Right-Wing Talking Points

I'm looking forward to Paul Krugman's condemnation of this. More generally, one thing Hillary Clinton's supporters need to consider at this moment is the extent to which she and John McCain are reading from the same sheet of talking points.

If you genuinely believe in your heart that Obama is too green to be president, and that the person with more Beltway experience belongs in the White House, then by all means keep saying that stuff but if you would prefer Obama over McCain if Clinton can't get the nomination then you do need to consider what the impact of having high-profile Democrats going on record claiming that the likely Democratic nominee can't do the job is going to be. That's a different kind of thing than hitting him on his health care plan, or pointing to his sometimes off-base environmental record in the Senate.

Comments

'I'm looking forward to Paul Krugman's condemnation of this.'

You're joking, right?

**crickets**

Posted by willyjsimmons | February 20, 2008 11:51 AM

What was the polling like on an Edwards/McCain matchup?

Posted by ferd | February 20, 2008 11:52 AM

The Clinton's don't care about the impact of their tactics on the party prospects this fall. As I wrote about on my blog, history shows the Clintons will stop at nothing to win.

Posted by Sweating Through Fog | February 20, 2008 11:52 AM

Looking over the race, how much of Obama’s criticism of Clinton have been of the nature that would harm her and the party’s chances in the general election? I seriously cannot think of any.

While everything—EVERYTHING—coming out from the Clinton camp is stuff that can be picked up and used by the Republicans in one way or another or is designed to damage him as a candidate going forward as much, if not more, than it impacts him now…

Seriously. I know I am biased, but I really am having a hard time thinking of the worst stuff he’s thrown at Hillary. There've been some less-than-clean mailers, but they've still been honest, and won't serve as ammo for Repubicans...what else?

He seems to have stuck more or less to contrasting the two of them before Democrats, while she goes on stage last night and rather than concede Wisconsin, she pretends it never happened and claims he’s not ready to be President.

Hillary Clinton is willing to sow defeat in November for (at this point) futile points in February. Her campaign is going from pathetic to loathsome, and she cannot get eliminated fast enough. There is not going to be anymore "healthy debate" on the Democrat's side, all that can happen going forward is detrimental to the party now, in Novemeber and for potentially years to come.

Posted by Mr Furious | February 20, 2008 11:53 AM

Get ready for the Obama-backlash.

Posted by Jencks | February 20, 2008 11:53 AM

This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter.”

Since Obama has beaten Clinton wouldn't that make her less likely to win against the Republican attack machine?

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 20, 2008 11:54 AM

The Clinton's don't care about the impact of their tactics on the party prospects this fall. As I wrote about on my blog, history shows the Clintons will stop at nothing to win.

Posted by Sweating Through Fog | February 20, 2008 11:54 AM

My guess is that Clinton knows that she has lost; she now planning for 2012 by actively undermining Obama in the hope that McCain wins in 2008, and that he will be vulnerable on age & other grounds in 2012.

Of course, as you say her remaining supports need to consider whether they want to play along with this scenario.

Posted by LarryM | February 20, 2008 11:56 AM

I'm sorry, but calling someone "Janus, the two faced god of ancient times" is just cool.

Posted by Patrick | February 20, 2008 12:01 PM

one thing Hillary Clinton's supporters need to consider at this moment is the extent to which she and John McCain are reading from the same sheet of talking points.

Will she accuse McCain of plagiarism? Or does she reserve that charge for fellow Democrats?

Posted by Ryan | February 20, 2008 12:02 PM

Get ready for the Obama-backlash.

It's already here. Did you see the clip of Chris Matthews' interview of that poor state senator from Texas last night? Or David Brooks' column from a day or two ago? Or Robert Samuelson's column from this morning?

What's noteworthy is I haven't yet seen an argument either from a Republican or from a pundit that Hillary Clinton hasn't tried (unsuccessfully) to make already.

Posted by SDinIA | February 20, 2008 12:03 PM

"I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

When did Buffenbarger start stealing lines from Tim K???

Posted by Jake | February 20, 2008 12:04 PM

1) There are only 100 Senators --and they have enormous power. Doesn't McCain have ANY responsibility for the major fuckups that have harmed this country?

What did McCain do to stop the rise of $9 Trillion in debt --most of it under three Republican presidents. McCain is a Republican --why isn't he held to account for the sins of Republicans --e.g., stealing $3 Trillion from Social Security /Medicare.

2) This country badly needs someone who will not only throw the corrupt , crooked old men out of the temple -- but who will also beat the living shit out of them with a bullwhip.

Anyone remember the Savings and Loan mess? In which we told millions of poor children to go fuck themselves so that we could spend hundreds of Billions to bail out crooked bankers? Guess who was one of the Keating Five? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

McCain has been in politics for over 25 years. That means he's DIRECTLY responsible for everything that's gone wrong over the past 25 years.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 12:06 PM

Mr. Furious: Dem critics of Obama (including Krugman) point to Obama's opposition to health care mandates as an attack on Clinton from the right. Whatever the merits of that dispute, it's pretty clear that a dispute over wonky policy details is not going to translate into a major Republican attack theme in the general. Clinton's present initiative to portray Obama as a callow con man who is unprepared to be commander in chief definitely will translate to the general.

Posted by Led | February 20, 2008 12:07 PM

I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak!

When did Buffenbarger start stealing lines from Bill O'Reilly?

Posted by southpaw | February 20, 2008 12:09 PM

Clinton, who I defended even while voting for Obama, deserves no more defense. Her campaign is deceitful and insulting an destructive, and I would never vote for her should she manage to steal the nomination which she will not manage to do.

Matthew was right from the beginning. Clinton is intolerable.

Posted by Jennifer | February 20, 2008 12:09 PM

Calling all Democratic Party big wigs.. Its over for Clinton.. Time to protect our nominee Obama..

Posted by Ann | February 20, 2008 12:11 PM

The US Congress is one of the most DESPISED institutions in America. Does anyone really think that's not going to stick to John McCain?

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 12:14 PM

Can we call Taylor Marsh a right wing nut yet?

Posted by plum | February 20, 2008 12:16 PM

What's noteworthy is I haven't yet seen an argument either from a Republican or from a pundit that Hillary Clinton hasn't tried (unsuccessfully) to make already.

Like an argument's success matters. The narrative and its prevalance (that an Obama-backlash is afoot) is enough to at least superfically, although I doubt meaningfully, neutralize his momemntum. Evenwhile he racks up more wins, his inevitablity will become the problem. And maybe there'll be a backlash to the backlash. But still, I think we've all been a little too pleased with ourselves for the last few months. Let's remember these are only Democratic Primaries.

Posted by Ron Mashate | February 20, 2008 12:16 PM

For an intro speech like that, would Clinton know what that clown is going to say ahead of time, and if so, would she want to approve it?

Either way, Tom Buffenbarger can go fuck himself.

Posted by Kevin | February 20, 2008 12:17 PM

For all the justifiable mockery of the Clinton campaign, they've done a remarkable job of fortifying her jaw. Look at the margins of Obama's victories from the last 10 states:

Louisiana: +21

Nebraska: +36

Washington: +37

Maine: +19

Virgin Islands: +82

DC: +51

Maryland: +23

Virginia: +29

Wisconsin: +17

Hawaii: +52

If Obama had suffered a string of ten humiliations like Clinton has, I can't imagine people on tv would still be talking up his supposed firewalls.

Posted by southpaw | February 20, 2008 12:17 PM

"Tom Buffenbarger president of the machinists' union (International Association of Machinists and AEROSPACE Workers"
----------
Ah, yes. With that much venom, you just KNEW someone's defense contract had to be at stake.

Posted by Don Williams | February 20, 2008 12:19 PM

Since Obama and Clinton are both borrowing from McGovern/Mondale wing's policies, how can Hillary draw distinctions on policy? It's perfectly legitimate to go after a freshman Senator's qualifications for office.

Don Williams,

If you are scared by $9 trillion in debt (with a $13 trillion economy), what makes you think the debt won't climb faster to pay for the Santa Claus policies Obama is proposing (e.g., free health care for everyone, increased tax refunds for people who don't pay any income taxes, etc.)? There is no fiscal austerity candidate in the race, but McCain, for all his faults, is the closest to one of the three candidates.

Posted by Fred | February 20, 2008 12:22 PM

you know, i was ready to rally round whomever won iowa, but romantic illusions aren't reality.

the idea that clinton is just supposed to cash it in because the perfection of obama cannot be sullied has absolutely no historic precedent, and it ain't about to happen now.

as for right-wing attacks, they're going to come regardless. i've been saying all along that the notion of lovable obama vs. hated clinton is a short-term illusion: anyone who isn't ready for obama's negatives to be driven up to kerry/clinton levels simply hasn't been paying attention in recent years.

thankfully, i suspect that after march 4, there will be a rally round effect, because i suspect the race will be over. until this, these are people running to be president of the united states, not beanbag champions: obama will continue to make up stuff about how his brilliance would have maintained congressional control in the '90s, clinton will continue to throw whatever she can at obama in the hopes some of it sticks. that's life.

Posted by howard | February 20, 2008 12:23 PM

Let's review some of the personal attacks Obama has deployed against Clinton lately.

1)She's too divisive.
2)She's part of the old politics.
3)She'll say anything to win.
4)Her and her husbands are liars.
5)She has mood swings.

Plus her campaign fell just short of accusing them of racism a few weeks ago.

Yeah, nothing at all that could damage her in the general election. Give me a break.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 12:23 PM

Yeah, the whole point of primaries is that the candidates go at it and then kiss and make up when it's done. But Sen. Clinton and her campaign and her surrogates are really using some very damaging claims and ads that could seriously undermine Obama if he's the candidate in November. That's really not cool.

Even in the primaries, there are certain lines you need to not cross. Not because we don't want a healthy debate, not because we want to avoid having our candidates challenged and therefore strengthened in advance of the general, but because when you use certain arguments that can then make a perfect television advertisement for the other party to use in November ("even Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton say this guy isn't ready to be president!") that's enormously destructive to what should be shared, common goals and ideals for all the candidates.

I really feel like a lot of other people who are expressing that they had a solid amount of respect and admiration for Clinton before, but that's dwindling every week. And I know five minutes after I post, some Clinton supporter will come by and say, "You heinous Obamabots, you're not real Democrats because you're not sure if you want to vote for Clinton if she's the nominee!" Well, part of that is because Clinton's saying stuff that I think is hurting our party and the eventual nominee (and I have to concede at this point that this is what Obama is). I'm really disappointed by all this.

Posted by jbryan | February 20, 2008 12:25 PM

Well, saying that Hillary is over-ambitious and would do anything to win is certainly something that the Right has been saying for a long time and can and would be used against her again.

It's so unseemly for a women to appear thusly.

Also, Obama has several times questioned her honesty - you know, those slick Clintons. He's also cited the tumultuous 90's, asking if we want to return to that era. The scandals, you see, were the fault of Bill and Hill (that would certainly be dredged up again).

I don't like this Buffenbarger's speech one bit, it's as foolish as it is nasty. But let's not get carried away and pretend that Obama has been a saint.

He's gone negative in damaging ways as well. It should be OK to love Obama as a politician and candidate and freely admit his flaws.

Aren't we the folks that do nuance? That shun black/white paradigms?

Posted by Eric Martin | February 20, 2008 12:26 PM

You'd almost think that Mark Penn and Charlie Black were comparing notes.

I really feel like a lot of other people who are expressing that they had a solid amount of respect and admiration for Clinton before, but that's dwindling every week.

In strictly pragmatic terms, I don't see how a Clinton campaign goes post-nomination to states like Virginia or Missouri or Colorado and not get rebuked. And the convention's in friggin' Denver. It's all set up for a 'camp in Florida and Ohio' campaign, which hurts down-ticket and brings back bad memories of 2004.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 20, 2008 12:30 PM

Don't have a trust fund and wear regular shoes. But do drive a Prius, I'm happy to say (and make my own latte's from supermarket coffee every morning).

Oh, yes. I voted for Obama

Posted by harold | February 20, 2008 12:31 PM

What I find really funny is that the guy doesn't even understand who Janus was and what he symbolized. The quick wikipedia explanation is:

"Janus was usually depicted with two faces looking in opposite directions.Janus was frequently used to symbolize change and transitions such as the progression of past to future, of one condition to another, of one vision to another, the growing up of young people, and of one universe to another. He was also known as the figure representing time because he could see into the past with one face and into the future with the other. Hence, Janus was worshipped at the beginnings of the harvest and planting times, as well as marriages, births and other beginnings. He was representative of the middle ground between barbarity and civilization, rural country and urban cities, and youth and adulthood."

I don't think it means what he thinks it means.

Posted by Benniefly2 | February 20, 2008 12:32 PM

Sure, Obama's had his swipes at Hillary as well; the problem is that now we're seeing the negativity ramped up to a whole new level at the precise time that the Republicans are quickly getting their house in order. Whatever the back and forth may have been in the past, there is no question that "gotcha" politics is not doing the party any favors this late in the game.

Posted by Alexander | February 20, 2008 12:33 PM

He took a walk every time there was a tough vote in the Illinois State Senate. He took a walk more than a 130 times.

And, um...which Senator ducked the telecom immunity vote, again?

Posted by Bryna | February 20, 2008 12:35 PM

Bryna:

We know Hillary Clinton isn't afraid of a fight. She doesn't have to meet anyone's burden of proof on that one anymore. With Obama, we're not so sure.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 12:40 PM

Looks like "automatic delegates" aren't so automatic after all.

Two New Jersey Superdelegates Switch From Clinton To Obama

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 20, 2008 12:41 PM

"Buffenbarger" ...is that like the "huckaburger"?

Posted by yolanda bolespie | February 20, 2008 12:43 PM

We know Hillary Clinton isn't afraid of a fight.
we also know how well she fared.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 20, 2008 12:45 PM

First, as a few commenters here have pointed out, those who argue that only Clinton has been negative - that Obama has said nothing comparable about her - are delusional, or blinded by Clinton hatred. The justification for his whole campaign, from its inception, is based on the notion that she is too divisive and that the Clinton era was nothing to be proud of. Second, there are no significant policy differences between Obama and Clinton. The only objective reason to prefer her over him is PRECISELY the argument Matt says should be out of bounds: the fact that he is untested and inexperienced. How should her supporters compete on her behalf if they can't make the key, relevant argument? Finally, I don't think Obama is remotely prepared for what is about to hit him, not only from the well-funded and totally immoral right-wing attack machine, but from our corrupt and feckless media, who are already beginning to turn on him now that they've helped destroy her.

Posted by Winston | February 20, 2008 12:45 PM

I think the writing is on the wall. HRC does not stand a chance and she should go ahead and concede for the good of the party. It might be technically possible for her to garner enough delegates still, but that possibility is now vanishingly unlikely. She has lost 9 primaries in a row and is well behind in national polling. Give it up already.

But I still don't like all of this anti-HRC nastiness. Give it a rest people. She's not evil. She's campaigning against your guy. That's how primary politics works.

And I can hardly wait to read this interesting blog I heard about that draws the totally original conclusion that "the Clintons will stop at nothing to win." Wow. The guy who writes that must really be a genius. In for years this same clown will have a blog about how the Obamas will stop at nothing to win. Yawn.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 20, 2008 12:48 PM

We know Hillary Clinton isn't afraid of a fight. She doesn't have to meet anyone's burden of proof on that one anymore. With Obama, we're not so sure.

There is a difference b/w political fights and doding votes. The article seems to confuse them. Regardless, if you want to criticize Obama for walking, it looks pretty bad, in my opinion, if you dodged the telecom immunity vote b/c that was pretty important, again, in my opinion.

Posted by mpowell | February 20, 2008 12:50 PM

Actually, the experience argument isn't working, as any glance at the last few exit polls will show. Voters are going for 'change' (~50%) over 'experience' (~25%).

And in any case, Clinton surrogates and anti-Obama bloggers are at times going further than this argument into truly objectionable territory when they accuse Obama of perpetrating a fraud on the American public. They're not just saying he's an empty suit; they're saying he's a con artist.

Posted by plum | February 20, 2008 12:54 PM

What I don't understand is if Obama can't stomach a fight, then how is he winning against a political machine that stared down Newt Gingrich and beat back a coup d'etat from the entire Republican establishment? It seems to me he can stomach a fight fairly well.

Posted by Shine | February 20, 2008 12:56 PM

One advantage of Hillary conceding (and she has certainly done well enough to choose her own time to do that irrespective of what all you Obama supporters would like) will be we can finally have a discussion of the serious vulnerabilities of Barack Obama's candidacy without people being able to deflect that charges by hiding behind Hillary's flaws.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 12:59 PM

@Winston: The problem is that it gets sillier and sillier for Clinton to claim she's more tested and experienced than Obama, and that said experience is essential, as her campaign continues to flounder and his keeps rolling along smoothly.

You know, she keeps saying he's all talk and no action, but it seems to me that if you keep plugging your experience, you need to demonstrate it. Why should we expect her to be ready on day one when she wasn't even ready for the primaries?

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 12:59 PM

Yeah, nothing at all that could damage her in the general election. Give me a break.

Now it looks like she won't be in the general election so your point is moot.

Obama will be, so her campaign's negative attacks are damaging the Democrats' chances.

From commenter Michael at Tapped:

If she pulled of the nearly impossible task of grabbing 60% of the delegates available between Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, she'd still only pick up 97 delegates on Obama, who now enjoys a robust pledged delegate lead of over 160.

Add in his basically guaranteed victories in delegate-rich North Carolina, and medium-sized Mississippi and Oregon, and you see Hillary has a problem. It's already basically impossible for her to catch him. It was a very outside chance before last night, but she def needed to break even or keep the margins slim. Letting him pick up another likely 23-25 delegates? Not good.

Posted by Peter K | February 20, 2008 1:01 PM

What I don't understand is if Obama can't stomach a fight, then how is he winning against a political machine that stared down Newt Gingrich and beat back a coup d'etat from the entire Republican establishment? It seems to me he can stomach a fight fairly well.

Indeed: Coming into last night's election, Obama was attacked by both parties and it was looking like a possible Clinton "upset." Result: Obama by 17. Yes, the attacks will get much worse, but McCain has plenty of serious problems of his own, and I'm not all that afraid of him.

Posted by Alexander | February 20, 2008 1:01 PM

Ya know Rob Mac, I'm willing to say it's all water under the bridge as soon as Clinton turns off her shit machine.

Posted by blindjoedeath | February 20, 2008 1:03 PM

Fred - what the fuck is the "Mondale/McGovern wing"? Just because two candidates lost by big margins does not mean they were supported by the same elements of the party.

McGovern was the candidate of anti-war activists, and fiercely opposed by the AFL-CIO and the party regulars; Mondale was the candidate of the AFL-CIO and the party regulars - Gary Hart, for God's sake, was George McGovern's campaign manager. Walter Mondale was Hubert Humphrey's protegé. They were both liberals, but from opposite ends of the liberal spectrum. Jesus Christ, the historical illiteracy of the "Mondale/McGovern wing of the Democratic Party" is stunning.

Posted by John | February 20, 2008 1:03 PM

The experience argument hasn't work because in the Democratic primaries twice as many people value 'change' over 'experience' rather than the other way around.

Now think about that for a second. Do you actually think the general electorate is going to be exactly the same as the Democratic primary/caucus electorate? Obama is being whooped among the 20 or 25% that value 'experience' over 'change'... he's getting about 5% of that group compared to 95% for Hillary.

What happens if by election day the country is roughly evenly split between people who are looking for 'change' and people who are looking more for 'experience'?

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 1:05 PM

"We know Hillary Clinton isn't afraid of a fight."

Where, exactly, is there evidence that Hillary Clinton has any aptitude for WINNING those fights? Hillary isn't Bill, and even a lot of Bill's successes were achieved by triangulating against his fellow Democrats.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | February 20, 2008 1:06 PM

The experience argument hasn't work because in the Democratic primaries twice as many people value 'change' over 'experience' rather than the other way around.

Now think about that for a second. Do you actually think the general electorate is going to be exactly the same as the Democratic primary/caucus electorate? Obama is being whooped among the 20 or 25% that value 'experience' over 'change'... he's getting about 5% of that group compared to 95% for Hillary.

What happens if by election day the country is roughly evenly split between people who are looking for 'change' and people who are looking more for 'experience'?

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 1:09 PM

I didn't know there were so many latte-drinking Prius-drivers in Wisconsin. And despite my strong support for Obama, I'm not bothered very much by negative attacks, because Clinton's a politician, after all. And Obama's no saint, either.

Anyway, Ambinder says that the Teamsters are poised to endorse Obama!

Posted by Abby | February 20, 2008 1:10 PM

What happens if by election day the country is roughly evenly split between people who are looking for 'change' and people who are looking more for 'experience'?

McCain has both of them trumped if you want to talk about "experience".

Posted by Kevin | February 20, 2008 1:11 PM

It seems like the new argument to me is that "Obama can't win the general." I've seen it floated on the interwebs for a while, but now the HRC's surrogates are trotting it out. Could the HRC campaign now be hoping, not to win the primary, but to hope to sink the eventual nominee in 2008 and then plan to come back in 2012? They could say waltz in and say "I told you so. He was too green, but now I've got even more experience." after undercutting Obama's campaign.

Posted by ben | February 20, 2008 1:11 PM

One advantage of Hillary conceding ... will be we can finally have a discussion of the serious vulnerabilities of Barack Obama's candidacy without people being able to deflect that charges by hiding behind Hillary's flaws.

Then you'll be carrying McCain's water instead of Hillary's.

Posted by fp | February 20, 2008 1:13 PM

What happens if by election day the country is roughly evenly split between people who are looking for 'change' and people who are looking more for 'experience'?

Unless you've got some data backing your theory that the general populace is split on 'change' and 'experience,' you're just begging the question.

In fact, the notion is a stretch. If about 25% of Dems look for experience, then for experience to register at 50% in the general populace would mean huge numbers of Repubs look for experience. Yet, in WI, it was only 20%.

Posted by plum | February 20, 2008 1:13 PM

Furthermore, these 'what if' arguments and talk about needing to secure this or that slice of the general populace means nothing if a candidate can't win the primary.

Posted by plum | February 20, 2008 1:16 PM

Mike:

I'd be happy to answer that question. Hillary Clinton - unlike your friend Obama - has run a competitive race against a Republican opponent. Although she easily dispatched Rick Lazio on election day 2000, that was considered to be a close contest all the way through. As for the impeachment fight, there is no way Bill would have survived that politically had Hillary not stuck by him and even gone on the offensive to be seen to be standing by him. That history of supporting Bill was longstanding. She even confronted a primary opponent for governor of Arkansas in 1990 at his at a news conference, which effectively ended his challenge. Hillary Clinton does know how to fight and win, unlike Obama.

Not only doesn't Obama have significant public policy accomplishments, he also lacks significant political accomplishments with the sole exception of his presidential campaign so far.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 1:17 PM

Exit poll from Virginia: 20% said experience most important quality.

I'm having trouble seeing how 50% of the general populace are thirsting for a leader with experience...

Posted by plum | February 20, 2008 1:19 PM

Not only doesn't Obama have significant public policy accomplishments, he also lacks significant political accomplishments with the sole exception of his presidential campaign so far.

Over the years, the voters of the United States have repeatedly shown that they don't particularly care about that.

for reference, look at George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, for starters.

Posted by Kevin | February 20, 2008 1:23 PM

The McCain campaign is going to make experience a big issue. Trust me, it's going to happen.

Kevin:

I resent the implication that I'm a right-winger because Obama isn't my preferred candidate. You Obama supporters are an illustration of why this supposed "different kind of politics" is absurd. It's simply the same old politics of demonization and personal destruction deployed on behalf of the new flavor of the week. You guys going after Hillary are no better than when Jerry Falwell did the same thing. I read Obama supporters accusing Hillary Clinton of murder. These are extremist tendencies.

I will support Obama over McCain because of Obama's policies because policies are what ultimately matter. Yet, if I were voting based on the personality of the candidate I'd vote for McCain.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 1:25 PM

I resent the implication that I'm a right-winger because Obama isn't my preferred candidate.

Where the fuck did you get that bizarre idea? I have said no such thing, implicitly or not.

You Obama supporters are an illustration of why this supposed "different kind of politics" is absurd.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Posted by Kevin | February 20, 2008 1:33 PM

I resent the implication that I'm a right-winger because Obama isn't my preferred candidate.

Nonsense. When Krugman accused Obama of using right-wing frames, I certainly didn't think he was saying Obama was right wing, and Matt isn't saying the same of you here.

On the whole legislative achievement, the myth appears to be that Clinton and McCain have a long trail, while Obama doesn't. Yet I also read about how thin the record is for all three. In the meantime, Hilzoy is actually looking into it, and it looks like Clinton and Obama are about the same.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/all-the-rest.html#comments

Posted by plum | February 20, 2008 1:34 PM

"we can finally have a discussion of the serious vulnerabilities of Barack Obama's candidacy without people being able to deflect that charges by hiding behind Hillary's flaws."

Sure, and then we can talk about the vulnerabilities of John "Crazy old man" McCain and his pill-popping wife. I'd probably support McCain over Hillary, but he's got vulnerabilities out the wazoo. From his talk of lets-be-in-Iraq-for-a-hundred-years to french kissing George Bush to his massive flip-flopping to professing ignorance of economic policy, the guy has got problems.

Posted by Helter | February 20, 2008 1:34 PM

Buffenbarger called Obama a “thespian,”

Maybe he thinks people will think he means a male lesbian? I dunno.

I like my Prius but I've never had a latte. Does that mean I'm only half an insufferable elitist?

Could the HRC campaign now be hoping, not to win the primary, but to hope to sink the eventual nominee in 2008 and then plan to come back in 2012?

That sounds on target with the rest of her campaign. She'll be the John Edwards of 2012!

Posted by Persia | February 20, 2008 1:35 PM

Isn't this the second time that a Clinton supporter stood up on stage prior to one of her speeches and attacked Obama? Bob Johnson, founder of BET, the other Clinton supporter, went on the attack for Clinton last month. And she stands behind the clowns with a big smile on her face, applauds their attacks, and sweetly steps up to the microphone. Hmm, I guess that's how it's done in the real world of politics. Fine. But it doesn't seem to be working. Bob Johnson ended up apologizing and apparently the crowd wasn't to thrilled with Buffenbarger's comments: http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/20/politics/fromtheroad/entry3850647.shtml

Posted by SMN | February 20, 2008 1:36 PM

@Tim K:

"Hillary Clinton does know how to fight and win, unlike Obama."

He's the guy who's winning now, right?

I know, I know: "he also lacks significant political accomplishments with the sole exception of his presidential campaign so far." The primary campaign doesn't count. And when confronted with any lists of Obama's accomplishments, you'll either move on to another point, rather than concede that one, or explain how Clinton's own accomplishments somehow nullify all of Obama's.

We get it, Tim. It's very cut and dry: Obama's campaign, which has been embraced by so many Americans of myriad stripes, is fatally flawed. Clinton's inability to win enough voters over and her ongoing unwillingness to face facts are actually huge assets. And by my own argument, I should just stop commenting here -- even though that wasn't my argument at all, but rather that it's ridonkulous for anyone to act put out because they "have to" take crap from other commenters.

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 2:01 PM

moff: Oops. That link, fixed.

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 2:05 PM

What irks me is not the venomousness of Buffenbarger's attacks as much as simply how juvenile they are. Seriously, if Clinton wants to run a more-gravitas-than-thou campaign about just how mature she is and how little her campaign is driven by Obama-style trivialities of personality and rhetoric, is getting a surrogate to throw substance-free schoolyard tuants about Birkenstocks really the best way to express that message? The negativity bothers me less than the sheer immaturity.

Posted by Julian Elson | February 20, 2008 2:09 PM

"for reference, look at George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, for starters."

Kevin,

All of these presidents had been governors, at least, before running for President. Reagan had been a union president as well as a two-term governor of the largest state in the country; Bush had been twice elected governor of Texas; Clinton was a twice-elected governor of Arkansas; Carter was a one-term governor of Georgia but had also been the DNC chairman during the Democrats' landslide midterms in 1974.

Posted by Fred | February 20, 2008 2:10 PM

One advantage of Hillary conceding (and she has certainly done well enough to choose her own time to do that irrespective of what all you Obama supporters would like) will be we can finally have a discussion of the serious vulnerabilities of Barack Obama's candidacy without people being able to deflect that charges by hiding behind Hillary's flaws.

And thank god for that, Tim. Perhaps you'd like to discuss that with Rick Davis or Karl Rove?

To think Hillary's getting her clock cleaned by someone so vulnerable.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 2:18 PM

I do think the experience fight is one Obama can win against McCain, if his campaign plays it right. All it takes is a savvy combination of "look where McCain and Cheney's and Rumsfeld's experience has gotten us so far" and "what has John McCain accomplished in the past 20 years in Washington other than making a lot of friends in the press."

And, anyway, people aren't really looking for experience this time around. They are looking for change. The old man isn't going to win this one.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 20, 2008 2:22 PM

Tim K: Hillary Clinton - unlike your friend Obama - has run a competitive race against a Republican opponent. Although she easily dispatched Rick Lazio on election day 2000, that was considered to be a close contest all the way through.

That is the biggest fairy tale I ever heard.

Once Giuliani dropped out of that race it was obvious Hillary had it in the bag. IIRC the Republicans had a hard time finding someone willing to step in and take the hit. "A close contest"? Please.

Posted by Lucy | February 20, 2008 2:25 PM

Looking over the race, how much of Obama’s criticism of Clinton have been of the nature that would harm her and the party’s chances in the general election? I seriously cannot think of any.

This is a joke, right?

Obama's toast. He'll win the nomination, but he's going down in November. He is stumbling just as it's becoming too late for us to do anything about it.

"Obama the plagiarizer" will be the new "Gore is a fibber." Michelle Obama is a huge liability; her remarkably stupid comments from the other day will not go away. The media, which had been propping Obama up, has begun to turn on him.

Why is it that we so often manage to pick such lousy candidates? This will make it three elections in a row that we lose because of the weakness of our candidates. I guess people thought the general election was in the bag, and that we could just nominate whoever we wanted to, so we picked the guy who made us feel warm and fuzzy. Stupid.

Get used to these words: President John McCain. It WILL happen.

Posted by Jason | February 20, 2008 2:34 PM

To me the success of the Obama candidacy, which is so inspiring to so many people, is a symptom of America's problems rather than a solution to them. It is clear to me that people have become so disillusioned with the state of the country that they are willing to believe almost anything. I wouldn't go as far as to call it mass political hysteria, but it sure reeks of desperation.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 2:45 PM

@Jason: Who's the good candidate we should be nominating? Edwards?

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 2:47 PM

I wish I could bet people like Jason. I'd be a wealthy man. Maybe it's time to visit the internets betting sites.

Thanks to Matt for taking a swipe at Krugman who should know better.

A smart conservative, Charles Krauthammer uses Hillary men Krugman and James Wolcott and Joe Klein, etc. against Obama and his enthusiastic supporters.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obama_casts_his_spell.html

Krauthammer predicts:

Obama has an astonishingly empty paper trail. He's going around issuing promissory notes on the future that he can't possibly redeem. Promises to heal the world with negotiations with the likes of Iran's President Ahmadinejad. Promises to transcend the conundrums of entitlement reform that require real and painful trade-offs and that have eluded solution for a generation. Promises to fund his other promises by a rapid withdrawal from an unpopular war -- with the hope, I suppose, that the (presumed) resulting increase in American prestige would compensate for the chaos to follow.

Democrats are worried that the Obama spell will break between the time of his nomination and the time of the election, and deny them the White House. My guess is that he can maintain the spell just past Inauguration Day. After which will come the awakening. It will be rude.

I think it will be a rude awakening for conservatives as the country starts - very gradually at first - to shift to the left. Obama is just an expression of this phenomenon.

The country is pretty liberal, it's just that the superstructure is dysfunctional and doesn't show it. Obama's message is simply "let's get to work" and it's resonating.

I do agree with Krauthammer that if things get really bad in Iraq, the President will be blamed even if they try to blame it on Bush.

Posted by Peter K. | February 20, 2008 2:53 PM

The Clinton campaign doesn't care about November. They don't care about the party. They don't care about the country. They care about Hillary and Bill Clinton.

I just hope this thing gets wrapped up before they manage to destroy the party by pitting the blue collar base and the progressive liberal wing of the party against each other.

Posted by TH | February 20, 2008 2:57 PM

Billary's ready to bend the Democratic Party over the sofa and ram it home.

Squeal like a pig!

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 3:01 PM

@Tim K: It is weird, and awfully suspicious, that so many people support the guy who's accomplished things legislatively, who's funded his campaign largely due to populist support, and who thinks Americans share more common ground than partisan differences.

Yes, Tim, it's probably that the whole country is crazy, but not you. That is definitely very likely.

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 3:04 PM

Tim K:

"I wouldn't go as far as to call it mass political hysteria, but it sure reeks of desperation."

You mean the Clinton campaign? What I've seen is that the Obama supporters have generally been polite and upbeat while Hillary supporters, such as yourself, have been rude and insulting and untrustworthy when it comes to reporting the facts.

The hositility on the Obama side is mostly a justified reaction to the nonstop BS emanating from certain Hillary supporters.

Looking forward to March 5th and enjoying some good Schadenfreude.

Posted by Peter K. | February 20, 2008 3:05 PM

With regard to the Brooks column, just remember that is a conservative and a Republican. I respect the man as a pundit. He's got a good head on his shoulders and is usually quite fair even when he holds an opposing opinion. But all you're seeing now is conservative pundits like Brooks shifting their focus from Clinton, the less palatable of the two Democratic candidates, to Obama, the likely nominee. If you are a columnist that supports McCain, you would naturally side with Obama in the primaries, as he does have more appeal to moderates and Republicans. But now that the primaries are nearing an end, the focus is McCain vs. Obama and it's time to go after Obama.

I don't think anyone supporting Obama has illusions about the barrage he'll face between now and November. The question is whether it will stick. If voters didn't buy the experience argument in the primary, what makes anyone think enough of them will buy it in the general election? And in the contest for the general election, Obama will be much more focused on policy because there are numerous, stark differences in policy between him and McCain. So the argument that his speeches are empty will begin to evaporate.

Posted by TH | February 20, 2008 3:05 PM

but it sure reeks of desperation.

Timmeh...does posting crap on a blog 13-14 hours a day reek of desperation too or just of unemployment?

Posted by Jose | February 20, 2008 3:06 PM

And, um...which Senator ducked the telecom immunity vote, again?

Why, that would be Senator Obama - who left to campaign before the final vote! You could look it up.

Posted by Susie from Philly | February 20, 2008 3:08 PM

@Tim K: Also, it's really weird that you just spouted some rhetoric instead of responding to either of the comments linking to Obama's legislative accomplishments. I never would have expected that from you.

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 3:10 PM

Tim K: Billary's ready to bend the Democratic Party over the sofa and ram it home.

Squeal like a pig!

Revolting.

Posted by Lucy | February 20, 2008 3:22 PM

Oops. Let me try this again:

Tim K: Billary's ready to bend the Democratic Party over the sofa and ram it home.

Squeal like a pig!

REVOLTING.

Posted by Lucy | February 20, 2008 3:24 PM

Josey:

You've yet to make an intelligent comment and you have a the audacity to call what I write "crap"?

moff:

You call what I write rhetoric?

No, this is rhetoric:

"That moment when we shed our fears and our doubts. When we don't settle for what the cynics tell us we have to accept. Because cynicism is a sorry sort of wisdom. When we instead join arm in arm and decide we are going to remake this country, block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state. That's what hope is."

That's rhetoric. And I'd be embarrassed If I ever let myself be taken in by empty platitudes such as those.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 3:25 PM

Lucy:

In case you were too dense to figure it out, I wasn't the one who wrote that.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 3:27 PM

"Obama the plagiarizer" will be the new "Gore is a fibber."

No it won't. The "victim" of the "plagiarism" doesn't think it was plagiarism and is a huge Obama supporter.

I do think McCain and the Republicans are going to exploit Mrs. Obama's statements about her newfound pride in the U.S.

Here's hoping she's more careful, and patriotic, in future speeches.

On the other hand, she's not a drug addict, stepford wife, heiress - so she's got that going for her.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 3:27 PM

Obama's toast. He'll win the nomination, but he's going down in November. He is stumbling just as it's becoming too late for us to do anything about it.

Of course Clinton couldn't have done any better, but at least she would have had some great excuses for why she lost (she won all the important states, the electoral college doesn't count, etc).

Posted by fp | February 20, 2008 3:28 PM

Tim K, it's obvious that you're a deluded fool, most likely unemployed, and for unknown reasons, extremely anti-social. Yes, you're the dregs.

Let me guess: short, fat, bald, and "small"?

Posted by Susan | February 20, 2008 3:30 PM

will be we can finally have a discussion of the serious vulnerabilities of Barack Obama's candidacy without people being able to deflect that charges by hiding behind Hillary's flaws.

WTF? Is this some kind of weird slip? 'Well, we've decided on the Democratic party nominee. Now let's get to work doing the MSM and Repub's job taking him apart. Ho Hum.' Laying the groundwork for Hillary in 2012? If Obama wins the nomination, we should start talking about McCain's flaws, bonehead.

On another note, yes, Hillary is battle-tested and that probably would have come in handy against McCain. But Obama is going to wipe the floor with McCain. He's not even going to have to get his hands dirty. It's the Repubs who've nominated the stinker this time. (actually, the frequently nominate a stinker, but their instinct is to get him elected not figure out what his flaws are like our great friend Tim K here)

Posted by mpowell | February 20, 2008 3:30 PM

SoCalJustice:

Plagiarism isn't the problem of Obama, it's lack of authenticity. The whole rationale for his candidacy is empty rhetoric, and now we learn it's not even his own.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 3:31 PM

@Susie: You mean the final vote Clinton missed too?

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 3:33 PM

Susan:

Those comments say a lot more about you than they do about me.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 3:34 PM

Tim K,

Isn't amazing that Hillary is losing to such a loser?

I mean, just what does that make her?

(sorry, but in Clinton/Tim K math, even losing to a loser does not make you a winner).

So Obama has all these "problems." Ever think that Hillary has quite a few more, which is why she's getting clobbered despite major political advantages?

Of course not.

Enjoy working for McCain.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 3:37 PM

mpowell:

It wasn't a slip. If Democrats cannot even see the clear flaws in their own candidate how could they possibly go about dealing with them and mounting a credible defense? As of right now most Obama supporters are completely deluded about their candidate.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 3:38 PM

Those comments say a lot more about you than they do about me.

They say that I don't much care for short, fat, bald, loudmouth guys who compensate for the deficiencies by seeing if they can be the moron who shouts the loudest.

When was the last time you were with a woman, Tim?

Posted by Susan | February 20, 2008 3:39 PM

In case you were too dense to figure it out, I wasn't the one who wrote that.

But it sounded just like you! By the way, where's your pal frankly0 these days?

Posted by Lucy | February 20, 2008 3:39 PM

When was the last time you were with a woman, Tim?

Timmeh prefers the company of hermaphrodites. Does that count?

Posted by Jose | February 20, 2008 3:42 PM

If Democrats cannot even see the clear flaws in their own candidate how could they possibly go about dealing with them and mounting a credible defense?

Tim, let's see.

You saw the "clear flaws." So you decided to back someone who's "clear flaws" you could not see, and, well, you both are losing in a huge way.

You're not exactly the best candidate to be throwing out the word "deluded" in a credible way.

Although, apparently you are an expert on it, so who knows.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 3:42 PM

Susan:

I'm not going to lower myself to your level by describing the kind of woman you clearly are. Except to say you obviously have no class.

And it's pretty ignorant in this day and age to assume I'm heterosexual, especially amongst such progressive company. Besides the fact it's a tasteless question.

How would you like it if somebody asked you the last time you were with a woman?

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 3:43 PM

@Tim K: Actually, homeboy, I have a dictionary right here, conveniently, and "rhetoric" is, among other things "verbal communication: discourse" -- which is the sense in which I meant it.

But again, you evade the larger point, which is that:

1) You said: Obama "lacks significant political accomplishments with the sole exception of his presidential campaign so far."

2) plum and I both posted links detailing some of his political accomplishments.

3) And you ignored our responses, instead replying with three sentences about your feelings, whether you want to call them rhetoric or not.

And that's your m.o.: Say something crazy, ignore any responses, repeat. And occasionally whine that no one appreciates your point of view. It's not that you're a Clinton fan, buddy -- it's that you haven't demonstrated any ability to engage in rational discourse.

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 3:45 PM

Ok, Tim: Hermaphrodites it is. My apologies.

Posted by Susan | February 20, 2008 3:46 PM

If Democrats cannot even see the clear flaws in their own candidate how could they possibly go about dealing with them and mounting a credible defense?

I feel pretty good about my defense of Obama. The question is whether you're going to join that defense or keep doing the Republican's job of attacking it. It's not up to you to come up with Obama's campaign strategy. None of us are campaign insiders. But we do have some kind of influence on what memes propogate around the blogosphere. Right now you're indicating that you want them to be negative.

Posted by mpowell | February 20, 2008 3:53 PM

mpowell:

Well I'll tell you many people on this blog aren't making it any easier to like the Obama campaign or his supporters.

There will be plenty of time between now and the beginning of the general election for everyone to come together around the Democratic nominee. But I think it would be lacking in integrity for me or other conscientious objectors to the Obama movement attempt to feign an over-night conversion to the Obama cult of personality when serious reservations still exist over his ability to standup to the coming Republican onslaught and govern as he is promising he will.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 3:59 PM

moff:

Could you be any more disingenuous if you tried. Trust me if you showed any willingness to enter into a balanced and rational discussion I would be more than willing to participate.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 4:02 PM

@Tim K: Do you need a cookie or something? You made a claim. Evidence was presented to the contrary. Even now, you have yet to respond to that evidence.

That's all it takes to have a rational discussion: an ability to make and defend a point consistently, instead of changing the subject ("You're disingenuous!" "Obama's popularity seems like mass hysteria!"). What else do you think is involved?

Man, if all the Obama supporters have made it hard for you to like him, I've gotta say that you by yourself have underlined all the reasons I don't like Clinton. You're inconsistent, you're whiny, and if the rules don't favor you, you ignore them or say they should be different. And you project all of these things onto anyone who disagrees with your totally unfounded point of view.

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 4:16 PM

Well I'll tell you many people on this blog aren't making it any easier to like the Obama campaign or his supporters.

Please, Tim. You've made it clear that you have never liked him.

No one's trying to persuade you. Why bother? The dead enders are going down with the ship. The ones with a shred of decency will kick off the dust, lick their wounds, and try to defeat McCain.

Then there's you, Ruth Kaplan, katie, etc... who prefer to help McCain.

So be it.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 4:19 PM

moff:

Honestly, link to a shorter synopsis of Obama's legislative achievements and I'll read them. Personally I don't expect other commenters to wade through pages of material. I do know that Obama has only sponsored two bills in the Senate, one that urges the US govt to do something about the DRC, and another to name a post office.

You're just plain wrong that my point of view is unfounded. I think Obama is thin on experience, and that's a widely held view. I think Obama is over-selling is own ability to achieve the kind of transformative change he promises. And I think him and his wife are prone to foolish political errors that have so far not be scrutinized fully by an adoring media, but soon will be. You don't want to think of those as rational arguments because you don't happen to agree with them. And that's fine.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 4:24 PM

SoCal:

That's just a false statement. I've followed Barack Obama since before he entered the Senate and before he made that wonderful address to the 2004 Democratic convention in Boston. It was only when he announced his campaign for the presidency after only 2 years in the US Senate that my opinion began to change. I think it showed an amazing level of presumptuousness, and his speeches of late have only reinforced that view. I'm not saying I think he's a bad person, and I recognize that all politicians have flaws ... including Hillary Clinton. But I also don't happen to believe he's uniquely remarkable or special, and I don't think his candidacy is historic except for the fact he happens to be black. And that's extraordinary, by the way. It's a reason to be very proud of your country... but it's not enough of a reason by itself to elect somebody president.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 4:30 PM

No, this is rhetoric:

"That moment when we shed our fears and our doubts. When we don't settle for what the cynics tell us we have to accept. Because cynicism is a sorry sort of wisdom. When we instead join arm in arm and decide we are going to remake this country, block by block, precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state. That's what hope is."

That's rhetoric.

Yes, it is, and it's damn good rhetoric. Rhetoric is what gets you elected. Rhetoric is what founded the Peace Corps. Rhetoric helped us win World War II and gave us hope during the Civil War. What do we remember about most of our great Presidents? Their rhetoric. On Memorial Day, when you hear the Gettysburg Address, do you sniff and say 'it's just empty words?' Was Lincoln just a stovepipe hat with no cattle?

It's Rovian and batshit crazy to insist that Obama's ability to give good, inspiring, engaging speeches is some kind of liability, or implies that he's merely an 'empty' candidate.

Posted by Persia | February 20, 2008 4:32 PM

Sorry about the screwy HTML there folks, itals were supposed to end after "that's rhetoric."

Posted by Persia | February 20, 2008 4:36 PM

So Tim K,

You used to like Obama, but you think McCain will be a better president.

Good for you.

Posted by SoCalJusitce | February 20, 2008 4:41 PM

@Tim K: Fine, Tim. You think Obama's thin on experience, but you're not interested in having to do a bunch of reading to determine if that's the case. After all, you "know."

Just like you "know" that he's only sponsored two bills. Wait...check it out:

GovTrack: Barack Obama

It's at the bottom of the page, and it's short.

(And before you attack him based on any of the numbers or ratings there, you probably want to check out Clinton's stats.)

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 4:45 PM

The Democratic primary has been about style, not substance, since the very beginning, and neither candidate (Obama or Clinton) has done anything to really change it.

The difference is, Obama is running on the "politics of hope" while Clinton is running on the "politics of fear". The world is to dangerous ... we need a president ready on Day 1. The republican attack machine is to scary ... we need someone who has been vetted and tested. An Obama presidency would be a 'role of the dice' and a 'risk'.

It's not that Democratic voters want to hope, they're just tired of being afraid.

Posted by dirknowitzki | February 20, 2008 4:54 PM

I think it showed an amazing level of presumptuousness

Says the supporter of someone who ran for the U.S. Senate in a state she never lived, never having previsouly held, let alone ran for, any elected office.

Tim K./H. Clinton - the "anti-presumptuousness" ticket.

You are kidding, right?

Or will you just really try to say anything negative and hope it sticks?

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 4:57 PM

Hillary's counterattacks demonstrate not only desperation, but a povetry of imagination resulting from her faith in mark penn style politics. This crowd's model for politics is selling soap in sound bites. They really think that is the way to control the American electorate. And they have sold a generation of American politicians that their corruption works. No doubt it's a terrific way to extract huge consulting fees, but basically it's garbage, posing as meat-ball science. All penn has done has been to dress up his neo-con ideas with a few fancy numbers. Worse, he has absolutely no idea how to help her once his little 15 second sound bite approach has failed. Fine performer that he was, you wouldn't hire Elvis to write a string quartet, and that's what mark penn is confronted with now. This ain't Nashville, sonny boy

Posted by Dick Mulliken | February 20, 2008 5:00 PM

Tim K: I recognize that all politicians have flaws ... including Hillary Clinton.

How fucking magnanimous of you, Timmeh.

Posted by Jose | February 20, 2008 5:00 PM

Moff:

"Barack Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 120 haven't made it out of committee (Poor) and 1 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers). Obama has co-sponsored 545 bills during the same time period (Average, relative to peers)."

My mistake for being imprecise. He's been the sole sponsor of two bills THAT HAVE BECOME LAW. Who cares if he has 120 bills stuck in committee. Bills in committee don't get results for people any more than speeches.

SoCal:

I don't think McCain should be president. I've already said I'd support Obama because it's the policies that really matter in this election. However, I do find McCain much more plainspoken and humble and I find that appealing.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 5:07 PM

@Tim K: Are you lazy or what? I even warned you to check out Clinton's stats before you went where you just went.

"Hillary Clinton has sponsored 354 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 307 haven't made it out of committee (Extremely Poor) and 2 were successfully enacted (Average, relative to peers)."

That's your girl, with four more years in the Senate to boot.

Response?

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 5:13 PM

Persia:

"Rhetoric is what founded the Peace Corps. Rhetoric helped us win World War II and gave us hope during the Civil War."

No, rhetoric is not what helped us win World War II. Young men giving their lives in battle, men and women working in factories, and effective organization and planning is what wins wars... not words. Blood, sweat and tears... not speeches.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 5:16 PM

Tim K,

I think it's enough that you're "anti-presumptuousness" yet a die-hard Hillary supporter.

That pretty much sums it up, and makes it quite understandable why you'd spend so much time attacking Obama for any and every thing (even if it's something that can be said equally about Hillary), and then attacking his voters as braindead moonies who just aren't smart enough to see the awesomeness that is Team Hillary.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 5:16 PM

Moff:

It isn't just quantity it is also quality. Clinton has passed a bill extending employment insurance. Has Obama?

SoCalJustice:

It's not my problem if you can't handle criticism of Saint Barack.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 5:20 PM

Classic.

I'm not the one with the problem, Tim.

The candidate that should be winning happens to be ... winning. I'm happy with how this election is going. I don't find that problematic.

Witnessing your hypocrisy is not a problem either. Just a little sad.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 5:23 PM

"If Obama had suffered a string of ten humiliations like Clinton has, I can't imagine people on tv would still be talking up his supposed firewalls." -southpaw

Barack Obama's momentum makes my head swim. I can only imagine what Hillary Clinton and her people must be thinking. I mean these bozos actually planned to pull off this primary. But just exactly how remains a mystery. Political junkies will write about the rise and fall of Hillary for decades, what not to do – "garbage, posing as meat-ball science." (Thanks love it.) And, the Clinton apologists on CNN, what future successful political conclusion do they envision for Hillary? My feeling is they just don't want to incur the Clinton's wrath. That's understandable: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 20, 2008 5:32 PM

"Thespian"? "Janus-faced"? that's hysterical. The guy looks like the timeless, vaporous mass-murderer from an old "Star Trek". The next Hillary surrogate should try these Obama insults:

"A benighted Macedonian"

A rooting, abortive hog"

"A stercoraceous, streetcorner Preacher Man"

"A nebulous Negro of Nothingness"

"An unholy Whore of Peoria"

Posted by Trevor | February 20, 2008 5:35 PM

"Plus her campaign fell just short of accusing them of racism a few weeks ago.

Yeah, nothing at all that could damage her in the general election. Give me a break."

This is true. A lot of the attacks on Hillary were in response to her attacks, but both sides have given the right things they could be reading from in September and October. Not that they need, any help, mind you.

The GOP on the other hand in its hatred of McCain has given the Democrats almost zilch to use against him in the Fall.

"Blood, sweat and tears... not speeches."

HRC's one out of three, I guess.

"I do find McCain much more plainspoken and humble and I find that appealing."

Whereas Obama is giving lectures on Levinas? Maybe it's just that McCain doesn't make anyone feel ignorant or inarticulate.

Posted by Colatina | February 20, 2008 5:44 PM

LMAO @ Trevor...that's hilarious.

Posted by Jay | February 20, 2008 5:47 PM

Colatina:

Maybe it's just that McCain doesn't make anyone feel ignorant or inarticulate.

Are you speaking for yourself? I'm just not impressed by people who make it sounds like the country is in desperate need for their, and only their, leadership. Obama claims that "there is such a thing as being too late"... too late for what? Too late for Barack Obama to become president? The "fierce urgency of now"? What's so fiercely urgent about Barack Obama becoming president? When Dr. Martin Luther King used those words he was referring to important issues of civil rights, not personal aggrandizement.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 6:08 PM

@Tim K: Calling it "a bill extending employment insurance" is accurate, but a little broad, given that it's specifically for 9/11 victims. Has she passed a bill to help out in Africa?

Anyway, further research indicates that the site I linked to earlier may not be accurate -- sorry about that. This post at Obsidian Wings has a pretty useful breakdown of the bills sponsored by both of them that have become law, as well as the amendments they've sponsored that have become law. I know it's too long for you to read, though, so I won't worry about it. But in the time she and Obama have been in Congress together, she's gotten three of her own post office bills passed into law, plus one on getting a bust displayed.

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 6:09 PM

moff:

I have the time now (work is dead) so I'll read it right now. See, I'm not completely mindless and unreasonable.

Oh and I'm aware all Senators have these post offices type bills and other trivialities. But ultimately this is kind of silly, and I never really meant into get into a contest of naming bills. But for all the talk of Hillary's blind ambition at least she served a full term in the US Senate before starting to run for President. There have actually been articles in the press criticizing Patty Solis Doyle insisting on delaying until her re-election was over before laying the groundwork for a bid. This apparently gave Obama a head start. Barack Obama, on the other hand, began running for President less than two years from the day he was sworn in.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 6:17 PM

@Tim: No, I never meant to get into a contest of naming bills either. It's just easy to get sidetracked. My only point, in fact, was that to say Obama has no significant political accomplishments is inaccurate. It's hard to judge even the material I linked to, because of how many twists and turns any bill goes through, and it would be silly, in my estimation, to omit all mention of his work in the Illinois Legislature.

Anyway, have a nice night, man. Good talking to you today.

Posted by moff | February 20, 2008 6:43 PM

Why didn't Clinton run for President in 2004? If more years in Congress = better Presidential candidate, then why hasn't the Democratic race boiled down to Biden vs. Dodd?

Posted by Adam Villani | February 20, 2008 6:50 PM

moff:

Any time, have a good night.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 6:52 PM

Adam:

That's a very good question, Adam. Why didn't Hillary Clinton run for president in 2004? As I recall she was the early favorite of Democratic primary voters at the time as well, and there certainly wasn't an inspirational Barack Obama type candidate to stand in the way. Certainly a candidate of blind ambition may have seen that as their best chance to be elected, who knows. Just maybe she knew she wasn't ready and needed more time to become prepared. Maybe she felt 3 years in the Senate wasn't quite enough. It's at least something worth considering.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 6:59 PM

Tim K,

Amazing. You have some nerve calling other people cultists and/or moonies.

But I'll give you credit, your skills as a revisionist are pretty impressive.

Just maybe she knew she wasn't ready and needed more time to become prepared. Maybe she felt 3 years in the Senate wasn't quite enough.

Unbelievable.

She didn't run for President in 2004 because in 2000, as a carpetbagging (see: presumptuousness) Senatorial candidate with well-known presidential ambitions (see: blind ambition), she was forced to promise, over and over, that if the good people of NY elected her to the U.S. Senate, she would serve one full term.

She knew from the beginning that she was out for 2004. It certainly was not to gain any seasoning and "become prepared."

After all, she's currently running on "35 years of experience," right? And you somehow want people to believe that "31 years of experience" wouldn't cut it? Thank god for that extra 4 years of preparedness. Certainly hasn't helped her manage a decent campaign, though.

It's at least something worth considering.

Jesus. Only if you're either mentally challenged, a blatant propagandist or have no access to google. Since you're on a blog, you have google. (search terms: "In 2000, you promised to serve a full 6-year term" or "hillary 2000 promise to serve full term).

You really are Mr. Kool-Aid. This is beyond sad now.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 7:52 PM

SoCal:

I think what's reasonably clear by now is that you have no intention of engaging in any kind of sensible debate. At least without venturing into petty, personal side-jabs that have no relevance and undercut any seriousness the rest of your post may have had.

Bill Clinton promised to serve out his full as Arkansas Governor in 1990. Those sorts of pledges are a dime a dozen as you probably know very well. It's not unheard of to ignore them.

The point you totally ignore is that Barack Obama in fact did beginning running for president a mere two years into his senatorial career. Of all the senators who have run for president can you name one who's shown the same temerity? Even John Edwards served 4 years before running.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 8:00 PM

Sensible debate?

With you?

A guy who came here to insult people because they don't support your candidate?

Classic.

Honestly, I thought your response would be "at least Hillary proved she can keep a promise."

It would have been much, much better than "oh my, another person who won't talk about the issues in a serious way" after you make a point of insulting everyone. I guess it didn't occur to you.

Maybe if you apologized to everyone for insulting them for having different opinions than you, and apologized for lying about your candidate, than I would consider a "sensible debate" with you.

But only maybe, because you've demonstrated such amazing disingenuousness, I'm not sure what could be gained from it.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 8:43 PM

SoCal:

If anything I've done a lot less insulting than you and other Obama supporters. I question Obama's ability to win the election and deliver change, not his sincerity or character. The kinds of attacks you all level at Hillary Clinton are vicious and frankly beyond the pale in many cases.

If you bothered to read this comment section with any degree of objectivity at all you would find that the kind of venomous bile that has come my way is much harsher than anything I have ever said on here.

I don't need to be lectured by you (of all people, it's pretty funny though) about high standards of debate.

Posted by Tim K | February 20, 2008 8:59 PM

Tim K,

Actually, you do need a lecture. Badly.

I honestly don't care if it's from me or someone else, but your perception is scarily off base.

And your blatant dishonesty, from "Although she easily dispatched Rick Lazio on election day 2000, that was considered to be a close contest all the way through" to "Just maybe she knew she wasn't ready and needed more time to become prepared. Maybe she felt 3 years in the Senate wasn't quite enough" is starting to look sociopathic.

You just make shit up, Tim. There is no basis in fact for either of those assertions. It is pure fantasy. You have no right to utter the phrase "high standards of debate."

I certainly made no such claim, but at least I don't go around blatantly lying about the past.

You are one nervy kid. Sensible debate? With an obvious and easily discernible prevaricator? What's the point.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 20, 2008 9:11 PM

By my calculation, Tim K, aka 'Timmeh', spends close to 15 hours a day posting on this blog. Thank God it's a virtual situation. I fear the guy is some kind of psychopath.

Posted by Wendy | February 20, 2008 9:29 PM