Criticizing Obama

Lanny Davis' claim that it's hard to criticize Barack Obama without being accused of playing the race card seems to me to be pretty typical of the myopia of the Clinton campaign. I've never heard anyone allege that Hillary Clinton's criticisms of Obama's health care plan involved a "race card." Nor have I heard her criticisms of his support for the 2005 energy bill describe in such a way. Nor have I heard the general idea that she has more political experience dealing with the right-wing attack machine described that way. What's more, in the campaign I watched Clinton's campaign was actually doing pretty well with those criticisms and then wound up running off the rails later.

Meanwhile, there are plenty of other things the Clinton campaign could have said that would have been totally nonracial. Their problem is that on a lot of important issues where there seems to be a contrast, they didn't really want to defend their position. Clinton could have said that Obama's opposition to the 2002 AUMF for Iraq illustrated that he has dangerous left-wing opinions about national security issues. She could have said that, yes, the Clinton administration backed NAFTA and rightly so. But they didn't want to do that stuff, because they thought it would have left them on the wrong side of public opinion. Rather than try to persuade people of the merits of their case, they tried to deny that there was a disagreement. But that is what made it hard for Clinton to attack Obama -- outside of health care, she didn't really want to draw issue contrasts, and that left her without a great deal to say.

Comments

When you see someone complain like that, it usually means that they can't think of anything substantive to say about the candidate that doesn't involve some sort of race-based attack.

Posted by Kevin | February 28, 2008 12:27 PM

It's not difficult to criticize Obama because he's black. Rather, It's difficult because he's black to criticize Obama as a drug dealing kid who sounds like a talk show host while wearing the clothing of his nation of Somalia and running a Jesse Jackson campaign.

Subtle difference, I know.

Posted by jbryan | February 28, 2008 12:37 PM

It's not difficult to criticize Obama because he's black. Rather, it's difficult because he's black to criticize Obama as a drug dealing kid who sounds like a talk show host while wearing the clothing of his nation of Somalia and running a Jesse Jackson campaign.

Subtle difference, I know.

Posted by jbryan | February 28, 2008 12:37 PM

Gee Matt, I clearly heard Obama's opening shot in his race war.
Donna Brazile denounced "fairy tale" as a racist slur and the Obama campaign then went all out. For weeks afterwards the Obama camp was constantly denouncing the Clinton campaign for supposedly yet more racist slurs.
Now you can rewrite history if you want but if you wish to pretend to honesty on this question then you must either defend Obama's rewrite of American history and language or you must admit that there is much more than a bit of truth in the Davis observation.

Posted by JTHB | February 28, 2008 12:44 PM

The reverse was also argued by some -- that to criticize Hillary Clinton (and occasionally by proxy to the Bill Clinton administration for which she occasionally claims some credit) was to give into the right wing talking points of the nut-job anti-Clintonites.

Posted by El Cid | February 28, 2008 12:45 PM

It's not just myopia. It's a desperate final days attempt to say to undecided white voters, "We have a whole bunch of totally awesome and decisive criticisms of Obama we could make; but we haven't made them because if we do a bunch of whiny black people will complain we are playing the race card. It's so unfair to be the white candidate!"

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 28, 2008 12:47 PM

I saw Lenny on Morning Joe and I was so irritated.

The Clinton campaign and it's allies keep trying to spin the race issue around the 'fairy tale' comments. They think if they can defend the weakest of the accusations, its the same as dismissing the most egregious, and anti-"PC" crusaders like Scarborough eat it up. Meanwhile, Lenny doesn't address Bob Kerrey's horrible madrassa smear, or the "imaginary black friend" comment, or the "he's the black candidate now" comment, or Bill Clinton's Jesse Jackson comment. They're spinning the racial aspect of this campaign as if it was all based on an intentional misunderstanding of the 'fairy tale' remark, and its fundamentally dishonest and insulting.

Furthermore, the fairy tale comment itself, while not racist, was still dishonest spin. It was just dishonest spin about Obama's war opposition. Lenny went on TV and did the same thing Bill did and massacred his 2004 convention quote to mislead people watching television. The full quote makes it very clear what Obama's position is, but hacks like Lenny aren't interested in truth their just trying to tear down the opposition.

Maybe Joe and Lenny and Bill can all go on vacation together after Obama routes Hillary in Texas and mercifully puts that train wreck of a campaign down for good.

Posted by matthewcc | February 28, 2008 12:49 PM

Clinton's big problem is that once her veneer of "inevitablity" had been stripped away by a credible challenger, she had little or nothing else to say. What, precisely, is the compelling reason for people to vote for her when it's pretty clear that voters aren't impressed with her experience and want to turn the page on the Bush-Clinton-Bush years?

Posted by Claudius | February 28, 2008 12:50 PM

The reverse was also argued by some -- that to criticize Hillary Clinton (and occasionally by proxy to the Bill Clinton administration for which she occasionally claims some credit) was to give into the right wing talking points of the nut-job anti-Clintonites.

This is correct. The point was constantly made by Clinton supporters that Democrats should not bring up anything bad Bill or Hillary Clinton ever did, because only the vast right-wing conspiracy makes those criticisms, and anybody who mentions them must be a secret reader and fan of Free Republic and Lucianne.com

And then of course we weren't supposed to criticize Clinton for being erratic, inconsistent or temperamental because such criticisms were only veiled references to lunar reproductive cycles, etc.

Posted by Dan Kervick | February 28, 2008 12:55 PM

What, precisely, is the compelling reason for people to vote for her

At this point, there isn't one.

Posted by Jake | February 28, 2008 12:58 PM

I think the race thing made it slightly harder from them to present what they thought was their winning argument: that Obama is untested kid, a good story -- a "fairy tale," as it were -- who, despite giving good speeches, is basically an empty suit. The argument failed largely because it's over the top -- it exaggerates her qualifications and undersells his real substance. But there was also a sense in which it failed because it seemed to be shitting on a great story -- a man on his way to becoming the first black president. The "fairly tale" thing obviously wasn't racist -- even if it was dishonest -- but it was racially hurtful and people reacted strongly to that.

Posted by pjs | February 28, 2008 12:58 PM

No, No. We all know know that the diabolical and mendacious Obama campaign played the race card first, and thereby plunged us this campaign into the everlasting night of cynicism and hypocrisy.

It must be true since, Sean Wilentz told me so in the TNR:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

"After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is."

You know, when Republicans tell me I'm waging class war because I speak up for social justice, I take in stride because they're, well, Republicans. When they say Democrats are playing the race card when we speak out against Republican dog-whistle politics, that's just to be expected.
But for god's sake, progressives should know better. And for liberaliminded folks there is simply no excuse for the kind of Republican retreads that - I'm sorry to say - the Clinton campaign and their supporters have been rolling out lately.

Posted by Simplicissimus | February 28, 2008 1:00 PM

JTHB, that is bullshit. One low-level local staffer sent out a email listing objectionable comments from the Clinton campaign. That was the only time anything came out of the Obama campaign about the Clinton's race-baiting, and Obama locked it down after that. It has been silence out of the Obama campaign on this issue, and to accuse them of playing the race card is both idiotic and ignorant.

Donna Brazile is not part of the Obama campaign, and neither is Jesse Jackson. Obama's campaign is not personally responsible for everything said by every black person, and its also not their responsibility if people outside of their campaign are offended by the garbage coming out of the Clinton campaign.

Some prominent black people speak out about the Clinton's race-baiting, and Clintonites immediately conflate them with the Obama campaign. Its desperate, despicable, and absurd.

Posted by matthewcc | February 28, 2008 1:01 PM

True enough - Lanny Davis overstated the case.

That said, Obama and his Obamaphiles, such as Matthew, don't just have a race card to play, they have a whole deck. Expect the campaign to become race card after race card. Indeed, Matthew is already playing to stereotype on this.

Posted by Al | February 28, 2008 1:03 PM

Lanny Davis represents the worst of the Clinton spin machine. He was never credible in the 1990s, and he's no better now. One more sign that the Clintons stopped studying politics sometime around 1999.

Posted by Helter | February 28, 2008 1:04 PM

The need to make compete with Obama by making substantive criticism instead of the usual menu of falsehoods, smears, scandals, innuendo, and spin is obviously incredibly disorienting for the Clintonites and Republicans. But, my how refreshing it is for voters. Good for Barack!

Posted by J.B. | February 28, 2008 1:06 PM

BTW - Lanny Davis may have overstated the case, but he also in some respects understated the case. After all, it may be difficult to criticize Obama, but it's also difficult to praise Obama.

After all, of the many, many, MANY race cards already played in the campaign so far, one of the first race cards played by Obamaphiles was when Joe Biden called Obama "articulate". Because we all know that calling someone articulate is racist.

Posted by Al | February 28, 2008 1:10 PM

As always, I am left wondering why Matt can't entertain two (or more) ideas at the same time. Yes, the Clinton campaign can be "myopic," and yes they have not wanted to defend many of their positions on the merits.

And yes, there are many, many legitimate criticisms of HRC and her record.

BUT yes, HRC (aka "the Clintons") was accused of racism by many pundits and reporters and bloggers who were eager to find her guilty of SOMETHING. Racism is a very serious charge, and for journalists to raise it again and again, often based on very questionable "evidence" (Drudge was dragged into it, for god's sake!), and for many of those same journalists to criticize the Clintons for poisoning the primary campaign . . . well, it's reprehensible.

This is not a defense of the Clinton campaign -- again, people, try to hold more than one thought in your head at the same time!

Posted by mary | February 28, 2008 1:11 PM

This latest nonsense from the Clinton camp makes me think even more deeply about Ezra's line on how when he's watching Clinton herself, he feels good about her, but when he's looking at her surrogates and advisor's he feels negatively toward her. It seems to me that Hillary is losing the primary because of some serious strategic mistakes and that what she brings to the table might have been enough to win if it had been packaged differently. It very much seems like they're trying and failing to play Rovian games and wondering why it's not working.

Another sad aspect of making this complaint right now is that the conversation about race happened like a month ago. Makes the campaign look well behind the curve.

And, if I recall correctly, it was that moment, before South Carolina, where the Clinton campaign first started to accumulate some acutely negative associations. Why are they trying to get back there?

Posted by MrTimbo | February 28, 2008 1:14 PM

I find this argument from the Clinton camp quite amusing, because as difficult as it may be to criticize Obama without getting accused of racism - which is complete garbage, by the way - it is virtually impossible to criticize Clinton without being branded as a misogynist.

Posted by SDinIA | February 28, 2008 1:15 PM

I wonder if anyone here has read "Race Man", the recent New Republic artcle by Sean Wilentz. To be honest I couldn't make it all the way through, as its ridiculousness and offensiveness was exceeded only by its length. But his basic contention is that a centerpiece of the Obama campaign has been a Macheivellian plot to paint the Clintons as racists in the run-up from New Hampshire to Super Tuesday. This brilliant strategy, the most insidious use of race in politics since Willie Horton (!!!!), apparently paid off in Idaho and Kansas, but unfortunately not in New Jersey or California.

The only piece of actual evidence he produces to support this theory is that single memo in which someone from the Obama campaign collected several instances in which Clinton campaign comments had been construed by the media as racially insensitive. Other than that, the piece is full of allegations that the Obama campaign "pushed" various angles, substantiated solely by reports of what unnamed
clinton campaign staffers said that unnamed reporters told them unnamed Obama officials were saying. Sometimes he doesn't even bother with that, but simply imputes any criticism of Clinton by the news media or op-ed writers directly to the twisted genius of David Axelrod.

The Clinton camp is free to argue that they have gotten a raw deal from the media or that certain comments (such as "fairy tale" and "LBJ") were taken out of context and blown out of proportion. Those arguments may or may not have merit, but I'm really surprised the New Republic would print an article by a bitter Clinton surrogate alleging without any supporting evidence that the Obama campaign is the second coming of Lee Atwater.

Posted by rr18 | February 28, 2008 1:18 PM

this is EXCELLENT NEWS!!! FOR HILLARY!!!!

Posted by idiotic | February 28, 2008 1:25 PM

rr18,

I too read that the piece is rather weak. Now I agree that some of the comments made by Clinton and her husband were taken out of context, but he uses skimpy material to make his case. He overlooks the discussions that were on the black blogs and radio about the comments made by her surrogates. These discussions started to take place in December 2006. Many of these people have no affiliation with the Obama campaign but they didn't like what they saw. It is as if Wilentz cannot fathom that people can come to their own conclusions.

Posted by Micheline | February 28, 2008 1:37 PM

Well, that and the fact that Prince Barack copied, pasted, and mildly edited HRC's policy proposals, just so bloggers like you can linky and say "see, see, he's got substance, he's got substance."

That was part of Axelrod's strategy all along, minimize substantive differences and win on banalities and personality -- smart. That and running away from the base, pissing off the gays (Donnie McLurkin), and ignoring black and brown issues. But that smile goes such a long way!

Posted by Israel | February 28, 2008 1:40 PM

The fact that the Clinton campaign would send Liebercrat Lanny out as their public face says a lot about the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Jim | February 28, 2008 1:45 PM

Well, that and the fact that Prince Barack copied, pasted, and mildly edited HRC's policy proposals

Where did she get hers from? Oh, that's right, from John Edwards.

The pissing off gays remark is complete bogus. Obama's been a much better champion of LGBT rights this primary season than Hillary. He brings it up frequently, in unfriendly environments. She's still trying to find her spine so that she can denounce and reject DADT.

Please, go away and spare us.

Posted by Jake | February 28, 2008 1:50 PM

Israel,

Go read Obama's Blueprint for Change. You should also read that piece by Noam Schieber. As for Obama ignoring issues regarding race, I don't think that is the case, but unlike HRC who can afford to talk about gender, he cannot talk about race without looking likr he is engaging identity politics. It is unfair but it is true.

Posted by Micheline | February 28, 2008 1:50 PM

While agreeing with much of the above, there has in fact been a kind of 'phoney war' element to the Democratic primary, because both candidates have been a bit soft-ball in order not to antagonise those who would understand criticism as ethnic or gender slurs.

Posted by otto | February 28, 2008 1:54 PM

Jake,

I can tell you no ready so much but speaky mucho. I go leave now.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/obama-issues-3-page-memo-explaining.html

Posted by Israel | February 28, 2008 2:07 PM

Bill Clinton played the race card when he made the 'Jesse Jackson won S. Carolina too' comment.

Although factually correct, the ur-text was 'Obama only won because of blacks votes' which only makes sense as a criticism if black votes are somehow less worthwhile than white votes.

Once Bill made that statement racial sensitivity was raised, and the HRC campaign was slammed for criticisms they might otherwise have made without racial repercussions, such as using the term fairy tale.

I think Bill ruined HRC's campaign. He injected himself into the campaign in a way that smelled really bad, and the visceral reaction I had was revulsion at the prospect of eight years of Bill acting inappropriately. It foreshadowed just how central the first marriage would be to our politics, and I don't want to deal with it.

It shifted me from leaning HRC to leaning BHO, and my feeling is that I was one of millions with a similar reaction. Bill jumped the shark, screwing HRC over yet again. It was an unrecoverable unforced error. HRC has wisely kept him in the background since, but that taste of what we will be in for if HRC wins lingers. I defended Bill all those years and now I'm over him. The love is all gone.

I suspect that when the dust settles Bill's statements will be seen as the inflection point in the HRC campaign. Thanks Bill.

Posted by tomtom | February 28, 2008 2:17 PM

[Sean Wilentz's] basic contention is that a centerpiece of the Obama campaign has been a Macheivellian plot to paint the Clintons as racists in the run-up from New Hampshire to Super Tuesday. This brilliant strategy, the most insidious use of race in politics since Willie Horton (!!!!), apparently paid off in Idaho and Kansas, but unfortunately not in New Jersey or California.

The best thing about "Race Man" is the way that everything, and I do mean everything, set up by the Obama campaign is part of a beautifully executed ten-point strategy, while everything on Hillary Clinton's side that might be construed negatively is either the cause of people who had nothing really to do with her or was completely and negatively misconstrued and deliberately misinterpreted by Obama's campaign.

Posted by Persia | February 28, 2008 2:23 PM

"Well, that and the fact that Prince Barack copied, pasted, and mildly edited HRC's policy proposals. . . "

I doubt you'd find anything in Hillary's portfolio that didn't originate in a left/liberal policy shop during the past two decades. It's not like Hillary has been sitting in the library turning out original research. At what point did it become a bad thing to adopt ideas proposed by your party's ideological/policy wonk infrastructure?

Posted by Helter | February 28, 2008 2:24 PM

"Expect the campaign to become race card after race card"

Except the voter won't care. The dem primary voters been suprising un-aware of race, it makes no differnce to them, for a variety of reasons. As old white men/women throw accusations of race baiting back and forth the voter elects the best person for the job.

Posted by Judson | February 28, 2008 2:33 PM

"I doubt you'd find anything in Hillary's portfolio that didn't originate in a left/liberal policy shop during the past two decades."

Finally, someone with some sense. Yes, that is true, but she has been a part of that discussion for decades. In some way, as far as domestic policies go, she is part of that liberal/left policy shot. Barack just showed up, made himself comfortable, and hijacked all this crap. Oh I forget, he was busy gaining private sector and leadership experience as a lawprof at Chicago.

Posted by Israel | February 28, 2008 2:34 PM

"I can tell you no ready so much but speaky mucho. I go leave now.

http://www.americablog.com/2007/10/obama-issues-3-page-memo-explaining.html"

Hmm. Obama having an anti-gay singer at a campaign event is, exactly, how much worse than the Clintons' putting "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act into law? Is giving someone a pass on their personal views of homosexuality a bigger offense than supporting and ratifying anti-gay attitudes with public policy and legislation?

There's a lot of excesses in both Obama and Hillary supporters, but there's one thing you've got to say. A good chunk of the dislike of Hillary comes from things she's actually done or been involved with. Much of the Obamaphobia out there seems to be spawned by anger that he has prevented the coronation of Queen Hillary I.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 28, 2008 2:37 PM

Israel,

So what? The Presidency isn't a prize you get after thirty-five years in public service.

Posted by Persia | February 28, 2008 2:38 PM

Israel, if you're going to leave, please stay away.
And ditch teh stupid, thanks.

Posted by Jake | February 28, 2008 2:40 PM

Matthew pointed out one sentence Lanny Davis uttered during that interview on Morning Joe, but failed to mention the more substantial point he made about Obama's Iraq position:

1) When asked in 2004 how he would have voted on the 2002 AUMF he answered "I don't know" because he wasn't privy to all of the information.

2) He stated his position on Iraq was not much different than George Bush's.

3) He promised to vote against the funding of the war while running for the Senate then flip-flopped after he entered the Senate, as well as voted with along with Hillary thereafter.

That was the "fairy tale" ... the idea that he has been a consistent and courageous opponent of the Iraq war based on one speech he made in 2002.

Posted by Tim K | February 28, 2008 2:44 PM

"In some way, as far as domestic policies go, she is part of that liberal/left policy shot. Barack just showed up, made himself comfortable, and hijacked all this crap."

Yeah! Why can't that Barack guy just go sit at the back of the bus where he belongs! Whoops, bad metaphor. I mean, why can't he just wait his turn like you're supposed to in a democracy! Hillary should be the nominee because she had the incredible smarts to be born many years before Barack. If he's so great, why didn't he get himself out of the birth canal a decade or two sooner?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 28, 2008 2:45 PM

this whole "we cant attack Obama because we'll be accused of racism" is going to be a HUGE and often repeated claim from Republicans this campaign. HRC was just testing it out.

think about it: the very idea plays into the deepest conservative fears about race in America: that whites are now the victims of policies like Affirmative Action, and a society "obsessed with PC." Hannity and Limbaugh and others will use this idea -- criticizing Obama leaves us vulnerable to attack -- as a way to rally conservative whites. Because instead of pointing to a policy (Affirmative Action) or an idea (liberal media obsessed with political correctness), now they'll be able to point to a real person, BHO, as the source of their pain.

this really was a despicable move by a fellow Democrat, but in a way i'm happy its out there so Obama can start to prepare for it.

>>> Which brings me to a point i've been trying to make for a while. ... The Obama campaign gains NOTHING in the long run by asking for, or accepting apologies from John McCain when the GOP plays "good (race) cop, bad (race) cop." And here's why: eventually, the right will argue that it's not fair for McCain to have to keep apologizing for people being critical of Obama, and the country -- reactionary to "race-talk" as it is -- will grow wearisome of seeing St. McCain of the "Straight Talk" express keep apologizing.

And keep in mind, Obama will not call McCain out for this, he'll continue to play above the mud, but his surrogates will point fingers, and then the national conversation will be dedicated to discussions about racism and "playing the race card" and PC sensitivities...AND OBAMA DOES NOT WANT THAT TO BE WHAT PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

His team needs to spread the word, apologies are cool now because they're have only been 2-3 of them, but that ship wont sail forever, and what Obama and Company should say when stuff like the TN GOP smear come out is:

"While we take Sen. McCain at his word and deeply appreciate his efforts keep this debate respectful and devoid of underhanded fear-mongering, we would also urge him to be STRAIGHT with the American people when these type of unfortunate incidents take place and call them for what they are: flat out lies designed to impugn a fellow American who loves and cares deeply about his country."

>>>Less finger-pointing. More holding McCain's feet to the fire.

Posted by enough | February 28, 2008 2:49 PM

"When asked in 2004 how he would have voted on the 2002 AUMF he answered "I don't know" because he wasn't privy to all of the information."

ATTENTION ALL IDIOTS!

Obama made the above comments because he didn't want to be cornered into criticizing John Kerry, the Democratic nominee in 2004 who supported the Iraq War.

That is all.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 28, 2008 2:50 PM

Mike, there's another important aspect to this-- Hillary did have access to that information. She never bothered reading it, apparently, but she had access!

Posted by Persia | February 28, 2008 2:58 PM

"Yeah! Why can't that Barack guy just go sit at the back of the bus where he belongs! Whoops, bad metaphor."

The question was whether Prince Barack xeroxed, sorry, copy and pasted her policies, not whether he was entitled to the presidency.

See, this is what's so stupid about many Obama supporters, you can't criticize the guy b/c it becomes about race. He used Donnie McLurkin -- well are you saying that most blacks are homophobes? (racist); the kid did blow -- well are you saying that most blacks snort coke? (racist); his position on Iraq is a "fairy tail" -- are you calling him something whites used to call blacks? (racist -- courtesy Donna Brazile); he stole her policies -- well are you saying he's being "uppity" and should go to the back of the bus? (racist).

Such a turn off... an embarrassment to the democratic party.

Posted by Israel | February 28, 2008 2:58 PM

MBunge:

Mike, would that be yet another example of doing politics differently?

How about try out this slogan:

"CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN ... unless it embarrasses somebody who's doing me a favour"

It seems a lot like criticizing Hillary Clinton for supporting NAFTA because she didn't speak out against her husband's policy publicly. That certainly would have been a more significant betrayal than Obama saying what he supposedly really believed about Iraq. Instead he waffled for political convenience.

Once again:

*Barack Obama promised to vote against funding the war then broke his word.

*Barack Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted on the resolution.

*Barack Obama claimed in 2004 that his position on Iraq was nearly indistinguishable from President Bush's.

That's not change we can believe in.

Posted by Tim K | February 28, 2008 3:03 PM

"The question was whether Prince Barack xeroxed, sorry, copy and pasted her policies, not whether he was entitled to the presidency."

Uh, no. The point was that Hillary didn't come up with any of "her" policies herself. She xeroxed them from the liberal/Democratic policy establishment...just like Obama has done. You're the one making the stupid argument that Hillary has some greater claim to those policies simply because she's been around longer, so Obama should just wait his turn or "know his place".

It's one thing to say that Hillary has better policies than Obama. But it's quite another to claim she has a greater right to certain Democratic policy positions because she had the foresight to be born sooner and be in politics longer.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 28, 2008 3:12 PM

"Yes, that is true, but she has been a part of that discussion for decades."

Well she did a heckuva job selling it then. The past couple of decades have been terrific for democratic policies, right? At some point it's time for the old hacks to step aside and let younger folks take a turn at the wheel.

Posted by Helter | February 28, 2008 3:13 PM

"*Barack Obama promised to vote against funding the war then broke his word.

*Barack Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted on the resolution.

*Barack Obama claimed in 2004 that his position on Iraq was nearly indistinguishable from President Bush's.

That's not change we can believe in."

Okay, Hillbot. Let's just assume for argument's sake that the above is all true.

That makes Hillary Clinton a better candidate than Barack Obama...HOW? Hillary voted for the war and defended the war and her vote for quite a long time, until the public decided it didn't like the war anymore and so Hillary didn't like it anymore.

Even if all of your above statements are true, we're left with one candidate who was RIGHT about Iraq but played politics with the issue afterwards vs. a candidate who was WRONG about Iraq and played politics with the issue afterwards. How is the later at all better than the former?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 28, 2008 3:18 PM

I hadn't known Lanny Davis was out helping Clinton...if I had, I would have had greater pleasure in voting for Obama and against Clinton and her great team of Penn, Michael O'Hanlon and Lanny Davis. You remember Lanny Davis from the Lieberman-Lamont contest. "Lanny Davis was on the Washington Journal last week, calling Lieberman's critics "bigots" and "liars." He was introduced as "former White House Counsel," and according to Colin McEnroe, Davis is also an advisor to the Lieberman campaign." Lanny Davis is precisely the sort of baggage that the DLC/Clinton and the Democratic Party establishment ought to toss overboard. I know a failed and failing and toxic campaign by the presence of odious operators like Davis.

Posted by della Rovere | February 28, 2008 3:22 PM

enough's 2:49 PM post above is really excellent. The Republicans will goad Democrats with all sorts of racially tinged but plausibly deniable crap, and when the Democrats rise to the bait and complain they will be presented as a bunch of humorless PC whiners who cry race at nothing.

This will be hugely persuasive to millions of moderate whites, asians, and hispanics who resent affirmative actions and what they see as excessive black 'entitlement'. (Note: don't attack me as defending these attitudes; I think they are reprehensible. But they are real.)

Not only must Obama not rise to the bait, Democrats as a whole need to hold fire. Based on his actions so far Obama understands this, but other Democrats will be hard to rein in.

We have to leave it to the press & blogosphere to call it out when Republicans play the race card.

A lot of people will cite the Kerry swift-boating, and claim you have to respond to every attack fast and hard. We have to avoid re-fighting 2004. This is a different situation. Race is a deeper and more passionate fault line than Vietnam.

All this said, there are some cases where openly fighting back is the right call. If McCain or his surrogates accidentally cross the plausible deniability line in one of their racial attacks Obama should fight back hard, because it won't be taken as over-sensitivity. I'm sure there are other examples. There are no absolutes in politics.

Let's hope Obama is as politically gifted as he seems to be, because his whole campaign needs to thread a fine needle.

Posted by tomtom | February 28, 2008 3:35 PM

"Well she did a heckuva job selling it then."

Again, Helter, another fine point. We can debate whether she had the opportunity to sell them or not. But let's look ahead instead of backward, why is Obama more qualified to sell them than she is? This is, by the way, what most of my friends who support Obama, the ones who aren't idiots about it anyway, say is his strongest trait. And I think Yglesias falls in the same category.

I hear "process," it's the political process, and he'll be able to bring all competing interests together and work things out because he's inspiring. The theory is that because people like him, if their reps and senators don't side with Obama, they would be reps and senators who would. Another theory is that he would sell policies better because the Republican caucus would hesitate to oppose Obama because, well, he's inspiring. A variation of the two is that he would give one of his fabulous, telepromptered speeches on, say health care, and immediately the country would fall to its knees, and like dominoes reps, senators, and special interest will follow because the "process" says so.

I don't see it, I really don't. I see a nasty, mean-spirited Washington, one in which you can only get stuff done if you know the process and fight within it, hard. And here's the catch-22. My friends tell me that I'm gloomy about government and washington overall, and that's precisely what Obama would change, so my premise is void and therefore my support for HRC wrongheaded.

I think we'll find out sooner or later... I think the lesson's gonna hurt quite a bit.

Posted by Israel | February 28, 2008 3:43 PM

Mike:

Yes as we all know Clinton made a mistake in voting for that resolution. We don't know how Obama would have voted had he been in a position of responsibility. What we do know is that many Democratic senators also voted for that resolution including:

Sen. John Kerry
Sen. Tom Dashcle
Sen. Chris Dodd
Sen. Byron Dorgan
Sen. Ben Nelson
Sen. Tim Johnson

What do these Senators have in common? Yes, you guessed it. They've all endorsed Barack Obama for president. And according to Obama all of these Senators have shown poor judgment on the war... but apparently great judgment in picking the right president. A little bit inconsistent.

I think we're all well aware that every single Democratic Senator who ran for President in 2004 or 2008 had voted for that resolution. The majority of the American people supported that resolution. While I don't agree with Clinton's vote, she was in pretty good company; Joe Biden also voted for the resolution. But I'll repeat, we don't really know how Barack Obama would have voted on it, especially since he played it safe politically from the moment he set foot in the senate.

Posted by Tim K | February 28, 2008 3:45 PM

I haven't waded through this entire thread of comments, so I apologize if this point has been made already. But:

For anyone in the Clinton camp to whine about this is completely ridiculous. These are the same folks who say using the word 'periodically' means you're a mysoginist.

Scrolling up now, I see that this has been touched on. I withdraw my apology, though - I reject AND denounce it! - because it bears repeating. The HRC camp plays the gender card better and more often than Tiger Woods plays golf.

What's more, only the most diehard Taylor Marsh-type denialist doesn't see the utter hypocrisy. The HRC folks aren't fooling anyone.

Posted by Woody Bombay | February 28, 2008 3:55 PM

"But I'll repeat, we don't really know how Barack Obama would have voted on it, especially since he played it safe politically from the moment he set foot in the senate."

Obama was right. Clinton was wrong. No matter what sort of BS spin you put on it, that's the bottom line. And I have yet to see how ANY of your attacks on Obama prove Hillary to be the better candidate.

One of the big difference between the Obama and Hillary campaigns is that when Obama attacks her positions, he frames it as "Hillary supports X. I support Y. Vote for me." Hillary's attacks (and your's in this thread) are framed as "Barack supports X. Don't vote for him". That's why he's been able to make very pointed criticisms of Hillary without coming off as that negative.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 28, 2008 4:14 PM

I'm not trying to convince anyone about Hillary. I don't believe she's going to be the nominee, I think that's going to be Barack Obama.

But I continue to read this constant sniping at Hillary even when she is clearly down, and I won't sit back and let Obama to get a free pass. He has plenty of weaknesses and short-comings and those deserve at least as much scrutiny as a losing candidate's.

What I really want to see is both sides begin to come together and for Hillary to transition to a different role of leadership in the party.

Posted by Tim K | February 28, 2008 4:21 PM

"But I continue to read this constant sniping at Hillary even when she is clearly down, and I won't sit back and let Obama to get a free pass."

So, you think Hillary's going to lose and Barack's going to win, but you think continuing to snipe at the eventual Democratic nominee is a good thing because...why? Because you feel sorry for Hillary and think she'll feel beter because someone, somewhere, who she'll never know about is taking a whack at Obama?

For all the garbage about the Obama "cult", quite a few Hillary supporters seem to have a far more intense and irrational emotional connection to her than Obamafans have to their guy.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 28, 2008 4:34 PM

Mike:

Well more like I think a lot of people here are being (measuring my words carefully) petty and small in their treatment of a major leader in the Democratic party who continues to have a large following and a lot of influence. And maybe by pointing out that Obama is pretty flawed himself, others may realize it might be fairer and more prudent to stop bashing Hillary at every opportunity and start thinking of ways to bring the party together.

Posted by Tim K | February 28, 2008 4:44 PM

"And maybe by pointing out that Obama is pretty flawed himself, others may realize it might be fairer and more prudent to stop bashing Hillary at every opportunity and start thinking of ways to bring the party together."

Have you ever met an actual human being and observed the way they actually behave?

"I know! If I keep taking shots at Obama, they'll stop slamming Hillary!"

That's a real cunning plan you got there.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 28, 2008 5:03 PM

Just think about what you just said, then ask yourself again why I might not want to say nice things about Obama.

Posted by Tim K | February 28, 2008 5:06 PM

"Just think about what you just said, then ask yourself again why I might not want to say nice things about Obama."

Oh, poor baby. Did I hurt your feelings?

You just admitted that all your attacks on Obama are pretty much motivated by nothing more than childish spite...and that's supposed to make me be kinder to you?

You want to rip me for being a jerk, knock yourself out. But how does constantly making robotic attacks on Obama figure into this?

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 28, 2008 5:47 PM

Mike,

Do you enjoy the taste of Obama's balls or
are you merely doing your duty?
Whichever the case we should move beyond all the pettiness and join forces to defeat McCain.

Posted by twofer | February 28, 2008 8:40 PM

There may come a time when I feel sorry for Hillary Clinton, whose ambition far exceeds her political talent. But I already feel sorry for Lanny Davis, who, like Sean Wilentz and Paul Krugman, has forever compromised himself with egregious intellectual dishonesty. What is it about Barack Obama that makes these people crazy? Obamamania, to the extent that it exists at all, is just the exuberance of the young. But the exuberance of the gray-haired and renowned Clinton water-carriers is embarrassing, to us and to them.

Posted by phillygirl | February 28, 2008 11:38 PM

I was just waiting for idiotic to turn up, and when he did (rinsing away the rancid leavings of Al) I knew it was time to post my appreciation and split for the next thread. Thanks, idiotic.

Posted by w action | February 28, 2008 11:50 PM