Again, you're linking Hillary in several instances with behavior that happened in her husband's administration. I would be fine for that, except Obama supporters in many circumstances refused to acknowledge the positives out of that administration to her credit, claiming she was nearly as inexperienced as Obama. That's why I correlated experience with the old style of politics, because Obama's supporters have regularly cited such experience for their evidence. However, the heart of our disagreement -- and I suppose we'll never resolve this -- has to do with the kitchen sink. You believe Obama didn't do it because it would be hypocritical to his message. To me, it's common sense that he didn't do it -- because he was leading. What Clinton did is standard conduct for anyone needing a late rally, and it didn't work. If Obama were in second place, I have little doubt he would have done the same.
Experience and politics go hand in hand. If she doesn't have the necessary experience, then she doesn't have the sample size in her track record for you to know the kinds of politics which she supports.
Oh, okay. I get it now. I didn't realize you were talking about having it both ways on the previous Clinton admin. I'm sure a lot of Obama supporters are guilty of that to some degree, though I don't think I'm one of them (can you cite an example if you believe I am?). But his campaign has certainly not been guilty of the same. Yes, they've pointed to NAFTA but only in response to her saying she'd always opposed it when there was no record of her opposition and there was record of her support. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're talking about here with regard to Obama's campaign or official surrogates. As for whether or not Obama would have thrown the kitchen sink or otherwise engaged in dishonest or what I would regard to be "old" politics if he was losing, the evidence that he wouldn't is that he didn't. And he was losing. Remember the first nine months of this campaign? She led easily that whole time, pundits and supporters urged him to get nasty with her and he refused.
Oh, and just to add by way of clarification, when I listed those things from the first Clinton administration, I was listing things that he HADN'T hit her on rather than things that he had. And I certainly wasn't advocating hitting her on those things. I was just pointing out what he would have done if they indulged similar approaches to politics. So I'm not sure how you can call that having it both ways on the experience issue.
Firstly, it is on Obama himself to make the sale to Dem primary voters who didn't support him. He has 5 1/2 months to do so. After that, if Hillary passionately supports Obama on the campaign trail, most of her supporters will follow. This way, she can help him without the major negative of being on the ticket. She even said it would be "ridiculous" for her supporters to choose McCain.
I honestly can't recall if you have -- I don't remember offhand. Posts tend to run together here after a while. I understand that Obama's campaign hasn't done any of these things -- I'm referring to his supporters, many of whom have made a firm declaration of no to any possibility of her as VP based on those factors. I haven't seen his campaign do the same, yet. Please keep in mind that I like Barack and I greatly respect his campaign. My disagreements in these past weeks and months have come over the attitudes and beliefs of some of his supporters -- very rarely over positions taken by his campaign. I guess this is another spot we'll have to agree to disagree. If there's anything the politics of this decade have taught us, it's that in the current era, the political status of candidates prior to the year of the race is next to irrelevant. See Dean, Giuliani and now Clinton. The media attention and penetration on Iowa is so significant that national numbers are next to irrelevant. Furthermore, blogs and message board shorten the news cycle to a point in which entire campaigns can be changed on a dime. Obama was never in a desperate situation fighting for his political life, because it's next to impossible for a candidate to reach that point pre-Iowa, regardless of what national polls say.
To be fair Bats...he didn't have bring that stuff out because it was already out there. What he did do...and very effectively....was link her to Bush -- which was quite an accomplishment when you think about it. He was/is a clean slate so far. But we've gone around and around on this too many times. And we were just starting to be friends again . This place was almost becoming civil
He linked her to Bush on policy because she voted in favor of the Iraq war and later in favor of calling Iran a terrorist organization. And, yes, the stuff was already out there, but he didn't contribute to it or press it. As a result, which story got covered more do you think? Wright or Bosnia snipers? Or any of the other baggage Clinton carries? She was hardly even asked about any of it -- in debates, in press conferences, in interviews -- while his baggage, including stuff like freaking flag pins, him being Muslim ("not as far as I know..."), putting his hand on his heart for the pledge of allegiance, oops, I mean the national anthem, etc. dominated. He could have driven the media and the general voting public toward that stuff -- particularly during the debate when they literally spent the first 45 minutes on his 'scandals.' He didn't. In fact, when given the choice to talk about phantom snipers in that debate he opted not to. That, in stark contrast, to her biting (sometimes several times) at every single thing that might be damaging to him. They just flat chose different approaches. In fact, both the Clinton campaign and its supporters pretty much openly mocked him for it -- saying he wouldn't be a real fighter. There's no mystery about whether or not they approach politics differently as both campaigns have been open about that difference.
I appreciate the first two paragraphs of your post. I think you're off on this above. I agree that Obama wasn't in a situation nearly as desperate as Clinton found herself in after Super Tuesday, but you're wrong when you say he wasn't in trouble. Go back and search some old articles. He had prominent supporters and donors threatening to drop him if he didn't do something, anything to change the narrative of her inevitability in the lead up to Iowa. He was repeatedly urged to go on the attack (by me as well as actually important people) and chose not to. For nine months, each of which had impact on money, coverage and everything else that was to matter in the crucial Iowa caucus. It's also untrue that nothing of consequence happens prior to Iowa historically. If that was true Dean's campaign would have started in Iowa and not ended there. He went from an asterisk to "inevitable," racking up endorsements from Gore and Carter and practically killing Kerry and Gephardt in that time. In presidential politics, where millions and millions are being raised and spent, everything matters. In the Giuliani example, it was precisely the decisions he made pre-Iowa that doomed his campaign. The Iowa results happen because of what people do in the lead up to them and the stakes couldn't be higher. In all that time, with everybody on his team sweating him to attack, he refused.
I didn't see this before. I really don't think that one needs a larger sample size than a year long campaign to knw what kind of politics Hillary supports and recognize "old" tactics. In fact, before this campaign I wouldn't have accused her of practicing especially negative tactics and I didn't. I used to support the idea of her as president.
I bolded the part I wanted to address, The Cat. I also know many people who would like to see an Obama/Clinton ticket. Some of them, like myself, are people who voted in the primary for Obama. Some are ardent Clinton supporters, for a variety of reasons. The most ardent I know are, besides being Democrats, are feminists. I think the Obama campaign would be wise to do everything they can to attract those people. So far, I don't think they've done a great job of it. I agree with you that it is a mistake to assume the nearly half of the Democratic Party who have voted for Hillary Clinton will automatically line up in November and vote for Barack Obama. They need to be convinced. They need to be wooed. I seriously doubt that many would vote for McCain, but I don't doubt that some might stay home or just skip that part of the ballot. Perhaps not a great percentage, but in a close state, it could matter. It seems odd to me that some of those most passionate about their distaste for Hillary would fail to take into account the fact that she has won the votes of a very large chunk of the party, that she's also attracted new voters, that she's also contributed to record turnouts and record Democratic fundraising. Clinton's fundraising ability would be a huge story today if Obama hadn't taken it to another level. By any traditional standard, she's been extremely successful at raising money. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think she's raised more money than McCain by herself. I wouldn't be so quick to "throw her under the bus" when considering a VP, just because she ran a tough campaign and there is some bad blood, at least between some supporters on both sides, if not from the candidates themselves. I have said it before... if LBJ could be Jack Kennedy's VP choice, anything is possible. In fact, if this campaign cycle has proven anything, it is that. Impeach Bush.
Batman, Clinton was asked, on Meet the Press, what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons while she was President. She responded, "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the President, we will attack Iran," Clinton said April 22 in an interview with ABC. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them." Obama responded to that by saying, "It's not the language we need right now, and I think it's language reflective of George Bush" akin to "bluster and saber rattling." Her response to that? Clinton, asked on ABC's "This Week" about Obama's criticism, didn't back away from her comment. "Why would I have any regrets? I'm asked a question about what I would do if Iran attacked our ally ... and, yes, we would have massive retaliation against Iran," Clinton said. "I don't think they will do that, but I sure want to make it abundantly clear to them that they would face a tremendous cost if they did such a thing." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080504/ap_on_el_pr/democrats I have no problem with that, given the context of the original question posed to Clinton and the fact that she is in a heated primary campaign for the presidency. Of course we would respond with atomic weapons if they were used on Israel, a close ally, by Iran or any other nation. Have you been to Israel? I've been to the West Bank, now occupied for decades by Israel, when it was still part of Jordan. Not only would the entire country be destroyed... the world's greatest concentration of religious sites of importance would be covered with radiation. We're talking about a very small area. The consequences would be horrific beyond imagination. Those consequences would have an impact on the world that would easily dwarf 9/11. Do you think a US President would respond to such an attack with anything less than a nuclear response? I certainly don't. She has been quoted out of context on this countless times. Just search the internet. It's a hypothetical. Clinton, no doubt, under normal conditions would have been vague with her answer. A campaign like this is anything but normal. I think she's gotten a bad rap with this issue and I think Barack's "Bush" comment angered a great many Clinton supporters. You know... those nearly half the voters in the Democratic primaries. In my opinion, Barack would have been better served not to make that comparison. Impeach Bush.
Deckard: The nature of Clinton's response to the question was correct in principle but blustery and provocative in its language in a way that was very Bush-like. I don't disagree with her in principle and neither did Obama. It was the language he responded badly to. And I think he was right to do it. He has made missteps in this campaign and he has violated the spirit of the sort of politics he preaches on occasion (presenting a journalist's paraphrasing of Clinton on NAFTA as a Clinton quote or maybe making a little too much hay of McCain's 100 year thing) but I don't agree that this was one of those occasions. And this new sort of politics that Obama aspires to does not exclude criticism or negativity of any kind. So, faced with a very tough opponent who has continued to wage a very negative campaign long after she had any reasonable possibility of winning, and faced with an extremely unfavorable month long news cycle, he responded strongly and critically to Clinton saying she would "obliterate" Iran. It's instructive to note here, for context, that Hillary's main argument to supers and voters at this point was that Obama was too soft and not enough of a fighter to be electable. It seems a little silly to freak out when he takes a rare shot back, especially when it has merit. Plus, they have an honest disagreement about how we should engage our enemies. And "Bush like" is really just a strong way of saying so. But you know what I find really weird is how you voted for Obama and say you support him in this race but I can't remember a single time you expressed concern about anything Clinton's said or done -- only stuff he has. Where, for example, were you when Obama was asked what we should do if we had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Bin Laden and Pakistan refused to act, he said that we would act with or without permission and Clinton not only called it irresponsible language even if true (and she agreed with him on principle here like he does with her on Iran/Israel) but later conflated the whole situation to say that Obama had threatened to attack Pakistan. These are not even equal situations -- in both, strong language was used in response to what one candidate called irresponsible language, but in the Pakistan situation Hillary twisted the truth about what Obama said into a lie. You will find several instances of this from her and none from him. It is really curious how that never seems to bother you but the smallest attacks from him do. Or am I maybe reading it wrong? Have you, in fact, been bothered by her stuff as well but just haven't said so because others (like me) had so thoroughly covered it?
Batman, if you did a search, I think you would find posts from me in this forum calling for covert special forces operations in Pakistan long before this subject came up in the campaign. As for Clinton and her campaign? You can put me where The Cat, Sishir and perhaps some others are (although I didn't vote for her. I voted for the person I thought had the best chance of winning in the general election, as I said all along I would do), which is that she's been running a tough campaign not untypical from what we've seen historically over many election cycles. I would, in fact, say I've seen far rougher primary seasons than this one. Why have I pointed out what I saw as some of Barack's mistakes? Because, in my opinion, he made them and because he has been placed on such a high pedestal by so many of his supporters that I wonder he doesn't need a bottle of oxygen. I watch a lot of cable news on the 3 major networks. I can tell you that I've seen numerous instances of Barack's supporters directly, or indirectly (because they obviously support him, as Huffington does, for example) making statements directed towards her every bit a tough as what Clinton and her campaign has been justly accused of. Rarely from Obama himself, but if he has surrogates doing it for him, why should he, whether he wants to campaign that way, or not? There are few instances where he has done something directly that might be in the same ballpark, so it is worth mentioning when he does. I've always thought he was getting a relatively free ride from the various news media during this campaign, until pretty recently. That worried me a great deal, because he wasn't being "put through the wringer" to make sure there weren't any skeletons in a closet everyone assumed was pretty damned clean. Better that if anything was there to have it come out before he won the nomination. Turned out that there was. Barack lucked out. Had the Reverend Wright stuff come out weeks before Super Tuesday, I think we would be looking at different equations today. Had he made some of the gaffs during that time, it could have made a difference. Obama's luck held. He got a huge lead before that happened that would have stopped a less determined candidate. If Hillary Clinton had quit early, it is very probable that the results from Wright, especially, would have been disastrous for the Democratic Party. And if you can't think of anything I've said critical of Hillary Clinton, then you have only been looking at what you want to see, or just not looking. I've said plenty, starting a hell of a long time ago. Impeach Bush. Quit Torturing the United States.
Yes we can, er shall. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yzrd6eVAsjA&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yzrd6eVAsjA&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>
Deckard: We obviously disagree on the typicality of Clinton's campaign. I seriously doubt you'd find anything akin to implying the other party's nominee would make a better commander-in-chief than the frontrunner of one's own party or of the candidate's spouse saying wouldn't it be nice to have two candidates that love this country, clearly and intentionally leaving the frontrunner of the Dem party out of that equation, in a typically hard fought nomination fight. I also think it's a little specious to classify Huffington as the sort of supporter for whom the candidate should be responsible in any way. She's a pundit, not a surrogate. And all candidates have 'supporters' of that sort that say stupid stuff. (I don't think you can hang her on him too much more than you can hang Jorge on Bush.) If that's the sort of supporter you've been referring to all this time, I've misunderstood a lot of what you've said on this race. I've been thinking you were talking about people over whom Obama had the power to exert any control whatsoever. Huffington is clearly not in that category. Other than those two things I don't disagree with anything you just posted. I especially think you're correct about Wright and I think the long nomination fight has indeed made him a stronger candidate, even if I've been utterly disgusted by the way Clinton's run her campaign for reasons explained ad nauseum before.
Us nuking Israel would be an incredibly stupid move because Israel already has nukes for them to use on their own. There is a well defined line to use nuclear weapons and I don't think we'd cross that threshold if it were only Israel being nuked. No need to make a regionally bloody war into a world war.
