Vetting

It's worth noting that Hendrick Hertzberg is absolutely right to say that it's just not true that Hillary Clinton has already been vetted, she "has not, in fact, survived the worst that the Republican attack machine (and its pilotless drones online and on talk radio) can dish out." There's a whole set of potential vulnerabilities dealing with pardons and finances from about 2000 to 2006 or 7 that haven't been explored in detail during the course of this or any other campaign.

I don't really want to rehash those incidents because I think it's sleazy and their existence isn't the reason I think Clinton would be the worse nominee. But if you're out there thinking Obama's got this Ayers and Wrght stuff in the closet and Hillary has no new vulnerabilities for the GOP to explore you're fooling yourself.

Comments

"I don't really want to rehash those incidents because I think it's sleazy..."

Matt, these incidents may be sleazy but some of them are DEFINITELY worth reporting on. Bill Clinton's pardons for his wife's gains are newsworthy because they show corruption or at least indicate it.

When Bill Clinton gets money from his foundation from sleazy sources, it is worth commenting on because there is a line of influence that reach his wife - like the Giustra/Kazakhstan thing.

This is not all right-wing lunacy, these actions do impact the very workings of US democratic process at the highest levels.

Posted by Vik N | April 27, 2008 11:45 AM

Yes, Hillary has some points on which the GOP can attack her fresh.

But a lot of her history has been dealt with, even the 'scandals' that werent actually scandals (i.e., Whitewater). It is correct to say that Hillary has been largely vetted, and Obama is just now being vetted.

Posted by Kuros | April 27, 2008 11:54 AM

They also raise credibility issues: how can Clinton or Democrats go after the Republicans on corruption if Clinton has similar looking ties to __________ ?

Fill in the blank with Giustra/Kazakhstan or Abramoff/Tan Family/Luen Thai or ....

Even if she's able to fend of such attacks, it will be the same kind of distraction that Wright poses.

Posted by Jeff | April 27, 2008 11:56 AM

How about all the women Bill's fucked over the past 7 years?

Just because he's an old man doesn't mean he's no longer attracted to other women. As Chris Rock says, "A man is only as faithful as his options."

Bill's options: http://cache.gawker.com/images/2006/04/20060411clintonplane.jpg

Posted by nattyb | April 27, 2008 11:57 AM

She got a pass on the cattle-futures bribery deal. She turned $1,000 into $100,000 in one year betting against the market. That's as sleazy as it gets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

If this isn't a bribe, then she ought to be running a hedge fund.

Posted by Chris | April 27, 2008 11:58 AM

Yeah, Matt. I have been saying that this entire primary campaign. The idea that Hillary has been fully vetted has as much reality as those bullets she dodged in Tuzla. For a variety of reasons, Obama has chosen not to counter her Tonya Harding strategy in kind and the press accepts her vettedness out of pure laziness. McCain and the GOP 527s wouldn't show any such restraint. In addition there's the simple fact that she's Hillary Clinton, somebody the right has spent a great deal of time and energy vilifying for 16 years. It would be much easier for the right to criticize her health care plan in the general election because there already is an existing narrative they created in 1993-4 about how she favors a big government plan that eliminates choice.

Posted by Ron | April 27, 2008 12:01 PM

no, young man, you're fooling yourself.

the question regarding clinton isn't whether there are new targets for the gop to attack: for goodness sake, this is the gop core competency and of course they will find new targets to attack, real or imaginary.

the question is whether there are any potential voters left for whom a new gop line of attack on clinton makes the slightest degree of difference, and that is what people are referencing when they say that clinton has been "vetted;" by now, either you hate her or you don't, and it's unlikely that there are too many people who are just waiting to find out something new about clinton.

obama, on the other hand, remains a quite new figure on the national scene: taking moderately informed pro-obama folks and turning them away from him due to attack ads is, in fact, quite a likely outcome.

"fooling yourself," in the broader sense, is true of everyone who comments assuredly on the better candidate in terms of beating mccain: we don't have enough data to have a frickin' clue.

Posted by howard | April 27, 2008 12:05 PM

Iam something on Real Time one night said he's heard from multiple sources (both R and D) that there is a list going around of all the young skanks Bill has taken advantage of over the past 8 years. Don't know if it's true, but it would really be infuriating if Hillary took the nomination just to drag us through that shit again.

Posted by 55 | April 27, 2008 12:07 PM

The other thing that is annoying about this line of argument is the suggestion that somehow she has beaten or overcome the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. That is true only in a narrow psychological sense. The right wing hammered her and hammered her, and yet she still ran for senate and now president.

That kind of doggedness is admirable in a way (but, as we're seeing now, also correlated with traits that are less admirable). But is quite different than what she appears to be claiming -- namely, that she has meaningfully beat the republicans in a general election. She has been elected to the senate twice in a very democratic-friendly state. The first time she underperformed the top of the ticket, and the second time she ran without serious opposition. Her husband was elected president twice. But, if anything, she was a drag on his political fortunes, not a net plus.

Seriously, she has grit. But there is just no evidence that she is a gifted general election campaigner.

Posted by pjs | April 27, 2008 12:07 PM

Hillary has so much scandal in waiting it's not funny. That's why people like Limbaugh would rather face her.

The Wright/Ayers stuff is small potatoes compared to the targets that Hillary offers. It's just right now the MSM is taking their marching orders from Hillary and is echoing her talking points.

Hillary shouldn't even be considered as a possible nominee due to all of her and Bill's scandals, past, present, and future. She would be sunk overnight by the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity, etc.

Limbaugh already refers to the Clintons as the mafia, and talks of her campaign headquarters being a crime scene. Then there's Bill's social life; all it will take is one picture of Bill with another woman and that whole scandal is reignited.

And while we're worrying so much about those working class whites, let's consider these church-going normal Americans and their reaction to Bill's womanizing, not to mention their reactions to the Clinton's selling of votes and access to the oil barons of the Middle East, and the Chinese, etc.

Hillary is the Republican's fervent dream: she is the only one that can unite the GOP, as people will walk across hot coals to vote against her.

It is actually laughable that the Clinton campaign tries to in any way paint Obama as less electable.

Posted by cm | April 27, 2008 12:09 PM

1) Howard's argument, posted above, posits that the Clinton team's claim that "Hillary has been vetted" is not a claim that there are no new scandals to expose, but a claim that people are already divided on Hillary Clinton and that few people will change their minds on her, one way or the other. This is patently false. Hillary's negatives have climbed in the primaries, and her reputation for dishonesty has gone through the roof. In addition to Bill's sex life and his pardons and his shady financing, we can now add a new willingness to look at how Hillary played a role in enabling her husbands sexual affairs by intimidating women who went public. The Clintons reputation for throwing anyone and everyone nder the bus has grown substantially.

2) Obama should not participate in sleazy attacks on Clinton. But he also should not let Hillary and Bill off the hook by explaining away their lies - about Bosnia, about playing the race card. Obama can simply refuse to pile on.

3) Obama has waited too long to shift the health care debate away from the this plan versus that plan drone, and make the issue a strong one about who can get it done. The words he should have been repeating over and over are: "Hillary failed, and she has not learned lessons from her mistakes." Hillary failed in 1993 and gave us Newt Gingrich. She failed because she bludgeoned people and attacked allies who didn't agree with her 100%. She failed because she is polarizing. She failed because she made every issue into a choice of her way or the highway. And she repeats the same mistake now, attacking fellow democrats, casting health care as all or nothing (demand 100% universal mandatory coverage or you will be nickle and dimed to death by the vast right wing republican attack machine . . ..).

Obama could have and should have dealt her the knock out blow on the issues - on health care and Iraq - and on the solutions business. Solutions! Experience! Hillary Clinton = Failure and a Republican Congress!

That is all legit, all above the belt, all about real issues and real questions of effectiveness.

Hillary Clinton is a fighter! So is G W Bush. Go fight everyone, don't pick and choose your battles wisely, piss off your allies. Hillary does it, GWB does it, and we know where that gets us: The Contract With America and Iraq.

Obama needs a booster shot, fast.

Joe

Posted by Joe Shmoe | April 27, 2008 12:29 PM

"the question is whether there are any potential voters left for whom a new gop line of attack on clinton makes the slightest degree of difference, and that is what people are referencing when they say that clinton has been "vetted;" by now, either you hate her or you don't, and it's unlikely that there are too many people who are just waiting to find out something new about clinton.

"obama, on the other hand, remains a quite new figure on the national scene: taking moderately informed pro-obama folks and turning them away from him due to attack ads is, in fact, quite a likely outcome."

Yup.

"fooling yourself," in the broader sense, is true of everyone who comments assuredly on the better candidate in terms of beating mccain: we don't have enough data to have a frickin' clue."

Well...

We can tell some stuff. Clinton will almost definitely be stronger in the broad Appalachian Midwest. Obama has a decent shot at being stronger the Lutheran upper Midwest, though the deterioration of the Obama brand makes that less certain.

Considering the way electoral votes and the two parties' coalitions are laid out, I think we can pretty safely say that if electability is the paramount concern, you go with Clinton.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 12:40 PM

The repubs and the msm are not attacking hillary right now because she's losing. Attacking hillary would hasten the end of the Dem's internecine fighting. Why would they want to do that? If Obama is eliminated and Hillary becomes the nominee, the attacks will be harsher than we've ever seen - and the idea that they will have no effect on voters is a fantasy. The sexism and misogyny will make your head spin. Hillary's campaign right now is exploiting the unwillingness of white working class voters to vote for a black man. How many of these voters will be immune to an appeal that they shouldn't vote for a woman?

Posted by Bloix | April 27, 2008 12:41 PM

Yeah, most of the right wing attacks on Hillary for the past decade or so have been for the purpose of selling books to people who already hate her, not winning votes among people on the fence. (Neither she nor her husband has faced a serious election since 1996.) So the accusations they focus on have been the most absolutely outlandish and absurd (secret lesbian, murder conspiracies) that probably if anything turn moderates to her side.

Not to mention African Americans and liberal activists becoming deeply dissatisfied with her and the party if she managed the take the nomination.

It's worth noting that even now her popularity ratings are kind of volatile, with her negatives currently above her positives. She's not hit the floor, nor given any reason to think that her floor is higher than that of Obama (indeed, attacks against him now are pretty much the sort of thing we'll be seeing until November).

We'll never know for sure who would do better because that would require a counter-factual comparison, but the notion that she is in any sense vetted or that people's opinions of her are fixed is just nonsense.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 27, 2008 12:42 PM

"no, young man, you're fooling yourself."

Also, it's an open question if Matthew and Hertzberg are fooling themselves, or trying to fool others.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 12:45 PM

The mathematics and the reality of the thing is that Obama will be the nominee. Hillary's quixotic campaign is merely a useful tool for softening him up prior to the general election campaign. The GOP establishment/MSM (two faces of the same thing) have united behind Hillary because they know she won't get the nomination under any circumstances, not because they've made a judgment about whether she or Obama is the stronger candidate.

In any case, if Hillary did somehow manage to secure the nomination, she'd have so battered the Democratic party that she'd be a weak candidate even apart from any of her own personal qualities/vulnerabilities. So piling on Obama now is the smart move for the GOP under all circumstances.

Posted by jimBOB | April 27, 2008 12:49 PM

This story about Obama on the front page of the LA Times looks worrisome. Even if there isn't much to it (i.e. it's another Whitewater), they'll be able to investigate it up one side and down the other. The GOP will be calling for impeachment by Jan. 22, 2009. Sigh.

Posted by J Bean | April 27, 2008 12:51 PM

Look, didn't the Republicans spend around $40M or whatever attacking Hillary in her first Senate race? She was the total focus of the campaign, since nobody much knew or cared about Lazio one way or the other.

Also, when you're running a bitter, close race in NY, the NYC tabloids go all out to dig into anything they can---I really tend to doubt that the Murdoch's Post pulled it's punches.

That's a totally different situation than Saint Barack winning his one and only campaign against Alan Keyes who didn't have a dollar (and who just lost the Constitution Party nomination for being too erratic). Remember that although Steve Sailer was talking about Rev. Wright a year or two ago here, nobody else in the media new about it until it blew up.

So: has *all* of Hillary's dirty linen already been aired? No, but about as much as $40M and the NYC tabloids could dig up, which is an aweful lot, and vastly more than poor Saint Barack.

That's exactly why Bob Herbert wrote that NYC column yesterday expressed a great deal of concern over Barack the political rookie just not being up to a tough November campaign.

Posted by RKU | April 27, 2008 12:52 PM

you don't want to do it because it's sleazy? Are you kidding me? Hillary doesn't care about being sleazy, why should you or anybody else in the media? The media is perfectly willing to report all the "sleazy" stuff about Obama, why not report the much more GENUINELY sleazy stuff about her?

Posted by conner | April 27, 2008 12:55 PM

Bill Clinton had a history of pardoning terrorists and terrorist supporters, like Marc Rich, FALN, and these weather underground people. So already one line of attack on HRC would be that Bill pardoned so many terrorists.

HRC is unelectable; period. Of that there is no doubt. She is laden with scandals. And the GOP did win out against her; it is a myth to think she won out in some manner.

She has sky high negatives; could only win in deep blue NY. And most of those white blue collar voters that every one is talking about now hate her guts, and would moreso, if she made to a general election where the GOP would relentlessly attack her.

And let it be known that many of these scandals, like the financial ones and the pardons, are true. The Clintons really are corrupt.

Posted by cm | April 27, 2008 12:56 PM

"the question is whether there are any potential voters left for whom a new gop line of attack on clinton makes the slightest degree of difference, and that is what people are referencing when they say that clinton has been 'vetted;'"

Only Hillary and her supporters have been saying that she's been vetted--not disinterested observers, other Democrats, or Republicans. But since her negatives have only gone up since the beginning of the primary, and she has lost previous supporters/hasn't gained any new sources of support, did this "vetting" actually do anything positive?

Posted by blahblah | April 27, 2008 12:57 PM

you don't want to do it because it's sleazy? Are you kidding me? Hillary doesn't care about being sleazy, why should you or anybody else in the media? The media is perfectly willing to report all the "sleazy" stuff about Obama, why not report the much more GENUINELY sleazy stuff about her?

Posted by conner | April 27, 2008 12:57 PM

you don't want to do it because it's sleazy? Are you kidding me? Hillary doesn't care about being sleazy, why should you or anybody else in the media? The media is perfectly willing to report all the "sleazy" stuff about Obama, why not report the much more GENUINELY sleazy stuff about her?

Posted by conner | April 27, 2008 12:57 PM

I think you are quite right. There is no way that Hilary Clinton has been at all tested against the kind of sleazy attacks that Obama has had to endure. The Democrats just won't go there after the 1990s trauma but there is no reason to believe that the Republicans won't. After she has trashed Obama (which she will have to do to get the nomination) and the Republicans start on her there will be absolutely no holding them back, and if she objects she won't have a leg to stand on. It is difficult to see how HRC will be able to win the independents in any conceivable scenario.

Meanwhile the media love the train wreck and will pursue the narrative that keeps it in progress.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 27, 2008 12:59 PM

Tusla. Period. Tusla.
When given a chance to hit on it Obama held back, even after she attacked him on Wright and Ayers. Why? Because, unlike Clinton, he actually cares about the party.
This time the vast right ring doesn't have to make up anything. Tusla. They'll be laughing about it the year after McCain's first SOTU.

Posted by bjd | April 27, 2008 12:59 PM

For good or ill, a lot of the anti-Hillary material will be seen as "old news". Obama, on the other hand, will have a very hard time dealing with his connection to Ayers.

The attacks against Obama will not be as easily dismissed as the ones against Hillary.

Posted by James Robertson | April 27, 2008 1:01 PM

ANd could people PLEASE stop calling Hillary's campaign "quixotic." Call it selfish, call it destructive, call it narcissitic, call it delusional, call it unrealistic, but don't imply a comparison to Don Quixote by calling it quixotic.

The character of Don Quixote was delusional but he was an idealist,he was honorable, he was an innocent, he was a romantic. I'd hardly call Hillary Clinton any of those things.

Posted by conner | April 27, 2008 1:02 PM

Obama's negatives are rising and will rise further. But it's difficult to imagine that Obama's negatives could possibly go above Hillary Clinton's, the second most reviled and hated politician in America. And as long as that's true, Clinton's electability argument will remain extremely weak.

Posted by Korha | April 27, 2008 1:09 PM

"For good or ill, a lot of the anti-Hillary material will be seen as 'old news'. Obama, on the other hand, will have a very hard time dealing with his connection to Ayers."

Would this connection be at all like, say, pardoning two members of the Weather Underground? Whoops, that was Hillary's husband. And, conveniently, Hillary doesn't know anything about it! Guess she wasn't really paying attention during that 35 years of service, was she?

Posted by blahblah | April 27, 2008 1:12 PM

For good or ill, a lot of the anti-Hillary material will be seen as "old news".

What a naive comment. There's no statute of limitations for Democrats. How old was Whitewater when Ken Starr spent years investigating it? How old was the picture of Kerry that they photoshopped Jane Fonda into? The "old news" exclusion only works for Republicans.

The establishment knows it is in mortal danger now, as the populace is (justifiably) really angry. Obama faces total war from here on out. If he wins, his treatment will make the war on the Clintons look like a pillow fight.

The GOP will be calling for impeachment by Jan. 22, 2009.

Publicly they'll start then. Privately, they'll start drawing up the articles on Nov. 5, 2008. In fact, if we get close to November and Obama is looking strong, an organized plan to impeach him will probably start even before the election.

Posted by jimBOB | April 27, 2008 1:15 PM

> Clinton will almost definitely be stronger
> in the broad Appalachian Midwest.

The Appalachians are the East. The eastern Ohio River valley might be considered part of the midwest, but generally speaking the area you describe is eastern in culture and outlook. Unless you meant the Ozarks which could be considered either lower Midwest or upper South.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | April 27, 2008 1:16 PM

The pardons are execreble, but - they aren't part of a long term relationship with a Weather Underground member. Hillary is married to the man to pardoned two people she has no relationship with; Obama launched his state senate campaign in Ayers' house, and later served on a board with him.

So yeah, it's far worse, and far harder to explain away.

Posted by James Robertson | April 27, 2008 1:18 PM

James Robertson,
Are you deliberated being obtuse, or have you been sitting in the basement, mixing up the medicine?

Bill pardoned 2 members of the weather underground. If Ayers is the game spoiler, Clinton has the pardons and now she's lying about not knowing about pardons.
Yet another lie. What a hoot.
The Tulsa Tigris, dodging sniper fire with Gibson guitars and comedians.

Once again, Obama has not touched this stuff, The first millisecond Clinton gets the nomination, Joe Scarborough and all the other right wing hacks will be all over her like white on rice.

Posted by bjd | April 27, 2008 1:19 PM

Follow-up: it's really, really hard for an established politician to get their negatives DOWN in any significant way. But it's not really hard for an established politician to see their negatives go UP in a big way. And in fact this is exactly what's happened with Clinton in this campaign.

If people hate you, they suddenly won't start liking you. But you can always piss off more people. Clinton's current negatives are a hard cap on what percentage of the electorate she can eke out in a general election. But they aren't a floor.

Posted by Korha | April 27, 2008 1:21 PM

"The Appalachians are the East. The eastern Ohio River valley might be considered part of the midwest, but generally speaking the area you describe is eastern in culture and outlook. Unless you meant the Ozarks which could be considered either lower Midwest or upper South."

For the purposes of American politics, the broad Appalachian Midwest includes places like much of PA, and all of OH and WV.

It's the most common political definition, whether it's the way a geographer would describe things or not. It usefully describes a set of voter behavior.

Clinton is going to destroy Obama in the KY primary due to the Appalachian factor, for example. Clinton has a far better shot at winning OH in the general due to the Appalachian factor, for another example.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 1:23 PM

The character of Don Quixote was delusional but he was an idealist,he was honorable, he was an innocent, he was a romantic. I'd hardly call Hillary Clinton any of those things.

Clinton may not be an innocent romantic, but I think a lot of her followers are. Especially the ones who think she'd not be the target of vicious GOP smears if she got the nomination.

Posted by jimBOB | April 27, 2008 1:23 PM

There's a whole set of potential vulnerabilities dealing with pardons and finances from about 2000 to 2006 or 7 that haven't been explored in detail during the course of this or any other campaign.

Don't neglect the pre-2000 stuff, or fall for the Clinton line that these matters have all been explored in detail, and will have no effect in the general election. A few points here:

1. The Hillary Clinton side of the 90's Clinton scandals were tangential to the central Republican attack effort against Bill Clinton. Since Hillary Clinton did not hold public office a the time, nor was she running for one, they did not achieve the kind of traction then that they will get in this election.

2. Clinton tries to suggest that these 90's scandals have all been weathered, ridden out and overcome. Her message is that the Republicans tried to get her and never came up with anything that stuck. But in fact, many of the stories from those days did stick, and did permanent damage. That is one reason why Hillary Clinton has shown a low ceiling and high, persistent negatives since this election season began. There is now a very large group of people who will simply never vote for her, and that gives her a very tiny margin of error in the general election.

3. There is a younger generation of voters who either were too young to know anything about these episodes when they first occurred, or are old enough to remember them, but processed them then through more naive eyes. We have yet to go through the "What was Travelgate anyway, and what was the outcome?" news cycle that is bound to occur, that will consume a couple of weeks when it does occur, and that will inevitably lose Clinton votes in the process.

4. Not everything that can be raised against Clinton fits into the category of a sleazy guilt-by-association story, or a tawdry but irrelevant hot button issue. The Republicans have plenty they can bring out besides the "Hillary offed Vince Foster" crap.

5. Clinton's biggest vulnerability lies in the fact that she is perceived as dishonest and untrustworthy - even by a majority of Democrats. The fact is that since Clinton has been in the public eye, she has told a mountain of lies, and a group of opponents who are far less polite than Barack Obama will have no trouble exposing these lies, and reminding voters about them constantly. This won't all be sleaze. These attacks will often consist of accurate accounts of actual lies Clinton has told.

6. A big part of the Republican campaign is just going to be based on reviving the national "ick" factor that attaches to Bill Clinton, and the Clintons in general. I have to believe that after a few months of replays about semen-stained dresses, sex toy cigars, "I did not have sexual relations with that women", the meaning of "is", endless re-plays of the impeachment proceedings, and the faces of Monica Lewisnsky and all the other Bill Clinton women plastered everywhere, a whole lot of voters are going to say, "Look, I am just not interested in re-living the seamy 90's Clinton soap opera any more. Enough with the Clintons!"

I have to say that it really is extraordinary that a president who was impeached, and narrowly avoided conviction and removal from office, is back on the scene and playing such a prominent role in another campaign, and that he and his wife are now ready to drag us through the same mud they dragged us through ten years ago. What strange obsession with the Clintons would lead Democrats to even consider putting us through this again? It seems to me that a lot of Democrats were traumatized in the 90's, and made not a little bit crazy by their experience of the Clinton administration. They circled the wagons to defend their boy, fought heroically to save him, and have now made a weird, hopeless masochistic religion out of permanent Clinton-defense. These Democrats are very protective of the Clintons, and respond to every criticism of them with a tirade about "right wing talking points" and the like, which accounts for the strange atmosphere of silence and denial about every Clinton misdeed that has characterized the Hillary Clinton campaign, a campaign that by any rational appraisal should be seen as an absurd Sisyphean labor and an obtuse attempt to unwrite history.

The Clintons should have had the good sense to fade away once their exhausting psychodrama had come to an end in January, 2001. But they are such shameless and unprincipled narcissists that they will not stop until we stop them.

Posted by Dan Kervick | April 27, 2008 1:29 PM

James: "Hillary is married to the man to pardoned two people she has no relationship with"

So you're distancing Hillary away from Bill's presidency? What was she doing that she doesn't know anything about these pardons, as she claims now?

Petey: "Clinton is going to destroy Obama in the KY primary due to the Appalachian factor, for example. Clinton has a far better shot at winning OH in the general due to the Appalachian factor, for another example."

So "Appalachian factor" is code for "don't like black people"? And you seriously believe these people will vote for Hillary against McCain?

Posted by blahblah | April 27, 2008 1:31 PM

Why does no one mention that no Democrat has gotten 40% of the white male vote in a general election since LBJ? Since when are they a key swing vote? It'd be suicide to nominate someone who appeals to a group that won't vote for a Democrat and alienate the one demographic that consistently has (African-Americans).

Posted by 55 | April 27, 2008 1:40 PM

What strange obsession with the Clintons would lead Democrats to even consider putting us through this again?

Don't look at me, she was always my last choice for nominee.

It seems to me that a lot of Democrats were traumatized in the 90's, and made not a little bit crazy by their experience of the Clinton administration.

What traumatized us was not so much the Clintons as their ruthless and utterly unprincipled enemies, who seized power in 2000 and have done their best to wreck the country (pretty successfully). Personally I found the years 2001-2008 far more politically traumatic than the years 1993-2000.

Posted by jimBOB | April 27, 2008 1:42 PM

I have to say that it really is extraordinary that a president who was impeached, and narrowly avoided conviction and removal from office, is back on the scene and playing such a prominent role in another campaign, and that he and his wife are now ready to drag us through the same mud they dragged us through ten years ago.

Well, I'm about the biggest Obama booster you'll find, but it's not that hard to imagine when you consider how undeniably better for everyone the 1990s were compared to how the 2000s have been. It's pretty obvious that the Clintons have some kind of bizarre narcissistic/monarchical deal whereby Bill would help Hillary become president following his leaving office, but that doesn't change the fact that the 1990s, despite all the scandals real and imagined, were a far more comfortable time for the U.S. than Bush's term has been.

Posted by Magic Shoes | April 27, 2008 1:45 PM

Re: In fact, if we get close to November and Obama is looking strong, an organized plan to impeach him will probably start even before the election.

Given that the Democrats will retain and probably strengthen their hold on Congress such a plan would be be meaningless.

Re: Don't neglect the pre-2000 stuff, or fall for the Clinton line that these matters have all been explored in detail, and will have no effect in the general election.

The Clinton "scandals" of yore, including Monicagate, were a major turnoff as far as the voters were cocnerned-- that is, they made people less likely to vote for the GOP and more likely to look favorably on the Clintons. Recall that the Democrats won seats in the 1998 election, and even in 2000 George Bush very carefully avoided having any opinion on Monicagate given that GOP scandalmongering had become the kiss of death.

Posted by JonF | April 27, 2008 1:45 PM

I think that Clinton and Obama supporters are being simplistic. Those stories against Clinton are so old that people will be immune to it. Besides she could run on the economy because people remember that times were so good during the 90s. HRC's tendency to exaggerate her accomplishments will however have some traction.

Looking at how the media is reporting the Moyers interview with Wrignt, I think that this "issue" will haunt him in the general. The Ayers issue won't harm him because it is a stupid issue. think that it had really hurt him. The best way for Obama to avoid further negative press is to allow the media to have access to him the way McCain does. Had he done that sooner the press would not have turned on him as we see now.

Posted by Micheline | April 27, 2008 1:56 PM

Bill pardoned unrepentant terrorists in the FALN to politically benefit Hillary in her NY Senate run. These FALN terrorists killed people in New York and never felt any remorse about it. Meanwhile, Ayers never killed anyone. Bill let threats to national security go free to help his wife get 2-3 more percentage points in one of the bluest states in the nation.

Posted by Reality Man | April 27, 2008 1:58 PM

Clinton is going to destroy Obama in the KY primary due to the Appalachian factor, for example. Clinton has a far better shot at winning OH in the general due to the Appalachian factor, for another example.

Oh, for crissake. Clinton is going to win the Kentucky primary and this is why she should be the candidate? She's not going to win Kentucky in the general.

You have yet to explain how Clinton, with far and away the highest across-the-board negatives of all three major candidates remaining for president, and a near-majority of citizens willing to outright state they will not vote for her under any circumstances (even pro-Hillarites admit that her vote ceiling in a general election is probably 53%, and that’s likely an optimistic figure), has a better shot in the general than Obama.

Saying “she won Pennsylvania and Ohio and Florida” isn’t an argument, because she won there among Democrats, and not especially overwhelmingly either. Every demographic she beats Barack Obama in is one where John McCain will do better, simply by virtue of being white and male.

Ohio's electorate leans Democratic, but only very slightly: 34 percent Democratic, 30 percent Republican, and then independents who are "leaning" one way stretch that to 50-44. The winner of Ohio will be the person who does the best job of keeping Democratic-leaning independents and winning undecided independents, two metrics on which Hillary Clinton has been terrible throughout practically the entire campaign.

(Counting Michigan, incidentally, is just stupid – it was a glorified straw poll with one major name on the ballot where Democrats were encouraged to make mischief and vote for Mitt Romney to increase chaos on the Republican side, and she couldn’t even break sixty percent against “undecided.”)

She’s not going to win Florida – it will go red. She’s also not going to win Colorado or North Carolina or Virginia, all states that right now lean Democratic in the general with Obama at the top of the ticket, but not with her. (He also puts Georgia and Texas - Texas - in play, although winning there is unlikely, but forcing the Republicans to spend money defensively is not a bad thing.)

And saying that Hillary won PA and OH in the primary which means Obama can’t win them in the general? We’ve just seen a Pennsylvania primary with Democratic turnout in record numbers, almost equivalent to Presidential race numbers. Democrats in these states are energized, and unless you think Clinton voters came out specifically to vote against Obama or Obama voters came out specifically to vote against Clinton – and Rush Limbaugh conspiracy theories aside, there’s no serious grounds for either allegation – the overall impression is of an excited, energized electorate for Democrats and a depressed, disinterested electorate for Republicans.

The only way to fuck that up is to pick a Democratic candidate with a lengthy, active history of pissing off Republicans just for being who she is. It's not fair that Hillary is that person, but politics isn't fair.

Yes, there are polls saying “no way I vote for Clinton/Obama in the general if he/she gets the nod,” but these polls always exist, and inevitably the same thing happens: most people look at the alternatives, shrug, and vote for the party they supported in the primary anyway. You’re already seeing it happen with McCain – who, you will remember, was roundly loathed not three months ago by the Republican nut-and-file, but now they’re all holding their noses while they extoll his virtues.

That isn’t going to change this time around. John McCain is a terrible, terrible candidate; where he has leads in the general election polls right now are not where he will necessarily have leads when the Democrats have a candidate. Take a look at Obama’s numbers against McCain right now and then swing them four to six percent – that’s what happens when he’s nominated as the general election candidate, the bump the "anointed candidate" always gets. Add another one or two points’ worth of swing if he picks a good VP candidate (which he will). That should be your baseline for expectations in the general.

And yes, the same math works for Clinton, although the only VP candidate she can potentially win with is Obama (and she knows it). She just has weaker numbers against McCain overall, because she’s not as well liked as Obama is. In other elections that might not make a difference, but in this one it does because the stakes are crucial.

And finally, there’s no real basis to pick Hillary over Obama in terms of fairness even if we ignore electability. Hillary is behind in every conceivable metric; states won, popular vote, elected delegates, national preference. There is simply no basis for her candidacy grounded in rational fact.

So explain how Clinton is a better choice for nominee than Obama.

Seriously. Let’s see it. Put away the constant stream of ad hominems and actually work with real facts.

Posted by mightygodking | April 27, 2008 1:59 PM

Given that the Democrats will retain and probably strengthen their hold on Congress such a plan would be be meaningless.

I think this reflects a difference in the way Democrats and Republicans see impeachment. To the Democrats, impeachment is an extreme and very serious constitutional remedy, which one would only undertake it if seemed both justified and likely to succeed. To Republicans, impeachment is simply a political rallying move, to be undertaken immediately if it offers any partisan advantage, whether or not it will succeed.

And before you get too sanguine about the inefficacy of scandalmongering, I'll just offer my opinion that had there been no Monicagate and no impeachment, Al Gore would have easily and unequivocally won in 2000.

Posted by jimBOB | April 27, 2008 2:00 PM

The degree to which the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has already one is evident in (a) what they've made Hillary become and (b) the way some on the left quake in the slippers every time they think of what the big bad Republicans are going to do to us.

Obama is running this race on his own terms. There is no way he could run a conventional campaign. It wouldn't work so the all the hand-wringing about how he should attack, etc. is pointless. He playing by his own rules.

Posted by Marcus | April 27, 2008 2:00 PM

One more thing: Bill didn't "narrowly avoid" removal from office. It was a foregone conclusion after the 1998 disaster for the GOP (two speakers resigned!) and ensuing drawn-out trial that the Republicans would never have the votes to remove him from office based on lying under oath about an affair. There were just too many GOP senators from moderate states who would not join up with the wingnut Southern GOP--just look at who ended up voting against conviction. The entire impeachment experience was (fairly obviously, to my mind) about embarrassing Bill and Hillary. There's no way that they would have allowed Al Gore to be an incumbent president running against George Bush in 2000.

Posted by Magic Shoes | April 27, 2008 2:00 PM

JonF,

The Clinton "scandals" of yore
But now there are real concrete examples, not bullshit. Out and out lies, on tape.
National security left to the Tusla Tigres?

Posted by bjd | April 27, 2008 2:03 PM

You guys are too reality-based. You speak in terms of things the Clintons or Obama actually have done, or people they actually have known and dealt with.

The opposition doesn't limit itself in this way. They make shit up. To claim that Hillary Clinton has been "vetted" is to assume that the right wing has exhausted its ability to make shit up about her.

Posted by DuBaun | April 27, 2008 2:04 PM

"She just has weaker numbers against McCain overall ... work with real facts."

Like the real fact that Clinton does better than Obama against McCain in the Gallup tracker?

Or like the real fact that Clinton does better than Obama against McCain in terms of electoral votes?

Why do I get the feeling that you're one of the "I'd rather lose with Obama than win with Clinton" crowd?

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 2:07 PM

> For the purposes of American politics, the broad
> Appalachian Midwest includes places like much of
> PA, and all of OH and WV.
>
> It's the most common political definition, whether
> it's the way a geographer would describe things
> or not. It usefully describes a set of voter
> behavior.

Do you use these definitions when you "line out" the politics so successfully? Because much as I like West Virginia, as a person who has lived in the central midwest his entire life I have to laugh at the idea that West Virginia is part of the Midwest. Unless you define the entire nation except for Massachusetts, Mississippi, and California as "midwest".

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | April 27, 2008 2:11 PM

"Do you use these definitions when you "line out" the politics so successfully? Because much as I like West Virginia, as a person who has lived in the central midwest his entire life I have to laugh at the idea that West Virginia is part of the Midwest. Unless you define the entire nation except for Massachusetts, Mississippi, and California as "midwest"."

Which just goes to show Petey doesn't know anything about anything. Who is condescending to working-class white people now? The guy who is pretty much lumping them altogether. Notice how his evidence that Clinton is stronger rests on tracking polls over two weeks, which he seems to think is a longstanding historical trend. He also repeats the lie about electoral votes that he got bitchslapped on yesterday.

Posted by Reality Man | April 27, 2008 2:26 PM

Petey had a good point the other day saying that political pros shoot the wounded. I agree. Negative campaigning works. Obama's "new politics" prevents him from delivering the coup de grace and ending this primary. But just because Obama can't/won't pull the trigger on Hillary doesn't mean there are no bullets in that gun. If Hillary wins the nomination the Republicans will empty the clip on her. If she can't even win a primary against a guy who refuses to go negative, there is no way she can endure the storm of negativity that the general will bring.

My feeling is that Obama already has this primary won and there is no reason for him to change his style and ruin his message at this point. I do wonder, however, if he can win the general by taking the high-road. He needs to figure out a more effective way to press the attack without losing that high ground.

Posted by Just Karl | April 27, 2008 2:27 PM

Should the Clinton campaign - somehow - manage to leverage her into the nomination, the MSM will simply perform a traditional volte face and start concentrating on the how and why of her determination to destroy the candidacy of Barack Obama, who, by the way, is African-American.

Cue - "Senator Clinton. Some people, and I'm quoting senior members of your own Party here, some people say you fought a campaign based on spreading fear of 'The Black Man', and thus alienated a major chunk of the Democratic base. How do you respond?"

They'll have no problem asking questions along these lines for months on end, and Clinton will be painted as the vaguely racist candidate willing to do and say anything to get back into the White House, while McCain is a straight-talking maverick with a mixed-race daughter.

And why? Because her campaign has made it easy for them, and they'd just love to be able to shield McCain from accusations of racism when he goes sniffing for 'Cultural Conservative' votes in the General by playing the 'Democrats are Worse' card.

And if you don't think this is exactly what they're going to do, I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

Posted by Tony J | April 27, 2008 2:34 PM

"So "Appalachian factor" is code for "don't like black people"?"

No. "Appalachian factor" is "code" for "don't like Democrats they perceive as culturally elite".

That vote swung away from John Kerry in 2004 in big enough numbers to cost him a winnable election, and last I checked, John Kerry ain't black.

That vote isn't concerned about the price of arugula at Whole Foods. I don't think that's a racial issue either.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 2:42 PM

I'll take your word for it that you didn't mean racist, but I suppose you think Hillary can't be portrayed as an elitist? $100 million fortune, a baby-boomer who wanted to socialize medicine, a senator from New York who had an Elton John fundraiser at Madison Square Garden? Not to mention "I'm not Tammy Wynette" or "I could be home baking cookies"...

Yeah, she's a veritable Edith Bunker.

Posted by blahblah | April 27, 2008 2:50 PM

"Considering the way electoral votes and the two parties' coalitions are laid out, I think we can pretty safely say that if electability is the paramount concern, you go with Clinton."

Ah, it's Sunday, and Petey's meds are wearing off...
On the other hand, he might have a career as an ABC journalist. Some of his jokes are nearly as good as Tapper's.

Posted by suzannek | April 27, 2008 2:50 PM

So now Petey knows the Appalachian regions better than the people who actually lived there and studied them? They had no problem describing certain forms of racism as endemic, and it's amusing that Petey, who now shills for Hillary Racecard Clinton, has suddenly discovered that all the serious scholars of these issues were wrong. How utterly dishonest and pathetic! But then, it is Petey trying to save his investment on Intrade, so I don't know why we should expect integrity or even commonsense.

Posted by lucyj | April 27, 2008 2:55 PM

Like the real fact that Clinton does better than Obama against McCain in the Gallup tracker?

A lead only recaptured after a solid month of Ayers-Wright-bitter-flagpin nonsense while the media essentially ignored Clinton's campaign. That her numbers grow when more critical attention is paid to her opponent is not a particularly strong argument, Petey, because it's not going to happen in the general - McCain will get an easy ride and the Democratic candidate will get all the scrutiny.

Nobody's raised any issue over her husband's pardons in 2000, for example, and that will be an issue in the general because it's so easy from which to make hay. Clinton's had a relatively easy ride because the Obama campaign hasn't been willing to go into the junk box and pull out the crap against her, because on the off chance that she does win the nom, they don't want her tainted for the general. Whitewater, Monica, the travel voucher "scandal" - all of these are nonsense issues, but everything tacked to Obama have been nonsense issues as well, and Hillary simply isn't as good at counterpunching as Obama is - he's survived a ton of things that have sunk many a candidate before him. Remember how everybody figured Jeremiah Wright was the end of his candidacy? Whoops, that didn't happen.

Or like the real fact that Clinton does better than Obama against McCain in terms of electoral votes?

As has been pointed out to you before, on absolute math right now in a vacuum Clinton looks better, but the truth of that map is that it looks better for Obama because the states he wins, he wins by larger margins, and most of the states McCain wins in that matchup are very weak wins indeed.

Seventy of McCain's EVs on that map come from vote margins of one percent (Texas, New Mexico and Pennsylvania), which for all intents and purposes is a statistical tie given the margin of error on the polling. Obama wins Wisconsin and Michigan where Clinton does not, and puts North Carolina and South Carolina into play - possibly even Georgia (forty to fifty-three percent isn't an impossible margin to overcome, although I concede it's not likely).

Clinton's "victory," in comparison, is based on sixty-seven EVs again with a vote margin of one percent (New Jersey, Florida, Missouri, Iowa and Oregon). Against Clinton, Connecticut is in play for John McCain, as is Washington, Iowa and - yes - Ohio.

The problem with using that map as proof of a Clinton victory - the fact that we're still six months out from the election aside, of course - is because it charts polling "victories" within the statistical margin of error as victories when it simply isn't reasonable to do so. You can't seriously say that a one-percent margin of victory in Florida six months ahead of the election when the Democrats don't even have a candidate is an argument for Hillary Clinton's candidacy.

If we look at the map more reasonably and count anything within three percent margin of victory as a tie - which is the sensible and rational thing to do given that statistical margin of error on most polls is three percent and change - then the EV margins shape up as follows:

McCain 224 - Clinton 182 - statistical tie 132

(swing states: Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Kentucky, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Ohio, Connecticut)

Obama 202 - McCain 196 - statistical tie 140

(swing states: Texas, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Colorado, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, New Jersey, New Hampshire)

If you want to be more exacting and count anything over one percent margin as a "victory", then the totals are McCain 237/Clinton 224/swing 77 versus Obama 243/McCain 199/swing 96.

Only by going to an inaccurate measure of electability does Clinton win on this metric.

Posted by mightygodking | April 27, 2008 2:58 PM

"A lead only recaptured after a solid month of Ayers-Wright-bitter-flagpin nonsense"

Obama's introduction to the mass electorate took place during the Ayers-Wright-bitter-flagpin stuff. And introductions are important.

The Obama brand is going to take years to refurbish. I think he's likely going to get the nomination in 2016, but he's going to have to do some real work in the intervening years to remodel his image.

-----

"I suppose you think Hillary can't be portrayed as an elitist?"

Happily enough, the lengthy contrast with Obama has done wonders for Hillary's image as a fighter for middle class interests.

If you'd asked me in January if I thought Clinton could carry West Virginia in November, I'd have said no. But after months of getting to contrast herself to Obama, I now think she's got a better than 50/50 chance of carrying WV in the general.

Obama has been the perfect foil for a strong general election Hillary Clinton brand.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 3:08 PM

Clinton's unfavorable rating is already over 50 percent and once the Republicans and the cable TV crowd start pounding her those numbers will only go up.

Contrasted with John McCain who even Democrats say is a great guy.

Here's Bill:

He did not go into detail on Sen. Barack Obama, the Illinois Senator still locked in political combat with Sen. Clinton's wife for the Democratic nomination. Their next battle takes place next month in Pennsylvania. But McCain, who Mr. Clinton said is a "moderate", "has given about all you can give for this country without dyin' for it." He said McCain was on the right side of issues like being against torture of enemy combatants and global warming, which "just about crosses the bridge for them (Republicans)."

There are many more where that came from. The Republicans (and cable news) will loop this shit over and over.

Posted by Mike | April 27, 2008 3:13 PM

Obama's introduction to the mass electorate took place during the Ayers-Wright-bitter-flagpin stuff.

Actually, I would suggest that his introduction to the mass electorate happened in February. You know, when he won twelve straight contests.

And of course, you suggest that Obama's appeal as a candidate was ruined by all the nonsense scandals, when what actually happened is that they barely touched him.

Posted by mightygodking | April 27, 2008 3:13 PM

"Obama has been the perfect foil for a strong general election Hillary Clinton brand."

Petey Q. Jerkoff

Which is, of course, why OBAMA is winning this DEMOCRATIC primary and Hillary looks like a rerun of George Bush in drag! Petey, even by your Republican-lite standards of wingnuttery, this is pathetic. It would be hilarious, if you weren't so clearly delusional.

Posted by notpetey | April 27, 2008 3:13 PM

Bugger Hillary Clinton. We need a Democrat in the White House.

Posted by maraschion | April 27, 2008 3:18 PM

Hillary, professor Jethro has some homework for you.
Another super for Obama.

Posted by bjd | April 27, 2008 3:18 PM

"Happily enough, the lengthy contrast with Obama has done wonders for Hillary's image as a fighter for middle class interests."

Yeah, Democrats who portray themselves as fighters for the middle-class are NEVER painted as out-of-touch elitists by Republicans. Just look at Presidents Gore and Kerry!

"But after months of getting to contrast herself to Obama, I now think she's got a better than 50/50 chance of carrying WV in the general."

Well, because you think it, it must be true, right?

"Obama has been the perfect foil for a strong general election Hillary Clinton brand."

This is the same brand that is perceived by more than half of Americans as untrustworthy, the same brand that more than half the country thinks of unfavorably? In what world is this "strong"? Oh right, the one where because you think things they become true. Good one, Petey!

Posted by blahblah | April 27, 2008 3:20 PM

Petey: Obama has been the perfect foil for a strong general election Hillary Clinton brand.

Fuck you, you trust-fund scumbag. Not every American is worth nine figures and some people need health insurance. Go to hell.

Posted by $109 million is a lot of money | April 27, 2008 3:22 PM

"Not every American is worth nine figures and some people need health insurance."

Agreed. Universal healthcare is why I decided to support Clinton even before the Obama brand fell apart.

Now that she has a clear electability advantage over Obama, the decision is even easier.

And I actually think those two items are actually pretty connected. Obama's constant bashing of universal healthcare along with Clinton's embrace of universal healthcare was a key (though not the only) element in building Clinton's image as the defender of middle class interests.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 3:28 PM

That someone like you pretends to support universal health insurance while supporting hundred-millionaire Hillary Clinton is fucking disgusting. Fuck off and die trust-fund scumbag, and take Mark Penn with you.

Posted by $109 million is a lot of money | April 27, 2008 3:39 PM

The Obama brand is going to take years to refurbish.

In contrast, Hillary will be finished if she loses. No Supreme Court. No Majority Leader. Barely a Democrat. Think Lieberman. It's why she will stop at nothing to win.

It's not the middle class who are voting for Clinton, it's people over 45. Those invested in the status quo. They can overlook her lies and deceit because they don't really want change. They're thinking about their pensions and their health care and they don't want anyone to rock the boat. They're happy to pay lip service to ending the war and universal health care and renewable energy, but at heart, they don't believe Clinton can deliver what she promises, and that's just fine with them.

What are the age demographics of the upcoming primaries?

Posted by Just Karl | April 27, 2008 3:40 PM

I think Petey's right that campaigning against Obama has improved HRC's image considerably with a particular demographic.

She has taken on the persona of the scrappy white athlete, the one who is beloved by white fans because he gets by on grit and guile, rather than natural ability, and who is invariably overrated as a result. That, not Wright, Ayers or health care, is what is behind all this. Obama strikes a lot of people as simply too smooth, someone for whom this all came too easily and too fast. HRC's say-anything, do-anything-to-win approach has a Pete-Rose quality to it that working class whites can't get enough of.

Of course, if she got the nomination, she would no longer be in the position of trailing a young, charismatic black politician who doesn't want it as much as she does. As such, she would go back to being pretty unappealing to the same voters who are so dedicated to her now.

Posted by pjs | April 27, 2008 3:48 PM

"It's not the middle class who are voting for Clinton, it's people over 45."

Control for race, and look at the exits by income. There's an incredibly strong correlation between income and Obama support. And that correlation has gotten stronger and stronger as the race has gone on.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 3:50 PM

And Hillary's support skyrockets in older states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Perhaps your correlation has something to do with those living on SS and pensions falling into "middle class" income brackets.

Posted by Just Karl | April 27, 2008 4:03 PM

So "Appalachian factor" is code for "don't like black people"?

It's slightly more complex: the Appalachian south wasn't productive enough land to warrant plantations or slaves, so western NC, eastern TN, western Virginia and WV just don't have many black people living there.

Of course, yoking the Appalachians with the Midwest is just retarded by any definition, not just when it's from Intrade huckster Petey, who offers up pronouncements in the hope that sufficient repetition makes them true.

In other news, Intrade huckster Petey still dodges the question of where a Clinton candidacy leaves the Senate for her legislative proposals.

That vote isn't concerned about the price of arugula at Whole Foods.

Oh, fuck right off: he was talking to arugula farmers, you DSM-IV-worthy pathological bullshitter.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 27, 2008 4:07 PM

"And Hillary's support skyrockets in older states like Florida, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. "

I'm not denying that age is a major correlating factor in the exits.

I'm just also noting that as the primaries has gone on, income after controlling for race has also become a major correlating factor.

Age has been a big deal since Iowa. Income was a more minor factor at first, and has become a very big deal in the last two months.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 4:15 PM

"Of course, yoking the Appalachians with the Midwest is just retarded by any definition"

There was a very widely read and discussed paper than came out around 5 years ago that divided America into ten political regions.

I found it immensely helpful to my own understanding of American politics, and enough other folks had read it that one has been generally able to use its terms in educated political discussion and have other folks know what you mean.

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 4:25 PM

I agree with Hertzberg and most of the commenters here, so I'll try to be brief.

Vetting is the wrong way to look at how people decide to disapprove of a political figure; mostly they use a "where there is smoke there is fire" algorithm for determining which pols are corrupt/evil--and Hill has 35 years worth of smoke in her wake. For god sakes, they swiftboated a war hero running against a draft dodger last time out; now they're going to have trouble against a woman--and, yes, in out sexist society that matters--who lied about being under sniper fire while listening to a girl's poem against a pilot who (until now) wouldn't use his years long history of being tortured as a "campaign issue"?

Come on, the Clinton supporters are share the same dreams with Grover Norquist and Karl Rove. When was the last time a candidate for pres was more unpopular than Hillary is? there couldn't have been one in the modern polling era.

Also, I would like to use a dubious means of argument by appealing to Hertzberg to prove Matt is wrong in his dubious gaffe denialism philosophy:

A lot of commentators concluded that Obama’s Wright/Ayers/”bitter” troubles and the Clinton attacks based on them had had no effect, apart from driving Clinton’s negatives up faster than his. I’m no pollster—I have only the vaguest notion of what “internals” are—but I don’t believe it. I’m pretty sure that the onslaught levelled what otherwise would have been a steep upward curve for the big O.

Posted by Client #11 | April 27, 2008 4:27 PM

The opposition doesn't limit itself in this way. They make shit up. To claim that Hillary Clinton has been "vetted" is to assume that the right wing has exhausted its ability to make shit up about her.

i think this is the point. the limbaugh-hannity right's track record is to gin up fake controversies out of nothing. travelgate, whitewater, cattle futures, Vince Foster: all of them psuedo-scandals without any basis in fact.

debating whether clinton's been "vetted" misses the point. rather, we should be asking how susceptible she is to allegations of misconduct, regardless of their veracity. of course, the answer to that is simple. we all know that the only politician more open to such false allegations than hillary clinton is...bill clinton.

Posted by dbag | April 27, 2008 4:54 PM

When FBI Director Louis J. Freeh wrote, “The problem was with Bill Clinton, the scandals and rumored scandals, the incubating ones and the dying ones never ended. Whatever moral compass [Hillary] the president was consulting was leading him in the wrong direction. His closets were full of skeletons just waiting to burst out,” he wasn’t kidding.

I wholeheartedly agree that Hillary Clinton's past (Bill's too for that matter), is a treasure trove of villainy waiting to burst out. I believe the following should be required reading for every fifth grader (and above). With spiraling gasoline prices, maybe folks will stay home and read about: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | April 27, 2008 5:13 PM

"I found it immensely helpful to my own understanding of American politics"

Petey

For this, and many other jokes, I thank you, Petey. It takes a rare soul to turn his mind into a public farce.

Posted by lizam | April 27, 2008 5:44 PM

I think Hillary's point is not that she does not have more dirt, it is just that she has an effective response to this dirt, the VRWC is at it again.

I personally think it is bullshit, because there is no way they are going to be able to hide the vast somes of money from foreign governments in the middle east donated to the library and the foundation.

If McCain is running commercials saying that Obama was endorsed by Hamas. Just wait until the commercials that the folks who were complicit in 9-11 are basically Clinton campaign contributors and have the Clintons in their pocket. Which do you think is more damaging in an election, having some terrorist group make meaningless statements about you are having close and inextricable financial ties to countries in the breeding group of terrorism. It raises serious questions about how the U.S. would proceed with policy in this region of the world. Could it have anything to do with her Middle East NATO initiative? Are the Saudi Princes now just another constituent group that needs to be appeased because of financial motivations of candidates? This is actually a legitimate attack with credibility.

But then they could use this as a base to launch a more nefarious campaign of the Clintons as pro-terrorist. The first attack on the WTC in 1993. The attack on the embassies in Africa. The attack on the USS Cole. Failure to kill bin Laden when given the chance. And all of these things happened with no American response. Then the pardons of the Weathermen and the FALN. Then 9-11. I have to say, it is a compelling narrative and it would be something that woud get those Ron Paul supporters inspired, particularly the 9-11 deniers, because it would fit into their conspiracy theory. And so you then have the base of the party wrapped up.

GOP Message: 1. The Clintons Have Always Cared About Themselves Over Everything, Even The Interests of the Nation

2. The Clintons Will Sell Us Out To Terrorists For Their Personal Financial Gain.

It's a case that makes itself.

Plus, there are already rumors going around that Bill has been trying to live as a jet setting playboy with his good friend Burkle. Can't wait until the GOP produces a young lady that says she slept with Bill in the Dominican Republic or at Burkle's house in Malibu. It wouldn't even need to be true and Hillary's campaign would be over. Women would turn on her.

Posted by Bubba | April 27, 2008 5:53 PM

Bill Clinton banging big haired white women
is probably less of an issue than Obama
being on the gay prowl in Springfield.

Posted by Barry on the DL | April 27, 2008 6:29 PM

Why does no one mention that no Democrat has gotten 40% of the white male vote in a general election since LBJ? Since when are they a key swing vote? It'd be suicide to nominate someone who appeals to a group that won't vote for a Democrat and alienate the one demographic that consistently has (African-Americans).
Posted by 55

Carter got 47%, Clinton would have neared that but for Perot taking votes off the table.

The problem for Republicans has been the gender gap and fighting for hispanic votes and the Reagan Democrats, not the written off black vote.

Blacks, now 3rd in population behind hispanics and whites, basically screwed themselves by removing their vote from play. Dems aren't worried much about alienating the black vote since tribally voting blacks have no where else to go. They will vote Hillary if she gets the nomination in that unlikely scenario or stay home, which is also unlikely when Hillary offers up Saint Obama as VP and proffers a platter full of Government goodies for blacks.

Jews, despite their low numbers, have far greater influence on the Democrat Party than blacks because of their huge ability to make major donations, their being the skilled Party lawyers and policy wonks, and their ongoing possibility of switching their vote and financial support to the other Party.

If Obama wins though, he has problems the lock on the black vote and latte-drinkers won't solve. He has problems with the Reagan Democrat Vote, hispanics in key swing states that hate his elitist guts, white women votes, military and rural voters.
****************
I don't think 16-10 year old Clinton scandals will have any effect on voters because they already have opinions of the Clintons shaped by those old scandals, fibs, and 8 years of reasonable government and prosperity.
Whereas with Obama, each new scandal erodes the image of him as a near-Godlike rescuer of America who will unite us all by abandoning all that "liberal conservative stuff" through the Black Messiah's unbelievable good judgement on all matters and his pretty speeches. Each scandal, being new stuff, not old Clinton crap well-known....more and more brings into question Obama's judgement on issues and people he associated with - and the more he looks like a 2-year Senator who is inexperienced, has rotten judgment, is elitist, is a conventional hard Left Democrat - and only where he is because he is a black guy with a silver tongue and a worshipful press that refused to vet him until recently.

You can't be elected President with just the passionate cheers and votes of blacks, progressive Jews, and "energized" well-off youth and coastal Yuppies. McGovern showed that.

Pity. If the media had done it's job on Obama, he would not have had the free ride he did to amass a huge early delegate lead from voters that knew nothing about him but his "hope" and "always being right in his judgment". Then Hillary would have had an unbeatable ticket with Black Messiah running as VP so he could get the seasoning and experience with excecutive decision-making and toughness to become President in his own right in 2012 or 2016.

Obama might still get it thanks to Bush and the Corrupticans offering a compelling case for "regime change" on a platter to any Democrat running. But if it is Obama, it is the most inexperienced man who ever ran as the Democratic nominee, with significant problems in his past, who cannot govern as the man he campaigned to be -or who he was as a minor Illinois pol or in the Senate 2 years before becoming a full-time campaigner.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 27, 2008 6:46 PM

I agree that an easy ad against the Clintons would be the fact that they have sold out to terrorist interests. From Bill's pardons of terrorists to the pardon of Marc Rich, who had extensive financial dealings with Iran and Saddam Hussein of Iraq, to the Clinton's receiving tons of money from Middle East oil barons, it would be a treasure trove of data for the Republicans to go after.

I can just hear Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity every single day hammering the Clintons.

If you want an end to the drama, vote Obama. Sure they will hurl their weak smears at him, but they are very thin attacks, and they don't seem to stick to him anyway. With Hillary, it's the opposite; their is a ton of stuff to fire at the Clintons, and given her unlikable personality, they would stick to her.

Posted by cm | April 27, 2008 7:16 PM

Shorter Chris Ford: stick with the corrupt, racist white woman and the Democrats will win, because all black voters just do what corrupt, racist white women tell them. Anyone else spot the obvious logical flaw in little Chrissie racist's argument?

Posted by Petey | April 27, 2008 7:21 PM

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Just in case you wanted to know what black voters actually think, in their quaint tribal way of Senator Clinton for the general....

Posted by maxim | April 27, 2008 7:28 PM

Petey,

Can you cite any evidence that working-class voters went for Clinton over Obama because of their differences over universal health care?Because the evidence I've seen shows that Clinton's supporters are actually much more likely than Obama's to oppose an individual mandate.

Posted by Peter H | April 27, 2008 7:30 PM

Peter H, better be careful, asking Petey for evidence. The odds are that you'll get some Limbaughesque rant, or possibly a link to Bill Kristol' latest meth.

Posted by maraschion | April 27, 2008 7:47 PM

Petey is a troll who makes shit up. You get more value from you commenting experience if you mock his stupidity. There's not point in trying to engage crazy people in conversation.

Posted by blah | April 27, 2008 7:54 PM

Hillary should be a nonstarter for the Democratic party in any general election. She has way way too much baggage and scandal, and much of it is indeed unvetted in the time between now and when Bill left the White House in 2001.

Plus, there are indeed the old scandals; they too would drag her down and get much airplay. Just because she asserts that she hasn't been damaged by them does not mean it's true. She has been damaged, and to the point she is unelectable.

Now she also has legitimized the Republican far right attack machine's tactics in using them against Atlanta. So she cannot hide behind the mantra of "focusing on the issues" any longer; she has already given them permission to use any personal attack, any personal association, from any time.

So not only is Hillary unelectable, she has made herself even moreso by her using such despicable tactics in her own campaign.

Posted by cm | April 27, 2008 8:25 PM

Peter H, thanks for that polling data. I hadn't seen that before, although it jibed with my own personal initial reaction to the idea of a mandate.

I also have to say, the attempts at conflating "bashing an individual mandate" with "bashing universal health care" is pretty pathetic. No politician anywhere on the left was proposing this until 2007. Rick Perlstein bashed the idea in 2005, when it came from Stan Greenberg, as demonstrating "timidity" and "the economic arrogance of billionaires". Atrios raised concerns about this too in June of last year from the left. Why is attacking the mandate inherently right-wing?

Ezra Klein and Chris Hayes did a bloggingheads episode on February 19th with some anecdotal information about this.

Klein: I guess we've talked a bit about the election now. You want to tell me what happened to you in Massachusetts that turned you against the mandate?

Hayes: Yeah, I wanted to talk about this, because I spent a weekend up in Massachusetts with a friend of mine who does organizing for kind of [a] labor association up there. And we were in Pittsfield, Massachusetts -- really intensely de-industrialized, depressed town. You had General Electric and Sprague up there with -- I want to say 25,000 good-paying union jobs as late as the 1980s, and they're all gone now. And so, you have just this very poor populace. You know, there's not a lot of -- it's a classic story, and it's just a burnt-out, post-industrial landscape.

Klein: Right.

Hayes: And there's just not a lot of jobs. The jobs that have replaced Sprague and General Electric, having talked to some people, are these, like, telemarketing warehouses, a place called Data King, a place where you make $7.30-an-hour.

So, we were going door-to-door in these neighborhoods, and I was pretty amazed at how spontaneously people talked about the Massachusetts universal health care plan, which is called the Commonwealth Connector --

Klein: Mm-hm.

Hayes: --up there, and it involves a mandate. So, a mandate that you're required to purchase health insurance, and this is obviously something that has been a topic of great debate between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton in the presidential primary. And it came up without us asking. We were canvassing people, and these are -- were the "working poor", more or less, that we were talking to. TREMENDOUS amount of anger towards the plan.

Klein: Uh-huh.

Hayes: And particularly, a tremendous amount of anger towards the imposition of the mandate. One man said to me, "I think it's unconstitutional." Another said, "I gotta pay $300-a-month now."

And I couldn't tell if this was a case in which the state had failed to properly communicate exactly what the subsidies were, how the subsidies were going out, or if the subsidies themselves were insufficient, or if people really were -- it actually wasn't reaching down to people who are in a liminal state, you know, just above what the subsidy was --

Klein: Uh-huh.

Hayes: -- who felt like they were being taxed.

But I was also, from the purely political level, it was interesting to me to see: these are not conservatives. These are working-class Democrats.

Klein: Right.

Hayes: And working-poor Democrats are REALLY angry about it. I mean, when someone spontaneously brings something up in one of these conversations, you know it's really bugging them because generally, these are pretty surface conversations.

And so, it made me sort of reconsider what the political viability is of the mandate, A. B, whether [there's] some case to be made -- and this is a case the California Nurses Association, which is a pretty lefty union out in California, has made, that there's something retrograde and anti-working-class about the mandate.

I should add, according to CNN, Pittsfield voted for 63%-35% for Clinton in the Feb. 5th primary. That would seem to indicate that people weren't voting on the basis of the candidates' health care plans.

Posted by Another Chris | April 27, 2008 8:44 PM

What none of us progressives and those of us who are desperate for an end and alternative to the Buch/Cheney/Rove era want to admit:

The fact that she was even a serious option in this election demonstrates how utterly weak the “Democratic” Party/Leadership is. The Clintons pretty much limited, if not destroyed the Democratic Party’s effectiveness and legitimacy as a powerful leadership party since 1992 and the Gingrich Republican Landslide. The Clinton years to follow were just a slow but steady corrupt decline, and laid the ground for the reign of Little George.

And here they are again— record high negatives, devise and partisan, but not only on the broader political spectrum, coalescing the Nation against the worst Administration ever, but rather grotesque fratricide-- shattering and alienating two core pillars of the Party — blue collar/working class and African Americans.

Hillary and Bill are truly selfish and awful. But the “Democratic Party” is also showing itself to be fucking lame and impotent in the extreme. If there was ever a chance for a forceful reemergence, this was it. Instead, the Democratic Party is coming across as completely incompetent, with an eager willingness to a return of cronyism and opportunist Rove politics for the sole sake of power (aka Clintonism and Triagulation).

Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Hagel, please do not give up consideration of a third party run.

Posted by erict | April 27, 2008 8:53 PM

Finally, a Matt post that hits something on the head and knocks it out of the ballpark (thus satisfying both my Terminator passion and Matt's sports enthusiasm.)

Matt is absolutely correct here. Hillary has not even come CLOSE to being "vetted". All the really grim stuff involving corruption, incompetence, illegality, lesbianism, right wing religious groups, etc., etc, ad nauseum - whether true or false, doesn't matter - haven't even been touched except on various blogs and the like. Right wing radio and Fox News haven't even BEGUN to look at those topics.

Whereas the best anybody can come up with on Obama is "Rezko, Reverend Wright, and he's black (and a secret Muslim)." BFD!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 27, 2008 8:59 PM

Britain's claim to the New World is inalienable. March, Saxons!

Posted by M | April 27, 2008 9:00 PM

Mightgodking, thank you for carefully laying the fact that Hillary can't win the general, either. I wasn't aware of the facts of that situation.

So now I can add that to the other list of facts:

1) She doesn't have the pledged delegates.

2) She doesn't have the popular vote.

3) Seating Michigan and Florida at the convention does not change the above.

4) Her lead over Obama in superdelegates is about two dozen, and there is no evidence that a significant number of superdelegates are going to break for her prior to the convention.

5) Gore and Carter are sick to death of her and intend to endorse Obama shortly - probably after the next primaries clearly show Obama in the lead.

6) She can't win in the general against McCain at this point in time at least, whereas Obama does better.

It's over.

Clinton is toast.

Deal with it or STFU.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 27, 2008 9:34 PM

Although I only skimmed the posts I did not see anyone mention Howard Dean's comments regarding how the candidate concedes his or her loss will determine how the democratic nominee does in the presidential election. And I think that will become the bigger story soon enough. If Clinton loses will she go out and actively convince her supporters to vote for Obama? I know Obama will, but will Hillary? Maybe? Probably?

Rolling Stone has an interesting piece about Hillary titled "The Queen of Pork" It says, "Nobody doles out taxpayer money like Hillary Clinton — or rakes in as much campaign cash from the companies she does favors for".

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20306341/the_queen_of_pork/1

So if anyone thinks Hillary has been vetted they are in for a surprise! There is a wealth of information yet to be examined.

This is a particularly important piece in NewsWeek regarding HRC's "jokes" about international leaders and nations:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/25/no-laughing-matter.aspx

The media is just now starting to vet her on new issues. We'll see how this effects her campaign.

Posted by serena1313 | April 27, 2008 11:47 PM

Although I only skimmed the posts I did not see anyone mention Howard Dean's comments regarding how the candidate concedes his or her loss will determine how the democratic nominee does in the presidential election. And I think that will become the bigger story soon enough. If Clinton loses will she go out and actively convince her supporters to vote for Obama? I know Obama will, but will Hillary? Maybe? Probably?

Rolling Stone has an interesting piece about Hillary titled "The Queen of Pork" It says, "Nobody doles out taxpayer money like Hillary Clinton — or rakes in as much campaign cash from the companies she does favors for".

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20306341/the_queen_of_pork/1

So if anyone thinks Hillary has been vetted they are in for a surprise! There is a wealth of information yet to be examined.

This is a particularly important piece in NewsWeek regarding HRC's "jokes" about international leaders and nations:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/25/no-laughing-matter.aspx

The media is just now starting to vet her on new issues. We'll see how this effects her campaign.

Posted by serena1313 | April 27, 2008 11:50 PM

Although I only skimmed the posts I did not see anyone mention Howard Dean's comments regarding how the candidate concedes his or her loss will determine how the democratic nominee does in the presidential election. And I think that will become the bigger story soon enough. If Clinton loses will she go out and actively convince her supporters to vote for Obama? I know Obama will, but will Hillary? Maybe? Probably?

Rolling Stone has an interesting piece about Hillary titled "The Queen of Pork" It says, "Nobody doles out taxpayer money like Hillary Clinton — or rakes in as much campaign cash from the companies she does favors for".

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20306341/the_queen_of_pork/1

So if anyone thinks Hillary has been vetted they are in for a surprise! There is a wealth of information yet to be examined.

This is a particularly important piece in NewsWeek regarding HRC's "jokes" about international leaders and nations:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/25/no-laughing-matter.aspx

The media is just now starting to vet her on new issues. We'll see how this effects her campaign.

Posted by serena1313 | April 27, 2008 11:51 PM

Although I only skimmed the posts I did not see anyone mention Howard Dean's comments regarding how the candidate concedes his or her loss will determine how the democratic nominee does in the presidential election. And I think that will become the bigger story soon enough. If Clinton loses will she go out and actively convince her supporters to vote for Obama? I know Obama will, but will Hillary? Maybe? Probably?

Rolling Stone has an interesting piece about Hillary titled "The Queen of Pork" It says, "Nobody doles out taxpayer money like Hillary Clinton — or rakes in as much campaign cash from the companies she does favors for".

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/20306341/the_queen_of_pork/1

So if anyone thinks Hillary has been vetted they are in for a surprise! There is a wealth of information yet to be examined.

This is a particularly important piece in NewsWeek regarding HRC's "jokes" about international leaders and nations:

http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/04/25/no-laughing-matter.aspx

The media is just now starting to vet her on new issues. We'll see how this effects her campaign.

Posted by serena1313 | April 27, 2008 11:52 PM

Thanks for the pork barrel article on Hillary. Very interesting.

You multi-posted probably because the Atlantic servers are slow in refreshing the page. Just hit "Post" ONCE. That's good enough even if you get an "Internal Server Error". Once your browser flips over from "waiting" to "transferring data", you can leave the page - your post made it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 28, 2008 3:36 AM

"Petey,

Can you cite any evidence that working-class voters went for Clinton over Obama because of their differences over universal health care?Because the evidence I've seen shows that Clinton's supporters are actually much more likely than Obama's to oppose an individual mandate.

Posted by Peter H | April 27, 2008 7:30 PM"

I bring this up all of the time, yet he never answers it. Petey needs to think he's Norma Rae, which is probably why he joined the other "goo-goos" and backed Edwards, who caught fire more among white collar policy wonks than actual union members. Obama is getting support from the income and education demographics of people who like mandates, while Clinton is getting support from people who hate mandates. In Petey World, punishing working-class people for not being able to buy private health insurance (which is basically a big public subsidy to big business) = being a champion of the working class.

serena1313 makes a good point. The campaign she has been running will be perfect to complement McCain's narrative for him. Voters don't make balance sheets showing how a candidate's new spending and cutting proposals add up, so once McCain points to all of Clinton's pork, she loses there. If she beats McCain on some fake commander-in-chief test (why she used a term referring to just the prez's role as head of the military to refer to the whole presidency is troubling), McCain beats her on that in the general, plus experience as well. She's in a perfect position to be labeled a flip-flopper on the war. The only narrative she has that she can use against McCain are 1) she's a woman 2) McCain is sexist and ganging up and her and if all else fails, 3) cry again for sympathy.

Posted by Reality Man | April 28, 2008 3:53 AM

Petey, I wish we knew how to quit you, you sonofetc.

Posted by matt's cowboys | April 28, 2008 5:38 AM

Another Chris,

Thanks for bringing up the exchange between Christopher Hayes & Ezra Klein, which I actually was thinking about when I posted my response to Petey. Do you have the transcript of the rest of the exchange? Because, IIRC, Ezra Klein pointed out that some of the opposition to the Massachusetts plan among those working-class voters Hayes interviewed was misplaced, i.e. they were unaware that they would be receiving substantial subsidies from the government to pay for their insurance.

For the record, my own position is exactly like that of Ezra: a supporter of Obama who opposes his position on mandates. I don't want to rehash all the arguments, but, if you're interested, he's made a lot of compelling arguments for some kind of mandate on his blog.

Posted by Peter H | April 28, 2008 11:12 AM