The Threshold

So as you've probably heard by now, Hillary Clinton thinks that you have to pass a "commander in chief threshold" if you want to be president. "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." This is outrage on several levels, both in terms of Clinton's not-so-thick resume, and in terms of the seriously poor form involved in bashing your opponent in ways that involve praising the other party's nominee. That said, like Kevin Drum I'm a bit skeptical that there's a practical problem here of Clinton handing McCain ammunition since politics, in practice, doesn't seem to work that way.

There is, however, a deeper worry that this expresses. Why does Hillary Clinton think McCain would be a better foreign policy leader than Obama? Now I expect millions of people around the country to agree with Clinton about that in November. Millions of people will, I think, decide that invading Iraq was a good idea, that staying in Iraq indefinitely is a good idea, that pushing the envelop of confrontation with North Korea and Iran is a good idea, that refusing to abide by any of our treaty commitments is a good idea, etc. Those people will, naturally, conclude that McCain would be the better commander in chief. That's inevitable. I expect those millions of Americans to be outnumbered by millions more who prefer Obama's approach and who want to see America pulled back from the brink and back toward something like the liberal internationalist tradition that's governed us at our best since the Second World War rather than to continue on the path of militarism and hegemonism that's been responsible for the bulk of our mistakes.

I had also taken it for granted that whatever Clinton did or said during the years 2002-2004 she wouldn't seriously be among the group of people who prefer McCain's approach. But is she? If not, why does she think he'll be such a good commander in chief? Now I certainly think that most of Clinton's supporters, including many of the people who work for her on national security issues, don't see her as the kind of person who prefers the McCain approach. But maybe she is? Surge architects Jack Keane seems to think so.

Comments

Maybe she wants to be McCain's VP. Or she wants to answer the phone for him at 3 am.

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 7, 2008 10:39 AM

This is outrage on several levels, both in terms of Clinton's not-so-thick resume, and in terms of the seriously poor form involved in bashing your opponent in ways that involve praising the other party's nominee.

It seems to me that this quote provides plenty of ammunition for Obama. She is betraying her party. He (or his surrogates) should start saying that about her. This seems like a great line of attack to me: "Hillary Clinton is betraying her party to try to win the nomination".

Posted by Jim W | March 7, 2008 10:41 AM

I was going to say the same thing Jim W.

Posted by jj | March 7, 2008 10:44 AM

Only a true Commander In Chief could have defended the inclusion of rats' asses in pork & beans when in her '35 years of fighting the right' as a corporate lawyer.

Also, on a personal curiosity note: the other day when Hillary made her incredibly sarcastic speech about how stupid Obama supporters were for expecting the heavens to open up and all that, waving her arms around...

...does anyone ever remember Hillary going that hard and bitter and sarcastic against the right she keeps claiming to have fought for 35 years?

Posted by El Cid | March 7, 2008 10:45 AM

Why do you think Clinton doesn't disagree with McCain? It's quite clear at this point that her general election strategy would be to take the Iraq war off the table completely, say that she and McCain are the same on foreign policy, and try to make the election about the economy.
As to how she would govern, I don't even think she has an idea. I'm sure in Clinton style she would do a lot of polls, stage great photo opportunities to show off her prowess as commander-in-chief, and bomb countries whenever her financial and personal scandals dominated the news.

Posted by mike | March 7, 2008 10:45 AM

Sullivan has to be absolutely loving this stuff.

I recall coming into the primary season I really appreciated Sully's thoughts on Obama, but thought his take on the Clintons was a bit extreme. I was never going to be in the Hillary camp, given her Iraq vote (and utter lack of remorse for it), but I figured she could at least be a marginally decent commander in chief. Over the last couple of months, however, Sullivan has been completely vindicated. The Clintons are, in fact, just as horrible as he has always made them out to be. I think the veil has been removed from a whole lot of Democrats' eyes at this point.

Posted by J.B. | March 7, 2008 10:46 AM

I think this also opens up another line of attack on Clinton: Did Bill Clinton pass the "commander-in-chief threshold" when he was running in '92? Considering he had zero foreign policy experience at that time, I would think Hillary's metric would disqualify her own husband.

Posted by Media Glutton | March 7, 2008 10:46 AM

Keep in mind that Clinton doesn't seem to base commander in chief qualifications on any actual thought-out policy differences. The only decisions that matter apparently are the ones they wake you up at 3 AM for which are entirely vague and hypothetical to the point of being meaningless.

Posted by Dan Panorama | March 7, 2008 10:49 AM

This does open up three obvious and easy counter-arguments for Obama:

(1) If the general election is fought over the issue of foreign policy experience, then neither Clinton nor Obama can win.

(2) McCain's record on foreign policy, even more than Clinton's, shows just how useless "experience" is when it comes to enabling sound foreign policy judgment.

(3) If she thinks she can win by ceding foreign policy to McCain, while hammering him on jobs and health care, then, well, she should take a look at how well 2002 and 2004 worked out for the Democrats.

Posted by pjs | March 7, 2008 10:51 AM

Hillary Lieberman Clinton.

Posted by Jim M | March 7, 2008 10:53 AM

Fascinating to see Keith Olbermann really hammer Hillary Clinton for this last night. He made it absolutely clear that she was betraying the party, damaging herself, and apparently driven by a combination of short-term arrogance and longterm scheming to damage Obama so he can't win, and she can slither towards the nomination in 2012. He even compared her to Joe Lieberman. As his junior reporter said, all that is left for her to do is kiss George Bush on the cheek.
Isn't it time we started considering whether the Zell Miller rule applies here? Surely endorsing the candidate of the other party in this way is as bad as crossing the aisle openly - and is arguably worse, because of the way it abuses Clinton's formal position as a Democratic candidate? If that isn't betrayal, it's hard to see what is.

Posted by nickzi | March 7, 2008 10:54 AM

The only decisions that matter apparently are the ones they wake you up at 3 AM for which are entirely vague and hypothetical to the point of being meaningless.

Jon Stewart said something last night to the effect that "apparently, she doesn't believe that Senator Obama even knows how to answer a phone."

Posted by drjimcooper | March 7, 2008 10:54 AM

Someone should ask Hilary that - "Can we assume in 1992 you voted for decorated war veteran, CIA chief and proven executive with 8 years VP experience and 4 years Presidential experience George H.W. Bush and not for that young guy with no foreign policiy experience whatsoever and who had never held elected office in a forum larger than the provincial state of Arkansas?" I guess she must have. HRC is really becoming a liability to the party at this point.

Posted by vanya | March 7, 2008 10:54 AM

That Hillary is out there expressing her opinion that she and McCain are qualified to be president (and not Obama) is particularly galling given all the endless whining about Obama's criticism of her inclusion of health care mandates.

I recall hearing over and over that Obama was providing ammunition to the Republicans. The implication is that we would see commercials or some such thing pointing out that Obama said that Hillary's plan "forces" people to buy health insurance. I can't understand, though, how the Republicans need (or why they would even bother to use) statements from Obama that point out the simple fact that mandates by definition involve force.

Whether someone is qualified to be president, on the other hand, is based purely on opinion. Prominent Democrats (like Clinton) expressing the opinion that Obama is not qualified are of obvious worth to Republicans because they can say something along the lines of, "even Clinton believes that Obama is not ready."

Just try to make the same argument with mandates ... "even Obama knows that mandates involve force." Not the same? Of course not. One is an expression of opinion and the other is of fact, and it matters whether Democrats express opinions that help Republicans far more than if they point out facts that the Republicans are also extremely likely to point out.

Posted by Spenser | March 7, 2008 10:56 AM

Fascinating to see Keith Olbermann really hammer Hillary Clinton for this last night. He made it absolutely clear that she was betraying the party, damaging herself, and apparently driven by a combination of short-term arrogance and longterm scheming to damage Obama so he can't win, and she can slither towards the nomination in 2012. He even compared her to Joe Lieberman. As his junior reporter said, all that is left for her to do is kiss George Bush on the cheek.
Isn't it time we started considering whether the Zell Miller rule applies here? Surely endorsing the candidate of the other party in this way is as bad as crossing the aisle openly - and is arguably worse, because of the way it abuses Clinton's formal position as a Democratic candidate? If that isn't betrayal, it's hard to see what is.

Posted by nickzi | March 7, 2008 10:56 AM

It's quite clear at this point that her general election strategy would be to take the Iraq war off the table completely, say that she and McCain are the same on foreign policy, and try to make the election about the economy.

Well, no. None of that is clear at all, or even remotely likely. She's spent way more time talking about starting to bring troops home in the first 60 days of her administration than she has in launching this latest attack on Obama. Not that this makes her attack defensible on any particular grounds--it isn't--but either she WOULD have the same Iraq policy as McCain's, or she WOULDN'T. It's actually pretty clear that she wouldn't.

What IS clear is that Obama needs to be able to counter this sort of attack without coming off as whining (she's a Democrat, no fair!) or launching counter-claims that few people outside of blog-world will find credible (e.g. Hillary = McCain on Iraq). Obama has plenty of options available to him, many of which have been ably discussed by MY in various posts. Obama needs to do a better job of punching back against this effectively.

Posted by Haggai | March 7, 2008 10:59 AM

Throughout the primary, Clinton has always shown herself incapable of thinking more than one move ahead. It's why she's losing. That alone should disqualify her from being commander-in-chief.

What Hillary supporters don't realize is that the republicans are just building all these statements of hers in a database for use down the road. They're all going to come back to bite her on the ass.

She didn't even manage to convince Josh Marshall with this claim. I mean, if she can't convince him, how is she going to sell it to the rest of America?

Posted by Helter | March 7, 2008 11:00 AM

I'll mindlessly parrot Media Glutton, above.

Team Obama should reply, "What had Bill Clinton done to pass the 'C-i-C threshold' in '92, especially compared to a decorated war vet, former UN ambassador and CIA director, 2 term VP and one term sitting president?"

Posted by Jeff S. | March 7, 2008 11:01 AM

Of course she prefers the Bush/McCain approach Matthew. That's been obvious to sentient people who follow the issues for years. Wake the fuck up.

And, to her credit, (and you know I don't give that loathsome creature credit for much), she has been pretty straight forward about saying so.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 11:04 AM

"Obama needs to do a better job of punching back against this effectively."

At this point, I think he just starts painting Hillary/McCain/Bush with the same brush, and campaigning against the "Militarism and failed policies of the past 8 years."

Posted by Brautigan | March 7, 2008 11:07 AM

"Vote for me. I'm just like John McCain 'cept Liberal."
If she pits herself against McCain on this issue, she loses.
This is why I neglected being a registered democrat for 20 years. We could have run a puppy and won this season but now it'll end up a 51% strategy and a squeaker at best if she gets the nod. Does she want it so bad that she'll burn down the house in her attempt?
She will ruin the Clinton legacy in the process. And I thought Bill was the self destructive one.

Posted by carsick | March 7, 2008 11:08 AM

What IS clear is that Obama needs to be able to counter this sort of attack without coming off as whining (she's a Democrat, no fair!) ... Obama needs to do a better job of punching back against this effectively.

Agreed that Obama needs to do better at hitting back, but it is perfectly reasonable for Obama supporters and/or surrogates to "whine" when his Democratic opponent for the nomination has, on more than one occassion, stated that she thinks that her Republican opponent would make a more qualified C-i-C than Obama!!

Nobody's whining because the attack is "unfair" as much as it is beyond the fucking pale for a Democrat to be expressing an explicit preference for John McCain over her Senate colleague.

Posted by drjimcooper | March 7, 2008 11:09 AM

And Haggia, the fact that she ostensibly has a minor (and ultimately superficial) disagreement with McCain regarding troop levels in Iraq doesn't change that. I mean, even the neocons have disagreements among themselves about whetehr we should attack Iran now or later.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 11:09 AM

What IS clear is that Obama needs to be able to counter this sort of attack without coming off as whining (she's a Democrat, no fair!) or launching counter-claims that few people outside of blog-world will find credible (e.g. Hillary = McCain on Iraq). Obama has plenty of options available to him, many of which have been ably discussed by MY in various posts. Obama needs to do a better job of punching back against this effectively.

This is exactly right. And the fact of the matter is that many people - including the lower-middle class white democrats who have supported her in Ohio and will give her the win in PA - support her position instinctively over Obama's. They have to be taught by Obama why this position is at odds with sound policy.

If he can't do that, he can't be the nominee, and it will be two hawks fighting it out for the nomination.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 7, 2008 11:13 AM

Why does Hillary Clinton think McCain would be a better foreign policy leader than Obama?

I don't actually think she does, and I'm not sure that's the right question to ask. The real question that you are asking is "why is Hillary going to Obama's right on the the war/national security." Two answers: 1) she feels her gender precludes her from going to Obama's left and 2) if she did so, her 2002 vote on the AUMF would give Obama ammunition for the exact same flip-flopper attack that did in Kerry (for it before she was against it).

Honestly, I don't know if anyone has any idea what Hillary's feeling on the war/national security is, because any tack she took other than the one she had would be political suicide.

N.B. I am a staunch Obama supporter.

Posted by Jared | March 7, 2008 11:14 AM

Why does Hillary Clinton think McCain would be a better foreign policy leader than Obama?

I don't actually think she does, and I'm not sure that's the right question to ask. The real question that you are asking is "why is Hillary going to Obama's right on the the war/national security." Two answers: 1) she feels her gender precludes her from going to Obama's left and 2) if she did so, her 2002 vote on the AUMF would give Obama ammunition for the exact same flip-flopper attack that did in Kerry (for it before she was against it).

Honestly, I don't know if anyone has any idea what Hillary's feeling on the war/national security is, because any tack she took other than the one she has would be political suicide.

N.B. I am a staunch Obama supporter.

Posted by Jared | March 7, 2008 11:15 AM

The "threshold" is what exactly? She hasn't spelled it out and I'm about 90% certain for the next 4 weeks not a single person in the Press will ask her to spell it out, though they will report daily on "the threshold" and about how McCain has passed it and Hillary has said she has.

It's beyond me why Hillary and Obama to a lesser degree don't spend the next month just bashing McCain. He's out of the news cycle and has no money, kick him now while he's down and they'll both be the better for it. Make it a contest of who can kick McCain the best.

Posted by tom.a | March 7, 2008 11:16 AM

I look forward to Matt's equally critical post on the Obama adviser's "Hillary is a Monster" attack.

At least she keeps her criticism professional.

The Obama campaign looks like a bunch of amatures. First his own foreign policy adviser implies hes not qualified to be commander in chief and now this.

I'm feeling very hopeful, for a Clinton presidency.

Posted by katie | March 7, 2008 11:17 AM

Look, it's not surprising that where Matt sees this leading is the idea that Hillary Clinton is lying when she says she wants us out of Iraq. I assume that like his friend Samantha Power, he will probably be calling her a "monster" at some point soon as well.

But, for those who are a little less unhinged, allow me to put forth an alternate argument.

Clinton and Obama would obviously run different kinds of campaigns against McCain. Obama would likely want to frame the election on the young v. old, outsider v. insider dichotomy. That's fine; it's a perfectly acceptable strategy, maybe it would work, maybe it wouldn't.

Clinton would more likely want to frame the election as between two people who have both been around the block a few times, though one supports policies that are more rational, fair, and in line with what the majority of people want. Note that this suggests Clinton's strategy of trying to win based on policy differences, as opposed to non-policy differences. You may wish she would carry out a more negative campaign, but it seems that there is a reasonable case to be made that an election about policy could go in the democrats' favor this time.

Now, for Clinton's strategy (which worked quite well against Bob Dole in '96, as some of us old enough to remember will tell you) to work, obviously it comes with stating the obvious, namely that McCain has been around the block a few times.

For those of you who worry so much that Clinton is appearing to say something nice about a Republican, I guess I wonder why you don't speak out when Obama replicates Harry & Louise ads to torpedo the chance of achieving health care reform, speaks of Social Security crises that don't exist, blames democrats as must as republicans for the "petty" disputes of the '90s (such as, I guess, maintaining a women's right over her body, gay rights, balanced budgets, and other issues). Pardon me for saying it, but it seems like your outrage is rather selective.

Posted by dk | March 7, 2008 11:18 AM

I don't understand why Hillary & Co. keep on harping on her "experience" when it really doesn't start, at least in her own name, until she parachuted into NY in 2000.

Posted by leo | March 7, 2008 11:20 AM

Samantha Power was right, if indelicate and a little foolish in saying it to a reporter: Hillary is complete and total monster.

I don't believe Obama should--and will--stoop to the same level of tactics Clinton has been using on him, but i think he needs to be a lot tougher on her than he's been.

she is showing that nothing short of cutting her head off and putting it on a pike (like you do with monsters) will stop her. Obama had better wise up to this reality, fast.

Posted by rob! | March 7, 2008 11:20 AM

I don't particularly like the comment, but Samantha Power has ensured it will be buried and forgotten in the midst of the cluster**** she just created for the Obama campaign.

Posted by Andruw | March 7, 2008 11:20 AM

I started out favoring Edwards, and I've been
leaning Obama based on his solid accomplishments
on good but unglamorous issues, and the fear that
we'll spend the next 8 years endlessly rehashing
Arkansas land deals from the 1980s. But this
latest crap from the HRC camp has pushed me over
the edge: I'm going to Obama's website right now
to make a contribution. Enough already.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 7, 2008 11:21 AM

good work Rob. Loving that new politics the Obama campaign is 'speaking' about.

Her criticism are professional..unlike the tactics of the Obama campaign and yourself.

she should be fired.

Posted by katie | March 7, 2008 11:22 AM

Why should Clinton's favorable remarks about McCain (especially given her own stand on the Iraq war) not be much MORE of an issue than Obama's remark about Reagan, which Clinton distorted and made much of?

T.S.

Posted by Tim Scanlon | March 7, 2008 11:23 AM

Yes Richard...this is stuff that is clearly out of line. Not characterizing a long-time public servant as a 'monster.'

Save your money. He's nothing special.

Posted by katie | March 7, 2008 11:25 AM

The real question that you are asking is "why is Hillary going to Obama's right on the the war/national security."

The way I'd put it is, "why is she making a Republican-style argument on national security, where 'toughness' or 'experience' count for more than proper judgment?" The answer, of course, is that (a) she's kind of desperate and (b) she thinks it might work. The desperation factor is pretty clear from the fact that she got blitzed in every state all throughout February, but she still didn't play this card to try to turn things around until the past week.

Obama needs to do a better job of broadening his counter-argument beyond just opposing the Iraq invasion (he's hit that theme a lot already) to countering the entire mindset that Hillary's attack is based on. He hasn't done it yet, and he's sure as hell going to have to do it in a much sharper way against McCain, so now's the time for him to do it.

Posted by Haggai | March 7, 2008 11:25 AM

Look, if you think the war and civil liberties are the KEY issues of our time, as I do, then you should MUCH prefer Obama over Clinton (as I do). Clinton is surrounded by hawks, she has flipped on the war, and yet her statements even now betray her deeper commitment to using force/military and diplomacy-to-bludgeon over negotiations and diplomacy-as-compromise.

This is no secret, and, in fact, she is only marginally better than McCain in terms of what this means for American foreign policy.

I say that, because it would be much much much better for the long term health of American foreign policy (and the country) to have a fundamental re-alignment which is far more likely if Obama is president. I'm fully on board what I take to be Yglesias' book's thesis.

That said, Obama has to do a better job of explaining the virtues of this approach. That's a tall order, but it is fundamentally what distinguishes these two candidates.

Posted by Joe Strummer | March 7, 2008 11:25 AM

Sorry, as I hope was clear I meant why SHOULDN'T Clinton's remarks about McCain be more of an issue ...

Posted by Tim Scanlon | March 7, 2008 11:27 AM

Clinton is a monster, but Power shouldn't have said that.

Oh, and katie, you are dead wrong with that comparison. An adviser insulting is not the same as a candidate aligning herself with the opposition to denigrate a member of her own party. Not even close.

An equivalent statement would have been Power saying, "Obama and McCain are good people. Hillary is a monster."

Posted by Tony | March 7, 2008 11:27 AM

THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

Posted by idiotic | March 7, 2008 11:27 AM

Have republicans started setting up surrogates to get Nader on the ballot in all 50 states yet? If not, they should. If she keeps going like this, Nader won't have to leave his couch to get over 5% this time.

Posted by Benniefly2 | March 7, 2008 11:28 AM

katie,

Yes, it is forbidden to speak such truths about your opponent, so Samantha probably has to go. But she is a monster - moresoe than even Bush. Probably in the Cheney class. In fact, I hope she spends eternity burning in the fires of hell attached to Cheney with a five foot unbreakable chain. Talk about appropriate punishments.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 11:29 AM

Don't worry, she's just going for that well known crossover voter identified by Sen. Lieberman.
Or, a VP slot on McCain's ticket.

Posted by carsick | March 7, 2008 11:29 AM

I love how the supporters of the politics of hope are running around rationalizing and supporting this kind of PERSONAL attack from Powers.

It's disgusting.

Hillarys comments are no worse than Obama's constant republican talking points and Harry and Louise attacks on healthcare.

But there IS a difference between drawing contrasts based on records and resumes and ISSUES instead of insults.

Get a grip.

Posted by katie | March 7, 2008 11:33 AM

Thanks Larry--I'm feeling the warm glow of all that hope and change.

Ironically this reminds me of when Cheney told Sen. Lahey to 'Go F*ck himself' more than anything else.

Maybe behind all that smoke and mirrors Obama is the real Dick Cheney. He has the same superior attitude.

Posted by katie | March 7, 2008 11:36 AM

katie, grow up. It's a stressful campaign and emotions are running high. If a few staffers start throwing around heat-of-the-moment namecalling, I can learn to deal. You should too. Or if you can't, maybe political campaigns aren't for you.

But Clinton basically endorsing the strength of a McCain presidency over Obama? That's unacceptable.

Posted by Tyro | March 7, 2008 11:36 AM

"But there IS a difference between drawing contrasts based on records and resumes and ISSUES instead of insults."

I addressed this, and it is false. She is aligning herself with John McCain in an effort to hurt Obama. Obama has never done something like that.

Moreover, you make it seem like insults not ISSUES is Obama's strategy, which is the shittiest straw man on this thread (it would be the shittiest one ever, but Petey has about 3 thousand posts that top it). The one insult- one- was a moment of weakness from an adviser that was immediately denounced (and rejected!) by Obama and then apologized for by the adviser. Hillary, on the other hand, has, on MULTIPLE occasions over the past week, implied that McCain would be better than Obama. That is her strategy. It is repulsive.

Posted by Tony | March 7, 2008 11:36 AM

I love how Clinton supporters are defending her just like Republicans would be. All outraged at a word. But when their candidate pushes a story implying that Obama is a terrorist sympathizer that was just fine.

Clinton and Clinton supporters are becoming more and more like Republicans every day.

Clinton and McCain, best friends forever.

Don't worry Clintonites, when Clinton doesn't get the nomination you can always vote for McCain.

Posted by Jay | March 7, 2008 11:37 AM

And katie is exactly the kind of person who, if Hitler or Stalin were running for president, would insist that we stick to the issues, and refain from insulting those honorable public servants.

And FYI, I'm not one of the people pushing the "politics of hope" crap. I fervantly hope that obama, in an elegant and deniable way, (metaphorically) breaks her kneecaps with a basevall bat.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 11:37 AM

She should be fired. Obama said so himself. I mean seriously..even your candidate realizes how unacceptable this is. Maybe you should 'grow-up' from these elementary school tactics.

In December, Obama said he had "been very clear to my campaign. I do not want to see research that is involved in trying to tear people down personally. If I find out that somebody is doing that, they will be fired. And I have been absolutely crystal clear about this, and I have been clear about this for a very long time."

Posted by katie | March 7, 2008 11:39 AM

I dreamt that I received a call at 3:00AM this morning, and informed that there had been a coup in Kenya, and that its new military leaders were calling the country the Central Republic Of Kinjubi. I was asked what my orders were.

I said the Bureau of Engraving and printing should be asked to produce new maps of Africa, pronto, and went back to sleep.

So... good call?

Posted by Anonymous | March 7, 2008 11:41 AM

Hillary crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold -- but it was in somebody else's house. Her husband's White House. That doesn't count.

Posted by CN | March 7, 2008 11:41 AM

katie

i think we can both agree that powers comments have no place in this campaign. i want you to think about what side has put out more of this kind of stuff. please point me to the mountain of evidence condemning the other side. politics changing doesn't mean that the whole thing goes from black to white instantly. obama supporters do not think he is jesus, clinton supporters think obama supporters think that. the point is judging people on their merits and not politicizing everything without examining the situation first. people will still disagree and they will still less of other people. this is fine if you have a reason. i assume you have your reasons for supporting who you support, and so do i. lets figure out how to not fight, and maybe we'll get things done.

Posted by doni | March 7, 2008 11:42 AM

I love how the Obama campaign always pulls this crap after they lose, like JJ Jr outrage that Hillary never cried over Hurricane Katrina. (whatever that means.)

Talk about sore losers.

Posted by mikey | March 7, 2008 11:42 AM

tom.a "The "threshold" is what exactly?"

At this point, it appears that Hilary thinks its old age, under-eye bags and neck jowls, and such a desperate sense of entitlement to become President that you will eat your own.

Posted by ella | March 7, 2008 11:42 AM

katie
A comment by an exhausted campaign staffer is one thing.
A candidate building up the resume of the opposition party's candidate is clearly another.
Campaigns need to be tough but what's the point of showing McCain, in her eyes, has a better resume to be CiC when McCain's resume includes actual military service that trumps her resume?

Posted by carsick | March 7, 2008 11:42 AM

I said earlier this week that Matt had lately succumbed to stupidity, but this is a new low. She's not agreeing with McCain, all she's saying is that if prince Barack gets the nomination, McCain's going to argue that he's not experienced enough to be commander in chief. It's a dubious proposition, but hey, it's politics, and it's working for her.

But Matt can't stand the sight of his candidate getting punched around -- that same sense of entitlement that makes most Obama supporters pout and whine when anybody throws dirt at prince Barack.

But Matt's not just whinning here, he's taking this to a new low by arguing that HRC and McCain agree on foreign policy, and that they're functinoal equivalents in terms of Iraq policy. Well dude, if you really believe that, you haven't been listening to HRC's foreign policy positions. But that's not surprising, you've lost all sense here; you'd probably faint if you saw Barack give his teleprompter speeches live.

Mediocre stuff Yglesias.

Posted by Israel | March 7, 2008 11:42 AM

Katie, who here is defending her saying it? I have said multiple times that I agree that what Clinton's been doing (NAFTA hypocrisy, aligning herself with McCain, and a few other things) is monstrous, but Power should not have said that. In fact, as I posted on another blog, I agree with you that she should be fired.

But it's asinine and disingenuous of you to try to make this isolated event some sort of campaign strategy.

Posted by Tony | March 7, 2008 11:44 AM

katie, of course, still has a restraining order out against her daughter after that time she was grounded and screamed, "I hate you mom!" Because, you know, such outbursts are absolutely the number 1 most crucial things that could possibly happen, while saying McCain would be a better president than Obama is a-ok.

katie, you're being an immature, hyper-sensitive little twit. What's the matter? Can't "take it" when someone insults your idol? Campaigns aren't for you. You'd never survive if you have to whine, "you should reSIGN!" everytime someone insults you or your leaders. I have no doubt that Hillary's staff of foul-mouthed, overweight union-busting hawkish nutcases say much worse things about Obama all the time. I just know that Obama's going to kneecap the whole lot of them when he gets nominated.

Posted by Tyro | March 7, 2008 11:44 AM

I said earlier this week that Matt had lately succumbed to stupidity, but this is a new low. She's not agreeing with McCain, all she's saying is that if prince Barack gets the nomination, McCain's going to argue that he's not experienced enough to be commander in chief. It's a dubious proposition, but hey, it's politics, and it's working for her.

But Matt can't stand the sight of his candidate getting punched around -- that same sense of entitlement that makes most Obama supporters pout and whine when anybody throws dirt at prince Barack.

But Matt's not just whinning here, he's taking this to a new low by arguing that HRC and McCain agree on foreign policy, and that they're functinoal equivalents in terms of Iraq policy. Well dude, if you really believe that, you haven't been listening to HRC's foreign policy positions. But that's not surprising, you've lost all sense here; you'd probably faint if you saw Barack give his teleprompter speeches live.

Mediocre stuff Yglesias.

Posted by Israel | March 7, 2008 11:45 AM

I love how the Obama campaign always pulls this crap after they lose, like JJ Jr outrage that Hillary never cried over Hurricane Katrina. (whatever that means.)

Talk about sore losers.

Posted by mikey | March 7, 2008 11:45 AM

katie,

Yes, there are certain truths that a politician or his surrogates shouldn't utter - for purely tactical reasons. And Obama recognizes that. No one here denies that Power's truthful statement was a tactical error. And I haven't even seen anyone deny that she should be fired. But blog commenters aren't members of campaigns, so we are free to speak the truth, and note that Ms. Power was 100% correct.

But of course you are too obtuse to even respond to the main arguments that peopel are making - one, that ther eis a big difference between somethng the candidate says and something a surrogate says, and two, that the fact that Clinton JUST PRAISED THE LEADERSHIP ABILITIES OF THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT is far, far, more unacceptable than a (well deserved) personal insult.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 11:46 AM

Are people serious about getting upset about the Powers thing? She immediately tried to take the comment off the record. She wasn't trying to personally attack or destroy Clinton. She was -- stupidly -- letting her frustrations and anger out. Does anyone doubt that both campaigns hate each other at this point? How could they not? If Wolfson was overheard calling Obama a "sanctimonious prick," it wouldn't upset me in the least. Of course, he thinks that, and, of course, Obama's people think that Clinton is vile.

Unless they are caught saying something horribly racist or sexist, the campaigns should only be under fire for what their people intentionally put out there. That's why the "drug dealer" thing, the "as far as I know" thing, the Somali outfit -- and, from the Obama side, the (D Punjabi) thing -- matter and the Powers thing doesn't. She wasn't pandering to the anti-monster vote. It was an own goal, not an attack that is backfiring.

Posted by pjs | March 7, 2008 11:47 AM

Its simple enough. Hillary is challenging Obama on experience and would take on McCain on judgement. Obama needs to challenge Hillary on judgement - which has been effective for him.

Complaining about HRC "helping" McCain does not defuse the experience issue. Actually it helps keep it on table.

Posted by Undecided | March 7, 2008 11:48 AM

katie - Are you joking? By your calculation an advisor making an off-handed comment that she sought to retract and apologized for is worse than the candidate herself saying that the Republican nominee would make a better Commander in Chief? That's absurd.

You yourself point out that the monster comment is not substantive. It did not come from Obama. The advisor apologized.

The Commander in Chief thing is substantive. It is untrue if you believe (a) that Bill Clinton was qualified in 1992, or (b) that the next president should not be a warmonger who wants to bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran.

The monster comment does not make her Commander in Chief argument okay.

Posted by Merle | March 7, 2008 11:49 AM

LarryM, it's not so much that Clinton praised McCain's leadershp abilities, it's that she said that McCain's would be better than Obama's. That doesn't even get to the part where Clinton looks like she's desperately trying to put herself in the same category of McCain in terms of "experience" which is, frankly, a bit implausible. But it's the act of comparing Obama unfavorably to McCain that annoys me.

Posted by Tyro | March 7, 2008 11:50 AM

katie
Obama's campaign staffer has resigned.

Posted by carsick | March 7, 2008 11:53 AM

I don't know whether the Clinton CIC threshold is a winning or losing strategy, but it is clearly thought out on two levels.

In the primary campaign it helps her to define Obama as a naif who shouldn't be taken seriously.

In the general election, if she is the candidate, she will do a rerun of the 1992 campaign, "It's the economy, stupid". If things remain relatively stable in Iraq, she can do the "I want to leave but it has to be done in a secure manner" schtick, so implying she and McCain have a relatively similar world view allows her to focus on the economy as the driving issue.

The problem is that if she wins the nomination, there will be no true antiwar message in the campaign.

Posted by Jesse in Jersey | March 7, 2008 11:57 AM

I don't know whether the Clinton CIC threshold is a winning or losing strategy, but it is clearly thought out on two levels.

In the primary campaign it helps her to define Obama as a naif who shouldn't be taken seriously.

In the general election, if she is the candidate, she will do a rerun of the 1992 campaign, "It's the economy, stupid". If things remain relatively stable in Iraq, she can do the "I want to leave but it has to be done in a secure manner" schtick, so implying she and McCain have a relatively similar world view allows her to focus on the economy as the driving issue.

The problem is that if she wins the nomination, there will be no true antiwar message in the campaign.

Posted by Jesse in Jersey | March 7, 2008 11:57 AM

@Israel - What crap. She's just arguing that McCain will argue it is the same as making the point herself. Much like Shaheen arguing that the GOP will claim Obama was a drug dealer was the same as making it yourself. She's not just making a point about what the GOP will argue. She's buying into the likely Republican argument. Namely that a long record in Washington is the most important qualification for a Commander in Chief. That argument burs her and Obama in the general.

Posted by Merle | March 7, 2008 11:59 AM

Power should not have resigned. it was a stupid thing to say to a reporter--off the record or not--but Obama should not be letting Hillary dictate who he hires and fires or works for him.

This is the same problem the Dems have had with the Republicans for 8 years--letting them control the rules of the game.

Obama should've said "I decide who works for me, thanks Hillary. Go back to getting worked over David Shuster."

I highly doubt Clinton's people start wanting every off the record comment they've made about Obama on the record. Their ON the record comments have been bad enough.

What jerks like Wolfson or Penn say about Obama in the heat of the moment is not particularly relevant, and neither was this.

Posted by rob! | March 7, 2008 12:00 PM

The "outrage" of Obama supporters is absurd. They argue that Clinton's criticisms of Obama will destroy the Democratic party. Obama's criticisms of Clinton's corruption, self-regard, overweening desire for power, and various other very personal defamations: not so much.

The most risible part is the Obamoids' assertions that Clinton thinks that she has some right to the nomination, when the fact is that its Obama supporters who are demanding that Clinton exit the campaign and concede. Hey it's a nomination: you have to win it. Clinton's trying, Obama's whining about having to compete for it and actually having to win it. He, or more accurately, some of his supporters apparently seem to believe that he is entitled to it.

Posted by Gene | March 7, 2008 12:02 PM

its Obama supporters who are demanding that Clinton exit the campaign and concede.

Er, no, they aren't. Do you have an example?

Posted by er | March 7, 2008 12:06 PM

Silly boys, Hillary ain't a monster. I mean, come on, what's a lifetime of financial corruption, enabling your husband to molest young women and serial falsehood between friends? She's not a monster, just a Republican in drag. Think of her as our own Rudy Giuliani, still hopelessly mancrushed for that one Republican ace.. Big John.

Posted by bigkatie | March 7, 2008 12:06 PM

"Yes Richard...this is stuff that is clearly out of line. Not characterizing a long-time public servant as a 'monster.'"

Obama didn't say that. Indeed, he's made many gracious comments about Hillary in the debates and elsewhere. Yeah, in a heated campaign a few advisors or supporters will say dumb things. So
what ?

"Save your money. He's nothing special."

Actually, he has some rather remarkable achievements to his credit. Protecting the rights of criminal defendants in Illinois; the Obama-Lugar arms control stuff; legislation to regulate DNA testing. Good work on unglamorous but important issues. And then on top of that his fundraising and ground organizing has been simply astonishing. And he's done all that while winning a lot of independent and even Republican votes. Pretty damn impressive. I expect I will be disappointed on some issues by a President Obama, but from my point of view he's clearly the best candidate on offer.

Meanwhile HRC seems to have pivoted from her
"inevitability" argument, which was basically that money and name recognition would win her the nomination, to conceding that Obama is better at fundraising and better and organizing and better at giving speeches, but that she should still be the nominee because she's been around longer.
Well hell, I want a Democrat in the WH in 2009, and picking the guy who's better at fundraising and organizing and making speeches seems the best bet. The facts that he doesn't waffle about torture, and he kept his common sense during the Iraq war hysteria, are the icing on the cake.

Those qualities shouldn't be special - but among
the candidates on offer, they are.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 7, 2008 12:08 PM

Power resigns.

Posted by bjd | March 7, 2008 12:14 PM

"The "outrage" of Obama supporters is absurd. They argue that Clinton's criticisms of Obama will destroy the Democratic party"

The problem isn't criticizing Obama; where she crosses the line is in praising McCain. Not only that, but praising him on what should be one of our major Dem attacks in the fall: McCain is an old cranky guy with a record of rampant militarism who's said he's fine with keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years - he'd be a *terrible* commander-in-chief.
But HRC can't make that argument - partly because she's now on tape endorsing McCain as C-in-C, and partly because she agrees with him on too many of the foreign policy issues. It's desperate and dumb.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 7, 2008 12:16 PM

All this does is make Democrats look stupid, unprofessional, undisciplined, emotional, and from the Republican side, unfit to lead. Is it too much to ask of a high-level advisor to act in a professional manner? For God's sake, we're not children. I'd thrown her ass out as quick as I could, and anyone else who can't control themselves. Just one more in a long line of Democrats being their own worst enemies. You'd think that with what's gone on in the last 7 years this should be a no-brainer for the Dems, but nooooooooo....

Posted by BlueStreak | March 7, 2008 12:17 PM

Hilary is a monster. She's proven it in this campaign time and time again. Powers was completely right. Of all the major Democrats running for President in 2007 she was the least qualified by temperament, experience and ethical character to be President. There is nothing truly liberal or progressive about her. Her only real qualification is that Republicans hate her. I don't think that's good enough.

Never mind Obama, how did this woman beat Edwards and Richardson? The system may be broken beyond repair at this point.

Posted by vanya | March 7, 2008 12:21 PM

Sullivan has to be absolutely loving this stuff.
I recall coming into the primary season I really appreciated Sully's thoughts on Obama, but thought his take on the Clintons was a bit extreme. I was never going to be in the Hillary camp, given her Iraq vote (and utter lack of remorse for it), but I figured she could at least be a marginally decent commander in chief. Over the last couple of months, however, Sullivan has been completely vindicated. The Clintons are, in fact, just as horrible as he has always made them out to be. I think the veil has been removed from a whole lot of Democrats' eyes at this point.
Posted by J.B. | March 7, 2008 10:46 AM

I have nothing to add so I'll just copy and paste and nod.

Posted by aleks | March 7, 2008 12:23 PM

Surely Hillary misspoke. McCain is well past the threshold of where he would make a good commander and chief and he has passed on into the territory where he would make a good dotering old fool who could be manipulated by rightwing interests into serving the their interests over those of the common man.

Posted by Stephen | March 7, 2008 12:23 PM

Surely Hillary misspoke. McCain is well past the threshold of where he would make a good commander and chief and he has passed on into the territory where he would make a good dotering old fool who could be manipulated by rightwing interests into serving the their interests over those of the common man.

Posted by Stephen | March 7, 2008 12:27 PM

"Hey it's a nomination: you have to win it. Clinton's trying, Obama's whining about having to compete for it and actually having to win it."

Well, duh. And you win the nomination by winning
primaries and caucuses and getting delegates.
And Obama has won more primaries and more caucuses
and has got more delegates. So many more, in fact,
that it looks as though it's really really
difficult for Clinton to catch up, under the rules
of the delegate-allocation game. And why did
Clinton fall behind ? Because there were a bunch
of states where she didn't try very hard.

Yeah, the rules of the game are kinda stupid. But
so are the rules of the general election. Seems to
me the edge goes to the candidate with the
campaign that understands the rules and plays the
game well. Not the campaign that doesn't bother figuring out the rules of the Texas primary/caucus until 2 weeks before the vote, blows a huge lead
in the TX polls and ends up with fewer delegates.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 7, 2008 12:30 PM

Why does Hillary Clinton think McCain would be a better foreign policy leader than Obama?

Passing the "Commander-in-Chief" threshold, whatever that means, is not the same as "good foreign policy leader". IOW, being qualified to head the military does not say anything about foreign policy skills.

Having said that, HRC was totally out of line, and I think she is, in fact, a monster.

Posted by McKingford | March 7, 2008 12:48 PM

I doubt she DOES really believe it, Matt. I just think that she and Bill have decided that, if they can't have the White House back personally, no other Democrat should ever get it. (They always have placed themselves above the interests of both the Democratic Party and the country, as we found out in no uncertain terms during the Lewinsky Affair.)

In this connection, by the way:

(1) "USA Today's" headline this morning is on Bill's personal blocking of the public release of thousands of pages from his library documents on how he chose his pardons: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-06-clinton-library-foia_N.htm?csp=34 .

(2) Mark Kleiman reminds us that Hillary called McCain her "good friend" yesterday despite the fact that he called her daughter an "ugly bastard" back when Chelsea was a teenager: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/03/more_praise_for_hillary_clinton.php .

Posted by BruceMoomaw | March 7, 2008 1:13 PM

I doubt she DOES really believe it, Matt. I just think that she and Bill have decided that, if they can't have the White House back personally, no other Democrat should ever get it. (They always have placed themselves above the interests of both the Democratic Party and the country, as we found out in no uncertain terms during the Lewinsky Affair.)

In this connection, by the way:

(1) "USA Today's" headline this morning is on Bill's personal blocking of the public release of thousands of pages from his library documents on how he chose his pardons: http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-06-clinton-library-foia_N.htm?csp=34 .

(2) Mark Kleiman reminds us that Hillary called McCain her "good friend" yesterday despite the fact that he called her daughter an "ugly bastard" back when Chelsea was a teenager: http://www.samefacts.com/archives/campaign_2008_/2008/03/more_praise_for_hillary_clinton.php .

Posted by BruceMoomaw | March 7, 2008 1:18 PM

On the same subject: Rasmussen now confirms that Hillary's "3 AM" commercial has provided a massive new boost for McCain, at the expense of both her and Obama: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/42_want_mccain_to_answer_3_00_a_m_phone_call .

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 7, 2008 1:32 PM

Well Bruce, you are right of course. I mean, I get accused of trolling (on another thread) for calling Clinton a Devil. But can we ven begin to imagine what the Clintonoids would be calling Obama if (1) he had the same demonstrated, long term record of corruption that Clinton did, (2) if he got on TV and said "Clinton had nothing to do with Vince Foster's death, as far as I know," and (3) put out an unconscionable fear based commercial which benefited McCain to the expense of both himself and Clinton, and (4) made a comment that Obama and his "good friend" McCain, in contrast to Clinton, had the integrity to be a good president, just to list equivalents for four of her most egregious failings?

Clinton supporters are going to look back on this a few years, or even months, from now with deep embarrassment and regret. But that doesn't help us now.

But look on the bright side - this may be the first step in destroying the current two party system, and building something better. Because it is REALLY easy to see this destroying the Democratic party, yet the Republicans right now are in a poor position to capitalize on it. It might even be a good year for the right thrid party candidate (not nader) to make a run.

Posted by LarryM | March 7, 2008 1:45 PM

Matt Y - millions more who prefer Obama's approach and who want to see America pulled back from the brink and back toward something like the liberal internationalist tradition that's governed us at our best since the Second World War rather than to continue on the path of militarism and hegemonism that's been responsible for the bulk of our mistakes.

That would be the liberal internationalist tradition that boosted Defense spending from the 4% level of today's budget to 6-8% of GNP in the Cold War? And which intervened in 2 mid-sized wars, 2 smaller ones and over 30 minor military interventions and funded 40 proxy wars between 1945 and 2000? Stomping impertinent 3rd World ass all along the way?

Hey, I'm fine with that.

MY - Why does Hillary Clinton think McCain would be a better foreign policy leader than Obama?

Perhaps because Obama's complete lack of executive experience in the military, private sector, government is matched by his arrogance. His high self-esteem that he is a superb person of judgment because he made His Great Speech 6 years ago against a war and because he knows the world better than almost anyone because he has Muslim relatives overseas and briefly lived as a kiddie expat.

Clinton was right about McCain and her having vastly more experience than Obama, who would be the least-qualified nominee ever for President on experience and tested executive ability.

Republicans have a rich experience of untested, but articulate, snake oil peddlers with silver tongues appealing to their Base with soaring oratory. Notably Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson in recent years. So they have had candidates with Obama's basic communications superiority and stump speech schtick before and learned to reject them. No one was alive when the last such enthralling Democrat "orator" captivated his masses - William Jennings Bryant. Unless you count Reverend Jesse and Reverend Al as men with no executive experience who thrilled their crowds -But unlike WJ Bryant and Obama the other two black preachers were not perceived as serious candidates, but protest ones.

She is as right to hammer Obama for his doing nothing other than making an ideological crowd pleaser speech he later back-peddled from as HW Bush was right to say Pat Buchanan had no serious quals other than giving speeches. And speeches that mirrored what some of the bad guys on the Right were saying.

(Just as Obama's Oct 2, 2002 speech mirrored what Putin, radical Muslim leaders, "Oil-for-Food" bribed officials, AQ, and the usual suspects on the Hollywood Left were saying about Iraq. Like Obama, none were operating off of facts abd showing "superior judgment" in the process, just their prospective political ideologies.)

Posted by chris ford | March 7, 2008 1:56 PM

I will definitely agree with Hillary on one point, though: I don't want her to go home and bake cookies. Given the way she campaigns, my primary concern would be that the cookies might contain arsenic.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 7, 2008 2:10 PM

The Cold War's over, Christopher (although I wouldn't quite put it past the McCain/Hillary faction to restart one unnecessarily). And Obama's supporters are not nearly as fond of those Third World proxy wars as Hillary's and McCain's are -- although it's reassuring that you take a dim view of them, too. (Assuming, of course, that you're not saying the Jews put us up to them.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 7, 2008 2:17 PM

Evidently Samantha Power and I are far from alone:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=ba30ff16-a5af-4035-a883-cf15ffee406c

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 7, 2008 2:38 PM

"Clinton was right about McCain and her having vastly more experience than Obama, who would be the least-qualified nominee ever for President on experience and tested executive ability."

Well, he seems to be doing a bang-up job of running
a nationwide organization with revenue of about $50M/month. I guess I sort-of agree that HRC has been "tested" - anybody who heads a presidential campaign these days has been tested - but she's not doing so well. And she didn't do so well running the healthcare initiative back in 93; and she didn't do so well in her Iraq-war vote in 2002.

I like HRC, up to a point. But her experience is pretty thin, and her campaign has gone off the rails. McCain isn't much either - take out his undoubted heroic suffering in captivity, and what's left is a guy who's sat in Washington for 25 years without making much of a mark on anything. He's no Ted Kennedy. He's not even Bob Dole.

Posted by Richard Cownie | March 7, 2008 3:31 PM

If Obama does get nominated, it will be fascinating to watch Hillary explain why she's endorsing him despite the fact that he's far more of a danger to the survival of the Republic than McCain.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 7, 2008 6:28 PM

Of course, I still have fond memories of the very end of the 1972 Democratic Convention, where Scoop Jackson endorsed McGovern while looking as though he would prefer to be cleaning toilets with his tongue.

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | March 7, 2008 6:40 PM

I'm not certain what experience she has that makes her more qualified to be commander in chief. Riding around on Air Force One for eight years doesn't count.

She voted to send soldiers to a battlefield and then to cut off their funding. No sacrifice is too great if it furthers her political ambitions.

Why would any sane person trust her with the lives of the men and the women that serve in the military.

Posted by Dave Yeager | March 8, 2008 2:06 AM

Matt, your cluelessness surfaces again.

Is it any surprise to anybody who has watched the Clintons for years that she stoops to this nonsense?

The Clintons are assholes indistinguishable from McCain or Bush or Dick Cheney.

Somebody questioned whether you thought Hillary was Dick Cheney in drag yesterday.

Yes - she is. She's the female equivalent, at least.

Samantha was right to call her a "monster", but unfortunately didn't have the nerve to stand by her statement.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | March 8, 2008 3:21 AM