The Paper of Record

Maureen Dowd writes:

Hillary says Obama is “all hat and no cattle.” You’d think she’d want to avoid cattle metaphors, so as not to rile up those with a past beef about her sketchy windfall on cattle futures. She could simply say he’s all cage and no bird.

From that, I concluded that Clinton had said that Barack Obama was all hat and no cattle at some point. In fact (via Nyhan and Somerby) what happened was:

"There's a great saying in Texas," she said, "all hat and no cattle. Well after seven years of George Bush, we need a lot less hat and lot more cattle."

That's not really the same, now, is it?

Comments

My reaction upon first hearing that statement was that she was pretty clearly alluding to Obama.

Posted by bcamarda | February 19, 2008 9:58 AM

Well, she's clearly making a reference to Obama here, arguing that she has more cattle and less hat than him.

So it may not be exactly correct, but for the purposes of an opinion column, it's close enough. Others (especially Krugman) have made much much worse errors on that page.

Posted by Mike | February 19, 2008 9:59 AM

Ah, Matthew. Listen to bcamarda and Mike because they are right. Reading it in the CONTEXT, it's obvious she was talking about Barack because after seven years of Bush, we are going to have Barack as our new President. And she's referring to Bush as having "a lot less hat and lot more cattle" than our new President Barack. Pretty simple right? What next are you going to tell me? That Bill wasn't talking about Barack when he called Barack a fairy tale? LOL.

Posted by TLM | February 19, 2008 10:04 AM

Mike:
Krugman as made worse errors? Can I have some of what you are smoking? Listen, Krugman is an unabashed liberal. Do you really think he hates Obama? I'd guarantee he doesn't. He just wants people to have their eyes open going in. After all, no one is perfect. Heck, Obama has Austin Goolsbee(who isn't exactly a liberal) as his top economic advisor. So don't give us the "Krugman is an Obama-hater" nonsense. His complaints have substance, unlike the rest of the pundit class at the NY Times.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 19, 2008 10:07 AM

People still read Maureen Dowd?!!!?!

And then they believe that her quotations are fair and accurate?!!?!

Wow.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2008 10:08 AM

The video makes this perfectly clear. It was an implicit, but clear, reference to Obama.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=5qy0uZvPhwA

Posted by Oaktown | February 19, 2008 10:09 AM

Dowd's point stands. But she didn't realise that Hillary's phrase is a lot better than hers because it rhymes ('at' 'att').

Posted by M | February 19, 2008 10:13 AM

Listening to the speech as she delivered it, I certainly thought the reference was to Obama. The twist of only actually mentioning Bush was pretty clever, but the point had been made.

Posted by stuck in 200 | February 19, 2008 10:13 AM

When I watched Clinton's remarks, I thought it was a shot a BHO. That said, Al nails it.

Posted by Jeff S. | February 19, 2008 10:13 AM

Wait... is Matt defending Hillary??

Posted by right | February 19, 2008 10:14 AM

I saw it live. It was obvious to everyone in the room that she meant Barack Obama was composed of a hat but lacked the corresponding cattle.

Posted by V. | February 19, 2008 10:22 AM

Odd that Matt would criticize Dowd for correctly interpreting Clinton's statement, but he seems to have no problem with Dowd dragging the dusty old cattle futures scandal out of mothballs.

This is, of course, a major problem for Clinton although not really her fault. The right wing and much of the media have incredibly long memories for scandals involving the Clintons. Acknowledging this fact is often interpreted as buying into to Hilary hatred, but it's just political realism. Complaining that it's unfair, while true, is beside the point.

Posted by Led | February 19, 2008 10:25 AM

It doesn't matter if Obama's name wasn't mentioned. The implied post-Bush choice between hat (Obama) and cattle (HRC) is the entire purpose of the utterance. Dowd bent the precise truth a bit, but it's intact.

More interesting to me is that the rest of Dowd's point is gobbledygook.

Posted by Martin | February 19, 2008 10:25 AM

Is there a way to interpret that other than as a warning against electing Obama?

Posted by aleks | February 19, 2008 10:26 AM

V, did you see it live? I was actually in the room when she said it, and everyone knew she was talking about Obama.

Posted by TLM | February 19, 2008 10:30 AM

All hat and no cattle? Isn't that...plagiarized??

Posted by ChuckE | February 19, 2008 10:31 AM

"all cage and no bird"

I've never heard that phrase and for the life of me I can't figure out what it means. Does Mo Do own a canary? Did she used to work in a mine?

Posted by An Outhouse | February 19, 2008 10:39 AM

Maureen Dowd and Jonah Goldberg would make a fantastic couple. The Kaus-Coulter of the East Coast!

Posted by jvoe | February 19, 2008 10:40 AM

"all cage and no bird".

The only reference I can see is to that Robin Williams / Nathan Lane classic "The Bird Cage", or as the French would have it, La Cage Aux Falles. You know, a movie all about gay men pretending to be straight. Dowd does like to write columns implying Democratic candidates are less than manly.

Posted by daveh | February 19, 2008 10:49 AM

I thought she was ripping on Obama. She was saying -- we don't need another W in the Whitehouse; I'm not like W; and he who shall not be named is like W. It's a lame argument, bc Obama is unlike W in practically every respect. But that's an argument she's been making in a number of different ways for a while now.

Posted by John D. | February 19, 2008 10:50 AM

Yes, actually, it is. Obviously she was referring to Obama. That was my reaction anyway.

Posted by DRinOH | February 19, 2008 10:57 AM

Nothing compared to this Jeff Zeleny muckjob:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1203435504-uflrIkEXmek/NEvkq94W5A
"Clinton Camp Says Obama Plagiarized in Speech"

But we don't even get to read what line was allegedly plagarized!

Posted by dan k | February 19, 2008 11:01 AM

Uh, yes, Matt, she is referencing Obama. Open up the quote a little more to see the context.

You can't be this naive, can you?

Posted by Jimmy James | February 19, 2008 11:01 AM

Geez, Matt. Don't you realize? Hillary is EVIL. If this story cuts against her it must be perfectly accurate.

Posted by Rob Mac | February 19, 2008 11:04 AM

Of course it's about Obama, y'all. But it's very different to suggest that you're more cattle than someone than it is to directly state that someone is "all hat, no cattle." And really, Dowd's words sure did imply that Clinton said it the latter way.

Posted by Jake | February 19, 2008 11:06 AM

Jake beat me to it and nails it right on the head. MoDo is misquoting, pure and simple.

In fact, if you read the context, it's not so pellucidly clear that it wasn't just an attack on Bush -- I mean, of course, everything HRC says these days is implicitly making the case for her over Obama (and vice-versa), but her remarks could certainly be fairly interpreted as being against Bush, not Obama.

here's the full transcript:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/us/politics/12text-clinton.html

BTW, to me the biggest issue with MoDo is her dragging out the whole cattle futures bullshit again. God, how tired and pointless is that? MoDo continues to disgrace herself and the Times, but then again, does anyone still read her trash?

Posted by Glenn | February 19, 2008 11:14 AM

I read Maureen Dowd's review of Knocked Up, which was witty and insightful and proved that she really is a talented gossip columnist who's simply out of her league writing about anything else (perhaps an anti-feminist plant to trivialize women columnists, certainly an effective one). In this case, however, she seems to have correctly interpreted Clinton's comment if only because calling Obama the new Bush is the only possible thing it could have meant.

Posted by aleks | February 19, 2008 11:15 AM

"You're just an empty cage girl
If you kill the bird"
- Tori Amos, "Crucify"

That doesn't really seem like the kind of metaphor MoDo wants to drag up (much less Hillary!).

also "heh"

and "indeed"

Posted by dbt | February 19, 2008 11:20 AM

Jake, she did directly state Obama is all hat, no cattle if you understand the CONTEXT. Re-read it and I'm sure you'll understand. She's calling Obama the new Bush.

Posted by TLM | February 19, 2008 11:21 AM

H.Clinton has an annoying habit of repeating regional idioms ("They have a saying down in [insert state here]") to prove her folksiness. She's not folksy.

Posted by nbt | February 19, 2008 11:27 AM

Here is the the relevant poriton of Hillary's statement. "You know, there's a great saying in Texas -- you've all heard it -- 'all hat and no cattle.' Well, after seven years of George Bush, we need a lot less hat and a lot more cattle.

Texas needs a president who actually understands what it's going to take to turn the economy around, to get us universal health care, to save hardworking Americans homes from foreclosure at the abusive practices of the mortgage companies."

While you can argue an implied shot at Obama, I don't think Dowd and some of the commentors here are correct in saying that she said "Obama was all hat and no cattle." The more direct shot was at George Bush. She doesn't mention Obama at all, until almost the end of her long statement. All that said, Dowd's reference to the old cattle futures story was indeed a stretch, and a perfect illustration of her bizarre animus toward Clinton.

Posted by Winston | February 19, 2008 11:32 AM

Nobody should read MoDo for facts.

You read MoDo for snark.

Posted by John Petty | February 19, 2008 11:36 AM

What with trying to seat the FL/MA 'delegates and now attempting to turn Obama's pledged delegates, Hillary seems to be all Cheat and not enough Ballots.

Posted by otto | February 19, 2008 11:47 AM

Great Matthew, you've discovered only *now* that Maureen Dowd's detestation of Hillary Clinton long ago passed the threshold of psychological disorder?

Posted by Rich | February 19, 2008 12:02 PM

As much as I hate to defend Maureen Dowd, I too saw Hillary deliver this line and it sounded like a pretty clear allusion to Obama at the time.

Posted by Andrew | February 19, 2008 12:13 PM

Hillary is a plagiarist!!

"All Hat No Cattle" was a line used heavily by John Kerry in 2004.

Google it: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22all%20hat%20no%20cattle%22%20%22john%20kerry%22

Posted by debutaunt | February 19, 2008 12:19 PM

Clearly plagiarism:

"We've had insults, we've had anger from Republicans," Kerry said. "And I'll tell you why ... They can't talk about their record because it is a record of failure, so all they do is attack." Kerry said he had four words to say about Bush's convention speech: "All hat, no cattle." And -- in a move Democratic strategists have long suggested -- Kerry used the Bush administration's misrepresentations about Iraq as a base for arguing that the administration has misled American on other policy issues, too.

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2004/09/03/kerry/

Posted by debutaunt | February 19, 2008 12:22 PM

Heh...well, while I certainly think that the "plagiarism" charge is a fair application of HRC's own standards, one does have to realize that "all hat, no cattle" was not coined by John Kerry, either, it's a saying of long provenance in Texas (and elsewhere).

Posted by Glenn | February 19, 2008 12:27 PM

By the way, that was actually a very good column by Dowd. Her larger point-- well supported-- is that we don't know what psychological demons any of these people have and what messes they will get the country in as a result. It's the best defense I've ever seen for Dowd's psychoanalytic style of political coverage.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 19, 2008 12:36 PM

it sounded like a pretty clear allusion to Obama at the time.

Um, that's not the standard the Times employs, is it? It "sounded like a pretty clear allusion?" Christ.

(Not that it isn't a more-than-clear allusion, but when you say you're quoting someone, you should probably, you know, QUOTE them.)

I can write lame innuendo and break the rules of journalism 101 for FAR less $ than they pay Modo.

Posted by rb | February 19, 2008 1:44 PM

Jake, she did directly state Obama is all hat, no cattle if you understand the CONTEXT.

The fact that someone wrote this attempting to make a legitimate point just proves that this truly is the silly season. Do people think before they write anymore?

By the way, that was actually a very good column by Dowd.

The mind reels...

Posted by Rambuncle | February 19, 2008 2:13 PM

Want some proof that the Obamabots are cultlike? Jeeze, these comments went beyond even my low opinion of them. Here we have the execreable MoDo once again manufacturing quotes (remember, for example "who amongst us?) and the Obamabots defend her since, in Obamaese, all acts and staements by Clinton are evil and all anti-Clinton writing is Scripture. Clinton rules indeed. Worse, these Obama supporters are just as value free as wingnuts. Don't they know by now that biased, inaccurate journalism is bad regardless of the target? (Yes, this was a rhetorical question.) And that Obama is about to become MoDo's numero uno target? A few Obambi columns and this flock wiill change its tune.

Posted by Marlowe | February 19, 2008 2:48 PM

well, it's not exactly the same, but she is obviously offering herself as the 'lots of cattle' candidate vs. the 'all hat' candidate, who currently, would have to be Obama. but she didn't specifically call him that.

and please, various commentors, spare us the condescending lecture about how Obama supporters "dont' understand" what the media are going to try to do to Obama, we know full well, we just understand he's massively more prepared to deal with it and survive than Hillary Clinton is.

Posted by onceler | February 19, 2008 3:20 PM

well, just throwing my two cents in, but i was also at the don that night, and the implication was clear that obama would be all hat, as bush was all hat before him. if this opinion brands me a zealot, so be it.

Posted by eska | February 19, 2008 3:22 PM

(Not that it isn't a more-than-clear allusion, but when you say you're quoting someone, you should probably, you know, QUOTE them.)

I'm not a fan of Dowd and, as I said above, bringing up the cattle futures thing against Clinton is just obsessive nonsense, but there is nothing wrong with her description of what Clinton said. The words that she, you know, QUOTED are exactly accurate. The only question is who Clinton was applying those words to. Dowd said she was applying them to Obama. You say (and I would agree) that it's "more than clear" she was applying them to Obama. What's the problem?

Posted by Led | February 19, 2008 5:21 PM

Really, what's the issue here? It was dead clear who she was talking about - why the heck would she be making comments about George W. right now?

Imagine that Senator Obama gave a big speech about experience not being as important as sound judgment, and then saying, "and that's why Dick Cheney was a bad choice for VP." I think we'd all know who he was really referring to - it's a simple veiled reference. What is the point of pretending otherwise?

Posted by Vermando | February 19, 2008 7:17 PM

It's quite obvious from the quote that she's saying the following:

1) George Bush is all hat, no cattle.

2) We need a President who isn't that.

3) That's me - and by implication, not Obama.

That should be obvious to anyone with a native grasp of the English language.

Now, theoretically, you COULD argue that she was saying, instead of 3) above, "that's me OR Obama (or anyone, for that matter)".

What are the odds, folks?

This isn't rocket science.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 19, 2008 10:24 PM

You know Dowd waited all month for the chance to throw "cattle futures" at Hillary...

Posted by Nathan | February 19, 2008 11:06 PM