is an INCREDIBLE windfall for the Obama Campaign --if they have the wit to see it.

2) The American people HATE two things: (a) Being lied to/conned and (b) People who pretend to have military experience when they do not

3) This Hillary ad makes her guilty of both.

4) 1) I think that the commander most feared by the military is the person who does not know her limitations -- someone who has a greatly inflated opinion of their own knowledge.

2) Hillary keeps saying she is "experienced" -- but isn't that claim --and this TV ad -- a CON GAME on the American people?

3) My understanding is that Hillary had NO involvment in military decision-making in Bill Clinton's administration.

Because she did NOT have the security clearances needed to even address defense matters properly.

Did anyone ever see her sitting at the table when the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs gathered to advise the President?

In fact, can anyone point out where Hillary EVER had EXECUTIVE responsibility for anything??

4) Hillary's self-delusion -- her belief that she has competence where competence is obviously lacking -- is very dangerous. She has the inflated ARROGANCE of an incompetent with a Yale degree.

5) The way to destroy her now is to make relentless FUN of her ridiculous claim. Show her (i.e. a double) in military ACUs (Army Combat Uniform) with a knife between her teeth, wideeyed and engaged in Rambo action hero explosions.

Have Bin Laden turn pale and exclaim in terror when told that "Warrior Hillary" is at the cave entrance.

Suggest that Hillary has been chasing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan since 1993.

Oh -- and be sure to open with that scene of a child sleeping before cutting to Hillary Rambo.

6) At least Obama is HUMBLE enough to realize that he is not expert on military affairs -- and is willing to consult those who are.

7) I'm telling you -- this is a PIVOTAL moment. The same as Mike Dukakis' disasterous ride in that tank several decades ago -- an act that got Dukakis laughed out of the election.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dukakis#Public_relations_failure

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 11:23 PM

Matt, how does it feel to work so hard to put some nails in the coffin of Hillary's campaign?

Good? Bad?

How do you feel about the stroy being ignored by the MSM for the Prince Harry story, namely that Republican raiders are overwhelmingly diving for Obama?

Any chance, in your mind, that a bunch of Republicans' kids were behind drumming up enthusiasm for Obama in the Iowa high schools prior to that all-important Iowa win?

Posted by Swan | February 29, 2008 11:27 PM

I do love that they spend weeks deriding Obama as nothing but speeches, and specifically taking aim at his 2002 Iraq War speech, the only thing they can come up with here is a speech of her own. And even that example doesn't do much. Yeah, it was a speech about women's rights in China. But it was also a speech at a conference on women, so she didn't exactly have a hostile audience. Not to mention the fact that it's not exactly a controversial opinion to have here in the US.

It reminds me of during the last debate when the Farrakhan question came up and she tried to make it sound like denouncing (or was it rejecting?) anti-semetic groups in New York was a brave decision that could have hurt her election chances.

Posted by bwaage | February 29, 2008 11:30 PM

1) Also run an ad mocking the idea of Hillary participating in a White House war council. Take a look at that Hilarious Pentagon scene near the end of the movie "The Tailor of Panama". Have Hillary be the crazed commander -- including smoking a cigar.

2) Have a Madelaine Albright holding her head and groaning in disbelief as Hillary bursts in and takes over the meeting.

Show some ashen-faced military generals looking at each other in consternation at some of her proposals .

Have one of the officers start to say "Doesn't she realize X " and then have another officer interrupt with "Shhhh. She doesn't have any security clearances."

3) Then have one of the generals rebel and whisper to a fellow officer -- "What's her authority? Why are we listening to this".

Then have the second officer say "Because we report to the Commander in Chief -- and guess who he reports to?" Then nod over at an obviously cowed and fearful Bill Clinton who's humped up and trying to slide under the table to escape the raging Fury in front of him.

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 11:32 PM

TWO Major points in attacking Hillary:

a) Make clear that she's NOT being attacked because she's a women -- she's being challenged because she is disconnected from reality. Because she has unjustified delusions of godhood.

b) Make clear also that the political attacks are JUSTIFIED -- that they are NOT dirty politics.

Because the most important choice the American people make is their selection of the Commander in Chief.

And the PEOPLE have a RIGHT to be warned if a candidate for that office is MISLEADING them --by claiming military expertise, knowledge, and experience that she does NOT have.

Hillary has done little in this campaign other than make nasty jabs -- I think its about time she got it right back in her teeth.

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 11:41 PM

1) The MOST DANGEROUS TRAIT in a President is delusions of godhood. Of being disconnected from --and unable to clearly perceive -- reality.

Posted by Don Williams | February 29, 2008 11:48 PM

Swan-

That's such a sad and desperate argument to make. Lemme get this straight.. There's pretty much two things that may be happening here.

1) Republicans have run an incredibly secretive whisper campaign to defeat Clinton that involves tens of thousands more of them turning out and voting in the Democratic primaries instead of their own Republican ones, along with somehow hoodwinking young voters into voting for Obama. It also involves a large cover up of claiming they'll vote for Obama in the general, just to throw those crafty pollsters off and make it look like Hillary is a weaker general election candidate.
2) Some Republicans who feel that the party has betrayed its principles over the past 7 years and no longer represents their beliefs have decided to vote for Democrats this election, and they prefer they candidate who has cultivated an image of bipartisanship and unity.

So you're REALLY telling me that you think 1 is more likely than 2?

And just to further illustrate how ridiculous your idea is, Rush Limbaugh has actually urged his listeners to go out and vote for Hillary in Texas.
http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/republicans_vote_hillary/2008/02/28/76379.html

Posted by bwaage | February 29, 2008 11:57 PM

"Obama - Grew up black in the 70s. Tough."

Going to a fancy prep school and smoking pot on the beach in Hawaii is tough? Only if by "tough" you mean "idyllic".

Posted by Fred | February 29, 2008 11:59 PM

Of course this issue is exactly why running against Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 and 1956 was such a fool's errand for the Democrats.

Ike was sui generis. Has there ever been a presidential candidate who walked into the Oval Office on day one with more credibility and experience to handle any foreign policy crisis?

Posted by beowulf | March 1, 2008 12:45 AM

For the folks complaining about the autoplay, you can disable it if you are using Quicktime to play the .mp3 files.

Right click on the player (or alt , cmd, or whatever mac uses now) and open up the player settings. My version had a checkbox to change auto-play

Posted by MobiusKlein | March 1, 2008 12:55 AM

Holy Hell Swan, if you're going to pimp your own blog (don't attack me, Hillary!), at least do it well.

Posted by Tony | March 1, 2008 1:06 AM

Tim K wrote: "Hillary showed herself to be tough minded and thick skinned. "

How do you know that? She didn't freak out on camera, but she wasn't *on* camera all that often. Who knows what she unleashed in private.

Posted by Jon H | March 1, 2008 1:14 AM

ZOMG! Tony said "pimp"! Suzpendz him!

Posted by southpaw | March 1, 2008 1:18 AM

Yeah, Hillary doesn't really want to open this can of worms against McCain.

McCain could do a version of the ad describing how he wasn't just woken by 3am phone calls, *he* was woken up in the middle of the night for beatings by Communist thugs with clubs and guns. Repeatedly. (I assume).

Really, the worst Hillary has experienced is nasty speech. McCain lived through the Forrestal fire, being shot down, almost drowning, being beaten by the people who found him, then spending years as a POW.

Hillary really doesn't want to compare martyr cards with McCain. She can't hope to beat his hand.

Posted by Jon H | March 1, 2008 1:30 AM

"She has the inflated ARROGANCE of an incompetent with a Yale degree."

Well, Matt has the inflated arrogance of an incompetent with a Harvard degree, so he can't really complain.

"McCain lived through the Forrestal fire, being shot down, almost drowning, being beaten by the people who found him, then spending years as a POW."

None of which makes him a competent military commander either, one might point out. In fact, it makes him pretty much a military incompetent (if that isn't a redundancy - which it is.)

But compared to Hillary, he's Rommel.

I think both of them ought to just sort of forget that whole line of attack since Leno and Letterman will do numbers on both of them over it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 1, 2008 1:42 AM

enough sez - warning: snarky comment to follow I apologize but....i live in NY, in Manhattan. I was here on 9/11. not far from where I live. I can tell you this, i never saw HRC cry, or tear up, in public over that attack. if someone has video of that, please link to it.

While some in NYC lost themselves in helpless weeping, with emotionally distraught women in panic-hysteria demanding that people tell them they were safe, Grenwich Village homosexuals hugging one another to calm themselves down...

Most other New Yorkers went on with an ache in their throat and begged to be told what they could do to help. Tens of thousands of NYC people tried to volunteer for any job they could. But they volunteered soberly. Few went to the "grief consolers that psychologists had convinced the City to put everywhere to "mourn the unbearable hurt". They also wanted, in subdued fury - from the instant the planes smashed in and bodies begin to fall - to find and kill the enemy that did it. I was proud that Hillary was one of the latter rather than the former.

It would have done women no good to see a resolute, choked up phalanx of angry men like Giuliani, Schumer, cops having to squire around an emotionally out of control, heaving sobbing female US Senator.

enough - I'm sorry to have said that, usually i dont like personal attacks. but it just boiled my blood that she starts to well up about how hard the campaign is on her when she has no history of showing that kind of emotion in public.

People cry for what is personal. How many Sudanese Darfurans do you blubber over each day, or what part of the 2.4 million people that die in America each year merit your free-flowing tears? How much "cult of victimhood" did America indulge in in WWII when 3,000 dead was an average weeks casualties?

Why do certain victims of tragedy get to the celebrity status or the body count is high enough that you are supposed to weep in public for them? What led the loss of one woman in a car accident 10 years ago so awful that thousands of gays and British woman were reported to have resorted to sedatives to deal with their crying and depression about someone they didn't personally know?

Why just Hillary, the woman? Why does Obama not start a debate tearing up and sniffling in memory of the 56,000 victims of colorectal cancer each year or say at a rally he was choked up because he just thought as they were debating health care - about the annual 4,200 "noble victims" of food choking accidents and his sorrow we haven't voted on a food-choking national memorial?

Why were you not outraged not not seeing Schumer on crying jags, or not seeing male cops curled up on the ground weeping after the Muslim terrorist attack?

When America elects a female President, it will be someone of Hillary's emotional strength..(just hopefull not her because of her lack of experience, rising on nepotism, her somewhat nasty & phony personality, and lack of authenticity). America made a made mistake putting a female of Kathleen Blanco's type in as just governor. We do not need someone that began crying uncontrollably in the Katrina crisis, refused to meet with the public and officials because she said she was "mourning the tragic victims", failed open on deciding critical matters, and had let her out of control emotions paralyze her leadership and the State response.

Posted by chris ford | March 1, 2008 1:49 AM

Hillary and her staff reveal their dishonesty at nearly every turn. They're not honest to themselves, let alone the public. They're pathetic.

Posted by Akonitum | March 1, 2008 2:36 AM

Here's a thought: maybe Clinton is already resigned to losing and is actually doing her best to help Obama win.

Obama is a candidate with huge potential for the Democratic party, but he started the race with comparatively low name recognition, was vulnerable on the experience point, and could be accused of not being tough enough to become president. And of course there was the old race card for opponents to fall back on.

Clinton is systematically going through those weaknesses and eliminating them. Each state that swings to him hits the headlines and re-inforces his ability to win. Every failed attempt to marginalise him as the black candidate makes it harder to use those tactics in the future. The more Clinton talks about the need for experience and Obama succeeds in switching the focus to judgement instead, the more McCain's strong points get undermined.

Inoculation against propaganda has been deliberately practised since at least the fifties. Clinton is attacking Obama from all the angles that McCain could be expected to use, with enough force that it looks convincing yet always in a way which leaves him looking stronger than ever. Come November, the Republicans won't have anything left to throw at him that doesn't come across as a stale regurgitation of arguments used by Clinton.

Do I really believe that's what Clinton's campaign is trying to do? Of course not. But wouldn't it be great if that's what it ended up achieving?

Posted by tlp | March 1, 2008 3:27 AM

"However, Obama's only answer on the same question is 'I made a speech against the Iraq war in 2002.'

Oh, come on already. The position he took in 2002 didn't change through 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and he has the same position today. Go look through the record. In portraying Obama's judgment and record on the Iraq war as "a speech", Hillary Clinton and supporters like yourself show once again that they live in a magical bubble of irrationality very similar to George Bush's. There's no doubt in my mind which candidate I trust to keep a cool head and exercise sound judgment in a time of national crisis.

Posted by Joseph | March 1, 2008 4:09 AM

The inevitable question is beginning to impose itself. If HRC has managed to blow $100 million so far on a campaign that has been badly focused and mismanaged by obvious puffed-up blowhards like Penn & Feinstein---and nasties like Ickes---and done so poorly.....???

How can this person be trusted with the country's foreign and domestic policies???

HRC would combine the WORST elements of the Clinton and the GWB administrations, and avoid any of their successes.

She's already backing away from NAFTA, which was a [highly] qualified "success." Or at least not an abject failure.

Posted by daveinboca | March 1, 2008 4:22 AM

The inevitable question is beginning to impose itself. If HRC has managed to blow $100 million so far on a campaign that has been badly focused and mismanaged by obvious puffed-up blowhards like Penn & Feinstein---and nasties like Ickes---and done so poorly.....???

How can this person be trusted with the country's foreign and domestic policies???

HRC would combine the WORST elements of the Clinton and the GWB administrations, and avoid any of their successes.

She's already backing away from NAFTA, which was a [highly] qualified "success." Or at least not an abject failure.

Posted by daveinboca | March 1, 2008 4:23 AM

You know, what Obama did and said about Iraq in '02 looks a lot smarter than what Clinton did and said in '02--but being right once, even if it was at a crucial time, just isn't enough. Was he right because he was lucky or because he had a coherent vision of the world and the Middle East?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I will say this. Between the debates, which I have watched most of, and little comments Obama has made here and there from time to time about the scandals du jour of the campaign, I can say with no hesitation that I have heard him talk about being against Iraq before the war started at least 100 times. It seems like well over 100. He says it all the time, in answer to all sorts of circumstances and questions.

I still haven't heard him describe a coherent philosophy of the world, of American foreign policy, or in particular, of the history and politics of the Middle East. All that may be on his web site somewhere, but it's "I was against Iraq in '02" on his lips, and not all that much else. Is he ready to be a foreign policy President? What is his foreign policy background? Anything at all?

Posted by Trickster | March 1, 2008 5:14 AM

"You know, what Obama did and said about Iraq in '02 looks a lot smarter than what Clinton did and said in '02--but being right once, even if it was at a crucial time, just isn't enough. Was he right because he was lucky or because he had a coherent vision of the world and the Middle East?"

The moment I switched from Clinton to Obama was when I saw a video of him from late 2002 in which he said he doubted that we could hold the Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds together in Iraq without them killing each other. That impressed me because it was a foreign policy judgment that was actually about Iraq. Too much of what passes for foreign policy talk in the US is basically boutique talk of fads divorced from the actual realities of actual foreign countries. Neocons see Iraq through a neocon lens. Liberal hawks saw it through a liberal hawk lens. The ideological endpoint is defined even before the country is named in such cases. For me, he seems to have a greater willingness than just about any other major politician in the US today to actually try to figure out what a country is actually about in a given point in time instead of just going with a set of pre-approved MSM DC-New York talking points and fad ideological frames.

Posted by Reality Man | March 1, 2008 7:23 AM

I still haven't heard him describe a coherent philosophy of the world,

[sic]

of American foreign policy,

He describes this all the time. He's basically for multilateralism and for spending treasure where it will actually do some good (as opposed to making 3/4 of the world despise us).

or in particular, of the history and politics of the Middle East.

Yeah, maybe he should hold a presser: "The History and Politics of the Middle East" followed by Q&A.

Posted by Bill | March 1, 2008 7:25 AM

While Ms. Clinton may not have a lot of experience, I would much rather have her handling a world crisis than Obama. He seems like a nice guy, but who cares, his perception of the world is one of putting the dream before the reality. Obama is a guy that seems to be running on a message that has no content. My inclination is say he has only gotten as far as he has because Americans are thoroughly disenchanted with government. His campaign is reminds me of Duval Patricks campaign in Massachusetts and Massachusetts voters. When I went to vote I met this women, she was in her sixties, intent on voting for Patrick, because we needed change. Well, eighteen months into his governship and there has been no change. He just floats another money bill, about one a week, and there is no money. Obama is just another joke. I hope he wins after all Americans deserve the government they ask for even if it is useless. Oh, I am replublican and don't care for any of the candidates. But if I must have a Democrat president, give me Hillory, she is enough of a bitch to get the job done. Spare us all from visionaries of change.

Posted by Michael J. LaPorta | March 1, 2008 9:58 AM

> They also wanted, in subdued fury - from the
> instant the planes smashed in and bodies begin to
> fall - to find and kill the enemy that did it. I
> was proud that Hillary was one of the latter
> rather than the former.

It doesn't matter to you that "the enemy" (really just a group of thugs created via blowback) **wasn't in Iraq**? You just wanted to pick some crappy little country up and throw it against the wall to prove that we could? Does it matter to you that the Iraq mess has not only destroyed the US' capability to do that but has demonstrated to the world that our threats were the paper tiger?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | March 1, 2008 10:25 AM

You know, what Obama did and said about Iraq in '02 looks a lot smarter than what Clinton did and said in '02--but being right once, even if it was at a crucial time, just isn't enough.

Beats being wrong every time, like McCain.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2008 11:06 AM

"But if I must have a Democrat president, give me Hillory, she is enough of a bitch to get the job done."

Didn't the health care debacle teach anyone that just being a "bitch" is not enough to get anything done?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | March 1, 2008 11:15 AM

The thing people need to realize is that all these arguments are actually about Bill Clinton: in this case, the unspoken premise is that it is his prior experience as President that Hillary Clinton will be able to draw upon when the proverbial red phone rings.

The problem for Hillary Clinton and her campaign is that she has to leave this argument implicit. So, that is why they can only answer these questions about HER experience with silence and/or red herrings--it is actually HIS experience that matters, but they don't want to make that explicit.

Posted by DTM | March 1, 2008 11:31 AM

Good try guys...a great non-answer, answer.

Posted by jan43 | March 1, 2008 2:08 PM

Ok what am I missing here- they keep talking about her vast experience as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee for 5 years- and all of the Generals that support her- and then they turn around and claim she was "fooled" or she did not "know" that she was voting for war with Iraq. So which is it? She is an "experienced" in the know Senator that has vast contacts with the Military or gee I did not know by voting for the war we were actually going to invade Iraq? The campaign needs to pick one and stick with it.

Posted by Carolyn Friedman | March 1, 2008 2:32 PM

I can't believe that "fooled" line works. I've had people give me Hillary rhetoric about how it wasn't a vote for war, etc..

I was just an asshole living in a punk squat at the time and I understood that there was absolutely no plausible scenario where the inspectors go in and do their job and come back out and George Bush says, "Oh, we so totally thought you were trying to kill us with smallpox. Our bad about periodically bombing your country for the last six years or so. Now that Hans Blix says it's as it sort of appears..You are just a third world country with a disfunctional broken military and no capacity to even defend yourself. We'll be leaving now, sorry about all that".

I can understand Hillary saying that, there isn't a good way to spin it. I would never imagine I'd run into human beings that were aware on any level in 2003 that would believe it.

Posted by Ed Marshall | March 1, 2008 2:39 PM

Hey Fred,

I guess you never grew up black in any decade.

Posted by Tumblina | March 1, 2008 3:56 PM

As usual, she's and her advisors have spent so much time trying to trip up opponents, change DNC rules in mid-stream, and otherwise game the process that they don't do a good job of keeping cogent talking points on the tip of their tongues.

I'm not saying she hasn't had accomplishments; she obviously has. Just not as many (on an absolute or a proportionate basis, on time served in office) as Obama.

Hillary deserves to lose this race based not on her views or her past actions, but solely on how she's run her campaign.

Elise in NH
The Obama Minute: quick, easy actions
to support Barack Obama's candidacy
http://www.obamastraws.blogspot.com

Posted by Elise in NH | March 1, 2008 5:08 PM

If Clinton could explain why she fucked up health care reform so badly, and why she fucked up on the war so badly, we might feel like she'd learned from her experience. Instead, she just blames everyone else. Now she's trying to make the case that Obama was as not-against-the-war as she was, which is just ludicrous.

Clinton had six years in the Senate when the country was crying out for a strong voice in opposition to Bushism. She declined the opportunity, and welcomed the support of Bush enablers like Diane Feinstein.

The point of experience is what you learn from it, or don't.

Posted by Alan in SF | March 1, 2008 6:58 PM