« Texas Results Map | Main | Over There »

Bradley Goes There

06 Mar 2008 04:26 pm

Bill Bradley, like all good basketball fans, is behind Barack Obama and he's bringing up the Presidential Library that dare not speak its name:

I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed.

As I wrote in my Los Angeles Times op-ed on the subject, Hillary Clinton has, to her credit, recognized that George W. Bush's undisclosed library fundraising is a problem and sponsored a bill to ensure that the next President of the United States can't do what Bush and her husband are doing. And Bill says that if Hillary wins, then he'll disclose. But that's too late -- the election is happening now, and people deserve to know now. We do know that "Denise Rich. Ms. Rich gave the foundation $450,000 while her fugitive ex-husband, Marc Rich, was seeking a pardon on tax-evasion and racketeering charges" and that other donors as of 2004 include various Wal-Mart-linked individuals and foundations, Haim Saban, Qatar, Kuwait, the Saudi Royal family, etc.

Share This

Comments (92)

Are you using Karl Rove tactics to suggest that Magic Johnson is not a "good basketball fan," in the hoop equivalent of attacking Max Cleland's patriotism? Pathetic.

She's been vetted. Didn't you get the memo?

Bill Bradley hates Democrats and he is just like Ken Starr and yes maybe the Clintons have something to hide but HEY! look over there! it's an angry black Muslim guy running for President!

where are the tax returns?

Woo-hoo!

Obama has taken the bait. Getting Obama to panic and go dirty in response to Ohio and Texas is the best possible outcome for Clinton and the Democratic Party.

Obambi is dead via suicide. Guess they weren't ready for prime-time after all.

this is good stuff. I hope they keep this up and keep banging away at this fairy tale that she has been vetted.

Sure, we all know about the scandal-prone 90s, but there is a slew of crap with which we are not familiar and it's amazing the election has gone on this long without people raising these points.

> Presidential Library Contributors
> Tax returns
> Foundation Donors
> Other business transactions
> Campaign fundraisers currently under investigation**

** that said, I am L.I.V.I.D that BHO has not done a 'till you drop' presser on Rezko. If that's all the GOP and Clinton has got, why the fuck not diffuse the situation now. I think he's being way to myopic about this.

...and Petey finally goes completely insane.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey in Pennsylvania finds Sen. Hillary Clinton has opened a 15 point lead over Sen. Barack Obama, 52% to 37%. Less than two weeks ago, Clinton's lead was just 4 points.

Spring comes, and Obama is melting...

I just want to say that this is the perfect plan for the Obama camp. Get Bradley and other surrogates out on these shows pressing the media to vet the Clintons. Let Obama stay above the fray.

Obama has been amazingly restrained in not letting his surrogates unload on the Clintons. Now is the time.

She is not a general election contender. There are just too many negative associations with her and Bill. There are too many connections to shady donors. Too many good bridges burned and too many illicit bridges built. Once people start thinking about the soap opera that was the Clinton administration, they are going to give the new guy the nod.

Another 6 or 7 weeks until Pennsylvania, Petey. Wouldn't bet my house on a poll released on a very good week for Clinton - or this far in advance, for that matter (see: Texas polls from early February as an example).

...and Petey finally goes completely insane.

Where have you been the last several months?

Petey,

my friend, you're dreaming if you think Clinton can convince the voters that Obama asking for openness and transparency is a losing argument.

The other side of that argument is this: voters finally realize that Clinton's campaign is based on a load of bullshit.

that she:

> doesnt have all the foreign policy cred she claims

> that she wasnt a co president as she claims

> that she's been extremely hypocritical blasting hedge funds and wall street types, meanwhile, those same people have made her and Bill Millionaires MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY MANY times over

> that she hasn't been an effective legislator. (can you name some legislative accomplishments of hers, of HERS and not Bill's?)

my friend, this could be the moment when people realize her campaign thus far has been a 700 person game of: change the story, blur the lines.

"..and Petey finally goes completely insane."

I think pretty much everyone who understands politics has understood for a while now that baiting Obama into going dirty was the best way for Clinton to fundamentally upend the race.

And I love how Team Obama is inept enough to go dirty right after a big primary day, rather than right before one like the actual pros do.

Now, they're going to be sitting there exposed for an entire month with their Teflon™ coating stripped away by their own choice.

As stated, woo-hoo!

Given Petey's track record so far, his support for Clinton is highly encouraging. For her opponent.

Bill Bradley is the very embodiment of the "wine-track" Democratic candidate that always loses, so why is his opinion on electability worth noting (except in a negative sense)? Bradley, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy should start a "Losers for Obama" club. I think the fact that Obama favors drivers licenses for illegal aliens will be a little more relevant in the general election than who gave money to Bill's library. Viva Hillary!

"Given Petey's track record so far..."

Petey is willing to match his Intrade profits this election cycle against yours any day of the week.

"various Wal-Mart-linked individuals and foundations"

OMG! Wal-Mart linked individuals! :O

Come on, folks, I loath the Clintons with the burning fury of a thousand exploding suns, and all that, but "Wal-Mart linked individuals"? That's really stretching for dirt.

Petey is willing to match his Intrade profits this election cycle against yours any day of the week.

Petey is also willing to bake an apple pie with a surprisingly citrus-dominated filling.

Grifting pennies on collective-wisdom markets (and posting in a way that really does come across like a booster on a Yahoo stock board) != prediction.

Media irony moment of the day:

Chris Matthews on Hardball wonders why Republican Charlie Crist should have any say in the Democratic race at the same time that Republican Chris Matthews does his daily hour of propaganda to try to make Barack Obama the nominee of the Democratic Party.

Petey,
You simplistic moron, it's a temporary bump, it will go down. And it doesn't matter if she wins Pennsylvania, she will not win it by 15 points or even 10 points.
Also, it seems that all those states she's been ignoring where more important than she thought due to Unpledged Add-On Delegates (a subset of the uncounted super delegates), they are awarded by winning states and guess who will receive the most - Obama. So there are actually fewer super delegates up for grab than Hillary hopes.

...and Petey finally goes completely insane.

Finally? Isn't this the guy who backed a candidate -- said he was the best closer, IIRC -- who got less than 4% of the vote in Nevada?

Don't feed the Petey.

Petey is willing to match his Intrade profits this election cycle against yours any day of the week.

Is Petey willing to put down even money on Clinton to win the nomination? 'Cause I got $50 on that action.

"Grifting pennies on collective-wisdom markets"

More than pennies...

"and posting in a way that really does come across like a booster on a Yahoo stock board"

I've actually been the opposite of pump 'n' dump. I've been willing to give away my secrets for free this cycle.

(In fact, I think the fact that I kept bragging about my no-risk take in selling Obama short in Michigan - since he wasn't on the ballot - ended up bringing other grifters into the market. That ended my monopoly on fleecing the suckers too early and cost me a few grand.)

Petey thinks a Clinton victory over Obama is as "inevitable" as a Dallas victory over Golden State was in last year's playoffs.

Petey has a track record of being embarrassingly wrong about politics and basketball.

Let's make a deal: First we talk about seeing what's in those Iran-Contra records the current occupant of the White House sealed upon stealing into said house, then we'll talk about opening other cans of worms.

Backing Edwards was NOT insane; it led to a very long-lasting & convincing effort to fake sanity.

Bill Bradley calling for transparency = Obama committing political suicide. I see...

Bill Bradley, name sounds familiar...oh yeah, he's the Democrat who wanted to repeal medicaid and make it harder for poor people to get health care.

This is dirty? Dirty is putting words in your opponent's mouth (Reagan) or fucking pretending to be a news agency while accusing your opponent of doing something that YOU (!) did (NAFTA) or comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson (why not John Edwards? He won SC in 2004) or pretending to care about "the voices" of FL/MI residents only after you've won those states (is there any doubt, at all, that Clinton would not want the delegates seated had she lost?) or passing pictures to the press asking "Hmm, I wonder what the GOP will do with this?" (probably what you just did) or aligning yourself with the Republican in an attempt to weaken your Democratic opponent.

Fair is pointing out that your opponent is breaking a tradition of transparency.

Folks really need to stop engaging with Petey. He's just a sad little troll who seeks attention by pretending to be a particularly idiotic pundit. If the internet had never been invented, Petey would spend all his time in his mom's cellar, bellowing cheesy political predictions to a blow-up doll with a disturbing resemblance to Eleanor Clift.

"Is Petey willing to put down even money on Clinton to win the nomination?"

I think Fair Value on Clinton right now is somewhere around 50. So I wouldn't bet Clinton at 50, since there's no profit in making bets unless the price is out of whack with Fair Value.

However, I have been accumulating a Clinton stake over the past week, at a price in the low-teens pre-OH/TX, and at a price in the mid-twenties post-OH/TX.

Don't feed the Petey.

Yeah. It's not like we should be having a discussion or anything. Isn't it time that MY closed this blog comment section to anyone who is not a complete Obama supporter and doesn't think HRC is Dick Cheney in drag?

Anyway, now that Obama has the support of Bill Bradley, I guess this thing is over. You can't stop the Bradley-mentum of a guy who won exactly 0 states in the 2000 primary cycle.

"If the internet had never been invented, Petey would spend all his time in his mom's cellar, bellowing cheesy political predictions to a blow-up doll with a disturbing resemblance to Eleanor Clift."

The weird psycho-sexual misogyny of a substantial number of Obama supporters continues unabated...

Why not accuse me of cross-dressing in pantsuits while you're at it?

...and Petey finally goes completely insane.

I'll chime in/pile on. The comment attributed to "Petey" is odd enough to warrant having Atlantic's web guys check out the ip numbers to see if the current post belongs to the "regular" Petey.


My take on Petey's predictions is that they tend to be pretty good when he has no emotional investment in the outcome. On the other hand, I've noticed a tendency to sound substantially overconfident in things he wants to have happen. Nuggets, Edwards being top examples. And that's actually understandable, for certain personalities. The only thing about this that makes me question his judgement is why he's flipped so hard for Clinton. Somehow I think his man crush for Edwards is involved in all of this.

"And Bill says that if Hillary wins, then he'll disclose."

Like with the tax returns, how do they even get away with this argument? It's like saying I'll confess to the murder after the acquittal.

Yet another Bush-like media strategy: just bewilder everybody with the logical inconsistency of it all, and dare them to call you on it.

The weird psycho-sexual misogyny of a substantial number of Obama supporters continues unabated...

Not really sure what's misogynistic about my insult. The image is of a sad little pervert (read: Petey) play-acting as John McLaughlin by yelling idiotic predictions to a fake Eleanor Clift. As I concede to lacking the rich imagination to create a naturalistic vignette that can believably depict Petey interacting with another actual human being, a blow-up doll made up to look like Eleanor Clift struck me as a plausible stand-in.

"The only thing about this that makes me question his judgement is why he's flipped so hard for Clinton."

Clinton has been pushing hard for the Edwards universal healthcare plan.

Obama has been slashing the Edwards universal healthcare plan with Harry & Louise ads right out of the GOP playbook.

It's really that simple.

The Edwards UHC bill that Clinton would have a very good shot at getting passed in the '09 - '10 Congress would be the most significant piece of domestic legislation in the past 40 years. If you've got your eyes on the prize, you hold your nose and support Clinton.

Obama went right on healthcare when he should've gone left, and that one decision is going to leave a lot of his supporters disappointed his summer. In his eagerness to gain the support of General Electric and Marty Peretz, Obama forgot he was seeking the nomination of the Democratic Party.

Hillary today:

“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold
“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

Maybe she should ask McCain if she can be his running mate

Petey,

I've always respected your tenacity. But you didn't answer my question:

How is Obama calling for transparency from HRC a losing argument?

If he was screaming Monica, Jennifer, cattle prices, Whitewater, et cetera, that would be playing in the mud. But anyone who thinks that a candidate for President should not be asked for transparency of the most basic, conventional sort should be flogged.

My only question is this: will Obama's media people step the fuck up and do this right? We know what Wolfson and Penn will say, they'll have the same reaction as Petey, "woohoo" now we can counterattack. But if Gibbs and Axelrod do this right and NOT allow the discussion to be shaped by HRC, BHO should make her look really, really, hypocritical.

Unfortunately, Petey is right that if you're going to go negative, do it right before the voting. So this might not be a great move. On the other hand, I don't think this is really going 'negative'. It is perfectly fair to attack your opponent's public record. In this case, this issue has been floating around for months now. This will play like any normal issue- if it gets play, keep pushing, otherwise, just drop it. Now a real smear would be to find evidence of potential corruption in those documents and to release those days before an election. Hyping unvalidated smears is the kind of toxic stuff that you don't want to get your hands dirty with until right before an election when you really need it.

Petey's a fascinating guy. He's extremely bright, witty and well-informed, but there are no grays in his world and he delights in being perverse (vote for Nader?!?). And, as smart as he is, he's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

Personally, I'd like to know what Hillary's definition of the word "IS" is....

Ryan--

Given Petey's reference to "Obambi" you may have the wrong blow-up doll.

I'm with Jeffrey. The last time I waded into the comments section here and at Ezra Klein's place, Petey was an incredibly stalwart Edwards supporter. Petey's advocacy had an over-the-top quality on occasion, to be sure. But it was always informed. And quite admirable in many ways. Particularly because Edwards's positions on poverty were/are so admirable.

All of that said, the new Petey, who really may not be the old Petey, is spending his time crowing about Obama's downfall (we'll see) and his own profits from Intertrade. In both cases, I'm surprised. Obama is, I think, by most measures the more progressive candidate, more like Edwards in other words. And using Intertrade profits as an emblem of success or knowledge, well, that strikes me as antithetical to the point of Democratic politics. But whatever. The old Petey certainly wouldn't have cared about my perspective; I'm sure the new Petey won't I'm just surprised is all. And a bit saddened by this change for the worse.

"Obama is, I think, by most measures the more progressive candidate, more like Edwards in other words."

If economics didn't exist, you might have a case.

I agree, mpowell. Obama's not trying to drop a classic last-minute "Hillary had a drunk driving citation removed from the public record" type smear that's impossible to defend. Instead, I'd say the Obama campaign is going "negative" in a similar way to Clinton when she pushed the media to write on the Weatherman connection and Rezko. Individually, these stories don't stand up to much scrutiny. But cumulatively, a number of investigative stories that detail some involvement, however tangential, between Obama and a "controversial" figure creates an impact. Voters don't necessarily read these stores, but if they hear about "a story about Obama taking money" from a terrorist or slumlord, they're alarmed.

Remember, even though it looks like Clinton is just flailing away to those of us who follow the news cycle obsessively, they are smartly targetting lower information voters. And they have a sound strategy: they want to sow enough doubt in the voters' minds about Obama, whose kind of a new and unknown figure, for them to gravitate back to the safe choice. I think it worked in Texas and Ohio.

Obama can't play the same game, because he's a less-known figure. And he can't fully relieve himself from voter doubt. What he can do is push something the voters are known to find distasteful: the Clinton psycho-drama and endless scandals. So it's smart of him to raise these questions, and if the media picks up on them, we'll see a bunch of Clinton conflict-of-interest/abuse of power/financial shenanigan stories in the coming weeks. The cumulative effect of these drip-drip stories, if Obama's lucky, will be to get Clinton fatigue front and center again: "Do you want another 4 years of scandals?"

He doesn't have to start now, but he has to start soon. I also think he's playing to the Superdelegates. I have to believe he's saying something like this to Supers: "I have a ton of oppo research I can fire at Hillary. Do you guys want an all-out war in the next seven weeks, with the possibility of mutually assured destruction, or are you going to step up and call on her to stand down? Because I'm tired of unilateral disarmament."

If economics didn't exist, you might have a case.

You'll need to spell out for me, chapter and verse, the difference in their (HRC and BHO) economic outlook for me to take that seriously. Though I do grant that Obama doesn't come close to Edwards when it comes to economic progressivism. And that element of his candidacy makes me want to puke.

Also, the point of my above comment wasn't to scold you -- at all. I was more ruminating on my sense that the comments page of left(ish) blogs is the place where any hope that this might be a transformative race goes to die. It's just really depressing to read some of the vitriol here, even accounting for the ridiculous nature of the sample at hand. Obviously, this is my problem. And it's easily solved: avoid the comments page.

Put another way, I don't see what I believe are minute differences on issues of economics as in any way approaching the significance of the candidates' huge differences on foreign policy, civil liberties, and the future of the Democratic Party.

He doesn't have to start now, but he has to start soon. I also think he's playing to the Superdelegates. I have to believe he's saying something like this to Supers: "I have a ton of oppo research I can fire at Hillary. Do you guys want an all-out war in the next seven weeks, with the possibility of mutually assured destruction, or are you going to step up and call on her to stand down? Because I'm tired of unilateral disarmament."

The part about playing to the super delegates is spot on. The problem with her kitchen sink approach is that while it works with the kind of low information voters she's been going after in OH, PA, etc., it doesn't work well with super delegates. Elected officials cannot be happy with some of her recent antics. If you watched Dean on MSNBC this morning, he more or less said he's had private conversations with the HRC camp asking them to cool it and stay focused on the issues.

"You'll need to spell out for me, chapter and verse, the difference in their (HRC and BHO) economic outlook for me to take that seriously."

The Edwards universal healthcare plan would be the largest governmental redistribution of income since Social Security.

It would be the most significant increase in social insurance since either Medicare in the 60's or Social Security in the 30's.

It's passable in the next Congress, and Clinton is pushing hard for it. Obama is busy trying to trash it to curry favor with General Electric, Marty Peretz, and his upscale donor base.

If you can't see the big picture, then you can't see the big picture.

If you really think that the president -- himself or herself -- can actually do much about the ultimate shape of whatever national health care plan we're going to have, I think you're missing the big picture. And, beyond even that point, if Hillary is so committed to Edwards's plan, why hasn't Edwards endorsed her?

That said, thanks for humoring me by explaining where you're coming from these days. At least I now understand.

If you watched Dean on MSNBC this morning, he more or less said he's had private conversations with the HRC camp asking them to cool it and stay focused on the issues.

Yeah, I'm sure there's a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff going on right now. Also keep in mind: the Iowa caucus took place only 8 1/2 weeks ago. It feels like eons since the results rolled in. The "critical" Pennsylvania primary takes place 7 weeks from now.

In the meantime, the cable news stations, newspapers, magazines, and blogs need to get fed. Trivial issues will get publicized. Stories that are quickly forgotten -- remember "Borat-gate" -- will get hyped. If Obama is smart, he'll spell out how potentially nasty and damaging to the Democratic Party this next seven weeks will be if he and Hillary trading blows and pushing a scandal of the every week.

If he pushes hard at Clinton now, and tells the Supers that this will continue for 7 weeks, the uncommmited Supers have the following choice: (1) go with Obama and make him look inevitable, which will force Hillary to back down; (2) threaten Hillary with an Obama endorsement if she keeps up her antics; or (3) sit tight and watch them destroy each other for seven weeks. If I were a truly uncommitted Superdelegate, I'd think long and hard about this.

"Haim Saban, Qatar, Kuwait, the Saudi Royal family, etc."

What is old Don Williams going to say about this? Somehow, I don't think that these entities are in bed with each other so the Clintons can't be in the tank for all of them at the same time.

I find it ironic that Petey, champion of the lower class and all around class warrior, has spent much of this thread bragging about his Intrade profits. Intraders are the epitome of the sort of rich douchebags with time and money to burn that Petey seems so hellbent on conflating with Obama.

Obama is busy trying to trash it to curry favor with General Electric, Marty Peretz, and his upscale donor base.

If you can't see the big picture, then you can't see the big picture.

OK, dude, whatever. As someone said above, don't feed the Petey.

"If you really think that the president -- himself or herself -- can actually do much about the ultimate shape of whatever national health care plan we're going to have, I think you're missing the big picture. "

You might want to review how both Social Security and Medicare came about. Both were White House initiatives, not Congressional initiatives. Both were fundamentally designed by the WH, not by the Congress.

And you might want to also review the history of more recent and more minor economic legislation. Things like the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the Bush prescription drug corporate giveaway, the Clinton tax hikes, and the Reagan deregulation were all central parts of their Presidential campaigns. They all passed Congress in very similar form to how they were proposed during the campaign. In short, if you want to pass economic legislation, it really helps to have shepherded it past the national electorate in semi-detailed form first.

"Intraders are the epitome of the sort of rich douchebags with time and money to burn that Petey seems so hellbent on conflating with Obama."

I'm a socialist, not a communist.

It's glorious for folks to get rich, just as long as they're taxed in a socially responsible fashion so their wealth is shared with the broader community.

Transparency? Hmmm. Is that the process by which Obama finally answers the rest of the questions about the Rezko land deal? 'Cause I'll tell you, there are an awful lot of loose ends to that story and it sure would be nice to tie them up BEFORE he gets the nomination.

Just a thought!

On the rumored 50 Superdelegates Obama has in his back pocket: his play is absolutely brilliant. If Obama does have 50 locked up, and is rolling them out about 3 or 4 day, it will be Chinese water torture for Clinton. It also creates this daily small-scale news event after Mississippi. Each day, the news will have an item about Obama's growing delegate lead.

If Obama doesn't actually have that high a number, it's even more diabolically clever to leak this rumor. Say he only has ten or Superdelegates that he's been keeping in reserve. By creating a false impression that he's slow-rolling from a huge cache of already-committed Superdelegates, uncommitted Superdelegates will feel a lot of pressure to climb aboard the BO Express before it leaves the station. To Superdelegates watching this action go down, Obama will look all-but-inevitable. And if Obama can convince one or two to get aboard a day, it will continue to make it look like he's a stash of insiders waiting to go, even if he doesn't.

"Intraders are the epitome of the sort of rich douchebags with time and money to burn that Petey seems so hellbent on conflating with Obama."

And tribally and demographically, I really should be in the Obama camp.

I just happen to care more about ideology than personality in my Presidents.

Petey is the adult-life version of that really annoying kid from your Poli Sci/History section. For reference, I had section with Kirchick a couple times, and this is noticeably worse.

Honestly, uncle.

"For reference, I had section with Kirchick a couple times, and this is noticeably worse."

You're going straight to hell for putting me in the same fucking paragraph as Kirchick. Dude is the king of scumbags.

Since you're hanging out here, Petey, I'll retract my Yahoo-booster comment, and ask this: are you betting on the makeup of the Senate in combination with a Clinton nom?

Because, as I've said here and elsewhere, when it comes to the sausage-making of healthcare legislation, I think that the Congressional makeup following an Obama victory produces a better bill than one after a Clinton victory.

That's to say, the mandate is likely to be the first Senate casualty of a Clinton healthcare bill after an election fought on a narrow electoral college map.

I don't like Obama's shrug-the-shoulders attitude towards the idea of universal coverage being a matter of principle. I do, however, think that a bill that comes to a Senate with 55-6 Dem caucusers (depending on Joe the Ho), many of them elected on coattails, can sneak de facto universality in by the back-door.

I just happen to care more about ideology

No, Petey, don't delude yourself. You care more about one issue than the broader liberal agenda. You seem content to sanction the use of race to divide and the use of fear to oppress in order to get what you want.

Petey is the type of douchebag who brags about all the money he supposedly made on Intrade to try to make himself look smart, despite all the dumbass stuff he regularly posts here.

Petey is the type of douchebag who brags about all the money he supposedly made on Intrade to try to make himself look smart,

No, we all know Petey is brilliant. He's entitled to his own opinions and I'm sure he understands their implications. I, for one, enjoy reading his comments and wish he would do more drunkblogging because it seems that's when he unchains his sharp wit and really unloads on the real douchebags, blah.

HRC's campaign has proven that not only are they familiar with news cycles, they are familiar with the notion of having your opponent deal with a previous attack while you launch another.

So Obama needs to think in a multi-stage fashion as well -- it had better not be "our next PR event regarding Hillary will be X and we'll wait & see what happens."

I want everyone who likes Hillary's more progressive mandate to take a step back. Is her campaign more progressive? I her persona more progressive?

Look at what happened today:

“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

She's been kissy-kissy with McCain all week. Combine that with her vote on the war (and refusal to apologize), her vote on Kyl-Lieberman, her fear-mongering ads . . . and I think a pretty clear picture emerges.

She's running roughly in the mold of Joe Lieberman, as an anti-progressive thumbing her nose at the coalition that won in 2006. She can't win. But she can burn down the progressive house. If you keep her alive, she will burn it down, and you won't even get your health care plan.

Another MY post, another discussion thread featuring Petey dancing around in a clown suit. Just can't let a moment pass without being the center of attention. You sure are the coolest. I hope you got all the attention-whoring ego boosts you needed for today.

Meanwhile it's virtually impossible to carry on an intelligent conversation around these parts...

Petey, if Obama has General Electric in his back pocket, then how do you explain the recent SNL skits, or Tim Russert's questioning re Farrakhan in the recent debate?

I'm not a committed Obama supporter, so the Obama folks don't need to worry about sullying themselves by going negative. I'll do it for you. Let's just say that I feel that the Clintons will not be able to win this election against McCain because of the lasting "stain" that Bill's administration left on the Whitehouse. That "stain" was the decisive factor in preventing Al Gore from being the president of the United States, which, in turn, is the main reason we are now in Iraq. Apparently, it now turns out that the Canadian NAFTA imbroglio involved Hillary's people talking about how she wasn't serious about making real changes, rather than centering on Obama. It seems pretty clear that Hillary won't release her tax records because it will show that the multi-millionaire income of the Cllinton dynasty has very little to do with "lunchbucket" working class democrats who are supposed to be her "go to" voters. Nevertheless, there is much to admire about Hillary. She selflessly stuck by Bill despite his sex addiction and even through the Lewinsky scandal because she altruistically felt the need to serve the citizens of New York, and then, without ever having thought about it much until recently, felt an equal calling to serve the people by becoming their president. How noble can one human being be? Please don't accuse me of using Republican talking points, or being Ken Starr. The RNC already knows all of these things and won't be afraid to use them in the general, even if the Obama campaign won't. Oh, and by the way, I'm still enough of a democrat and interested in getting policies that are superior to those of John McCain that I will do what I can to support Clinton should she wind up winning the nomination. I just won't feel very inspired about it. Oh, and by the way, I do feel her healthcare plan is better than Obama's.

I just happen to care more about ideology than personality in my Presidents.

And yet you throw in with Hillary "I voted for Iraq AUMF, Kyl/Lieberman, and have Michael O'Hanlon as a foreign policy advisor" Clinton. Quite the interesting ideology you have there.

"Petey, if Obama has General Electric in his back pocket, then how do you explain the recent SNL skits, or Tim Russert's questioning re Farrakhan in the recent debate?

Posted by nbt | March 6, 2008 9:28 PM"

nbt, are you really that stupid? Nevermind that SNL trashed HRC in the Fall, when she was the frontrunner.

Examine Tim Russert's questioning, in every Democratic debate he has moderated this cycle, and get back to us.

Also, have you ever heard of Chris Matthews?

Jack Welch's pool-boys. Some liberal, um, 'leaders' think GE/NBC is an equal opportunity offender.

They will likely be employed by the NYTimes or Newsweek/Post within a year.

"I do, however, think that a bill that comes to a Senate with 55-6 Dem caucusers ... can sneak de facto universality in by the back-door."

You can't sneak mandates in by the backdoor. Obama has closed that particular option.

"Petey, if Obama has General Electric in his back pocket, then how do you explain the recent SNL skits"

My best guess is that Lorne Michaels has an enclave where he is free to do what he wants due to the big profits he pulls in for the mothership.

And worth noting from the Samantha Powers comments today that Team Obama doesn't even know how to go negative.

All of Team Obama seems to have a glass jaw, not just the candidate. You can smell the panic. They seem to have thought they could take the WH without having to ever take a punch.

Another MY post, another discussion thread featuring Petey dancing around in a clown suit. Just can't let a moment pass without being the center of attention. You sure are the coolest. I hope you got all the attention-whoring ego boosts you needed for today.

Yes. Petey is really cool and unimaginably smart. By far the greatest of the commenters.

Does anyone else here think the clown-suit-dancing got worse when Matt mentioned him by name in the post where Edwards dropped out? Or at least got worse when Edwards dropped out - regardless of the shout from Matt.

I have lot of trouble believing Petey's animus towards Obama is fueled by the issue of mandates.

The idea that the Edwards health care proposal was a generation-defining piece of legislation that is either certain or likely to pass during the upcoming congressional term but will never pass in a subsequent congressional term is weird. I don't think anyone smart can really believe that.

The idea that the Edwards health care proposal, in toto is a huge redistribution towards the poor, but that proposal minus mandates is not redistributive, but in fact a sell-out to GE and whoever is weird. I don't think anyone smart can really believe that.

Maybe Petey is just performing simple trollery. I doubt that. But whatever his reason is for supporting Clinton, it is not what he says it is.

My theory at this moment is that Petey recognized and accepted that the nomination contest would be Clinton v an anti-Clinton and is hurt and disoriented by the fact that the anti-Clinton is Obama and not Edwards.

According to my theory, there is a lot of emotional fuel behind Petey's antipathy towards Obama that comes from his shattered idealization of Edwards.

On the other hand, if Petey idealizes Edwards, then Obama's deviation from Edwards' ideal health care proposal just may in itself provide the necessary fuel to explain what we see in these comment threads. But that only takes us deeper.

Petey's idealization of Edwards until he dropped out focused Petey's energy in a direction Matt and most of Matt's readers agreed with. Edwards really did move the campaign discussion to the left and kept it on populist economic issues. There was a real valid outlet for Petey's emotion energy and Petey found it. At the time to the benefit of this blog, at least in the opinion of Matt.

Now that Edwards is out Petey's idealization of Edwards is focused on a difference between Obama and Edwards' health care plan that I and some others see as a nitpick. Petey's main argument with Obama's plan is that it is a deviation from the perfect plan. Is it really less likely to pass? Is it really less redistributive? No twice. But those are the best outlets for Petey's emotional urge to idealize Edwards that he's found so far.

And where does Petey's urge to idealize Edwards come from? Ahhh. It seemed rational when it was lauding Edwards' shift of the campaign discussion to the left, which we could all appreciate. Now it seems that it has been crazy all along - just previously directed in a better direction.

"I have lot of trouble believing Petey's animus towards Obama is fueled by the issue of mandates."

A pretty high percentage of Obama supporters find the concept of policy being important to anyone to be utterly incomprehensible.

But if Obama had the same position on healthcare as Clinton, I'd be an enthusiastic Obama supporter right now.

-----

"Petey's main argument with Obama's plan is that it is a deviation from the perfect plan."

If you create strawman positions for me, it's certainly a helluva lot easier to refute them than were you to take on my actual position.

Not particularly intellectually honest, however...

All of Team Obama seems to have a glass jaw, not just the candidate. You can smell the panic. They seem to have thought they could take the WH without having to ever take a punch.

We'll see how they respond, a little panic can be good for a campaign. At least they are not shouting Fuck You! at each other like Ickes and Penn. You had a good point about Obama's attempt to counter punch too early. The problem for Team Clinton is the sheer volume of material Obama has to work with. The Ken Starr comment was huge blunder for her. She might as well have said the word Lewinsky for all the negative connotations. It also makes him appear tough and dogged, exactly what he wants. We'll see how long he can sustain the flurry. She had one good night. That's hardly sustainable. Foreign policy experience, NAFTA-gate, library donations, and White House records are going to get extra attention in the coming weeks. The Clinton Team is far from being Ali and I doubt they can pull off a rope-a-dope. If she keeps stalling on the tax returns, she'll step right into a hay-maker that will knock her into next year. Glass jaw? I think not. To mix metaphors, she's about to get the horns.

So Petey, what you are saying is that the details of his health plan, and the details of the health plan alone, are the difference between you being "an enthusiastic Obama supporter" and voting for Nader in the general if Obama wins the nomination (as you stated in another thread that you would)?

Bullshit. Even you aren't that stupid, you are a lying piece of shit, and everyone on this board knows it.

**Not that there is anything wrong, in principle, for voting 3rd party. I've made it clear that that's what I'll do if the devil woman "wins" the nomination. But then I never pretended that I would support her, enthusiastically or otherwise, if she made a relatively minor policy adjustment.

A pretty high percentage of Obama supporters find the concept of policy being important to anyone to be utterly incomprehensible.

Petey, if you are going to spew unsupportable crap like this you have no business criticizing anyone else for putting up straw men.

salutations,

You beat me to it, cease_her. That has to be the single stupidest thing posted in comments on MY's blog yet.

Clinton has an amazingly glaring policy problem:

Clinton voted in favor of Bush's disgusting adventure in Iraq, without bothering to look at the intelligence.

Apparently, Petey doesn't care about that. Yet, he continues to claim that Obama wants to "destroy" Universal Health Care, without citing anything.

Obama and Clinton have different approaches to get to the same goal.

Someone who actually wants to destroy Universal Health Care? John McCain.

I don't know, when you see a guy flailing about like Petey in this thread, lacking self-awareness and caught up in his obsession with mandates, it just smacks of desperation. Add in the fact that Clinton's base doesn't like mandates and you end up realizing that at best, Clinton is someone to sneak in past her supporters. Mandates proved to be surprisingly unpopular with Massachusetts's working class. Done in the way Petey wants at this point in history would probably just get liberals branded as the people who think they know how to spend your money better than you. Then again, how often have self-described socialists actually been good at driving the PR side of the Democratic Party?

That's the thing, he hangs onto a narrative even when it is shown to him to be shoddy. Edwards running away from his Senate record of being a DLC favorite? Ignore it when it gets brought up, otherwise you can't hold yourself up as the standard-bearer for liberals everywhere to whom we all must conform to be true progressives. The Clintons' long romance with businessmen for being businessmen who make money in the private sector and connections to many major corporations? Ignore it and babble about GE, a single data point. Have it pointed out to you that Democrats in states like Georgia don't actually register as Democrats? Ignore it and claim Clinton is leading among registered Democrats. Clinton's support for the bankruptcy bill? Ignore it and act like she's Norma Rae. Point out her race-baiting? Ignored and if you bring up such social issues, you're just a limousine ACLU liberal, and thus not a true working-class fighter. The economic effects on the lower class of backing an unjust, $3 trillion war that may have killed over 1 million innocent Iraqi civilians? Less important than mandates. A willingness to give a blank check with Kyl-Lieberman to attack Iran if he so wishes? Ignored. The fact that Clinton didn't care enough to read the NIE? Ignored. He is smart enough to be able to discuss policy intelligently with, but he's not as smart as he thinks he is and has shown a surprising amount of naiveté over how politics works that he covers up with arrogance and inTrade. After all, personality does matter in elections. Personality is a big reason why Reagan and Clinton got elected. When nobody likes your personality, that is an electoral liability, both for yourself and for your coattails that you need to actually get stuff done once in the Senate.

The Clintons pretty much were the gift that kept on giving to a media that loved scandal in the 1990's and a Republican Party that wanted to have something to investigate. That's what is so odd about the Rezko line. There just doesn't seem to be much there there, just as there was little there when the Republicans chased bullshit over Whitewater. If she doesn't release those records now, she won't have been vetted. She won't have seen how Obama would attack her over what's in them and thus will have less practice over defending them to McCain. She does actually seem scared to release such records, which makes me wonder what's in there that either Obama or McCain could use to destroy her. I'm guessing then that whatever is in there is something that would make her unelectable. If so, we deserve a chance to know before we have a nominee.

I think the quote you highlight Matt, was the quote of the day.

"At least they are not shouting Fuck You! at each other like Ickes and Penn."

The really interesting part is that Clinton seems to want that, given that she's been talking up Doris Kerns Goodwin's Team of Rivals for a year now...

"At least they are not shouting Fuck You! at each other like Ickes and Penn."

The really interesting part is that Clinton seems to want that, given that she's been talking up Doris Kerns Goodwin's Team of Rivals for a year now...

Posted by Petey | March 7, 2008 1:31 AM

Ah yes, of course. After all, who can forget that great debate in the Cabinet meeting of March 4, 1862?

William H. Seward: Fuck You!


Salmon P. Chase: Fuck Me? Fuck Me!?! No! Fuck You!

Edwin M. Stanton: Fuck You! And Fuck You too!

William H. Seward: Fuck You!

. . . and who can forget how pleased Lincoln was to have brought such great and supple minds together to work for the cause of the Union?

Arnold, Occam's Razor. Petey's just a trolling idiot, and you're overthinking it.

Oh god...Petey's back and he's riding a new horse. That's enough to make me stop reading the comments section.

That said, good for Bradley. If we're going to have a protracted election process, let's be sure we all know everything there is to know about each of these candidates before we make our final choices.

And to whomever way up thread said Obama needs a come to jesus with the press about Rezko is right. He needs to answer everything he can and have his campaign follow up promptly on questions asked he doesn't know the answer to.

Transparency is transparency. It's my dang government and I want to know who's running it.