"Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public - that's what I expect from you," Clinton said angrily, waving the mailings in the air.Uh, Hillary, Obama never claimed he wouldn't tell the truth. Your health care plan will in fact punish people who don't purchase health care. And who do you think can't afford to purchase health care to avoid government penalties you would impose?"Meet me in Ohio, and let's have a debate about your tactics," she added.
Hillary went on to say:
"Enough about the speeches, and the big rallies, and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged," Clinton said.Since when is there something wrong with giving a speech or being an eloquent speaker? Since when is there anything wrong with holding huge rallies? I mean, have you ever seen a candidate fill 20,000 seat arenas to the capacity in large cities across the country? Since when have we ever had a candidate assemble such a diverse and energized coalition of voters so early in a Presidential election season? This is an exciting time to be a Democrat and Hillary Clinton trying to "divide and conquer" Democratic voters is a carbon copy of a page out of Karl Rove's playbook.
All of this just days after she expressed how honored she was to be running against Barack Obama at the Democratic debate in Houston on February 21:
"No matter what happens in this contest...and I am honored, I am honored to be here with Barack Obama, I am absolutely honored, and you know...whatever happens, we're gonna be fine, you know we have strong support from our families and our friends. I just hope that we'll be able to say the same thing about the American people; and that's what this election should be about."[Cross posted at Daily Kos]
But it is still an act.
Why now? Why this vitriolic complaint about old mailers?
It appears to be a strategic blunder akin to the race-baiting of New Hampshire and South Carolina. The race-baiting by Hillary, Bill, and numerous surrogates backfired big-time as the Clinton campaign tried, but failed, to marginalize Obama as merely the "black candidate." This latest attack seems intended to hold on to the votes of low information voters in Ohio, especially low-information white females. If Hillary can play the aggrieved victim, perhaps she can retain enough of that demographic to squeak through with a modest victory at least in Ohio, even though she seems to have been out-organized by Obama's team in Texas.
Will it work? After what happened in New Hampshire, I suppose anything is possible. But today's performance, contrived as it was, was so petulant and off-putting that I would be willing to make a modest wager that it will drive away almost as many women as it will surely drive away men. The entire performance will make many undecided voters' backs involuntarily crinkle in revulsion.
If this is the best tactic that Mark "Jabba" Penn can offer at this late stage of the campaign, Hillary really should demand a return of some of Penn's millions of dollars in consultant's fees. Is Penn really just another one of the Producers?
Sun Tzu's ancient observation seems to apply perfectly to Hillary's tactical rant today, as well as to the likely outcome;
Tactics without strategy is the noise preceding defeat.
After today's staged meltdown, about all that is left of Hillary's campaign is an empty black cape under a pointy black hat.
It reminds me of that poem about how many ways can I love thee, etc., etc. Except for Hillary it seems to be "How many ways can I fail?"
How Many Ways can I Fail?
by Hillary Rodham Clinton
I can fail by allow my husband to race bate Democrats.
I can fail by having my staff overspend as if the race were over and then run out of money in the middle of the campaign.
Or maybe I can fail by making up non-existent outrages.
I can fail by denying that I ever supported my husband's policies.
-And then relying on my husband's record as if it were my own.
I can fail by allowing my position on the war to bend with the winds of public opinion.
I can fail by parroting the words of over priced consultants instead of writing my own speeches like my opponent.
Or perhaps I can fail even more by making fun of my opponent's inspiration and hope.
I can fail by critizing my opponents elquent speaking style and large crowds.
Or perhaps I can fail the leadership test by becoming nervous and fearful and losing my cool when under pressure.
I can fail by being in denial about what really inspires my base.
And I can continually fail by assuming that all along I should have been the nominee in spite of the unfolding of events.
How many ways can I fail? Let me count the ways.
2006/2008: Newsday Reviewed Clinton's Statements, Concluded She Supported NAFTA. According to a Newsday issues rundown, "Clinton thinks NAFTA has been a boon to the economy." Newsday wrote in 2008, the word "boon" was their "characterization of how we best understood her position on NAFTA, based on a review of past stories and her public statements." [New York Newsday, 9/11/06; Newsday blog, 2/15/08]2003: Hillary Clinton Expounded on Benefits of NAFTA, Calling it An Important Legislative Goal. "Creating a free trade zone in North America-the largest free trade zone in the world-would expand U.S. exports, create jobs and ensure that our economy was reaping the benefits, not the burdens, of globalization. Although unpopular with labor unions, expanding trade opportunities was an important administration goal. The question was whether the White House could focus its energies on two legislative campaigns at once [NAFTA and health care]. I argued that we could and that postponing health care would further weaken its chances." [Living History, 182]
2003: Clinton Called NAFTA a "Victory" For President Clinton. In her memoir, published in 2003, Clinton wrote, "Senator Dole was genuinely interested in health care reform but wanted to run for President in 1996. He couldn't hand incumbent Bill Clinton any more legislative victories, particularly after Bill's successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA." [Living History, p.231]
1998: Clinton Praised Corporations for Their Efforts On Behalf of NAFTA. The Buffalo News reported, "As first lady, Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with either trade move. Nor has she repudiated them. In a 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." [Buffalo News (New York), 7/16/07]
Given how unpopular "free trade" agreements like NAFTA are these days, especially in places like Ohio, no wonder Hillary's so upset!
One of the tactics which made be believe that Romney was going to lose the nomination was how he was push polling about his Mormon religion against himself to make McCain look bad. Rather the voters, rather than getting the idea that McCain was a creep, couldn't stop obsessing about how Romney is a Mormon.
So Mark Penn decided to use a similar tactic and bring to Ohio's attention Clinton's role in NAFTA????
But more disturbing is exactly what Hillary said. Leaving aside claims of Republican trickery, the most telling part of her speech was when she seemingly claimed that Obama has no "right" to attack her on health care. Since when is a candidate's position on a given issue off-limits? Since when can a candidate claim that because I put forth position X, you can't debate me on that position? Of course, Hillary's point is that because Obama hasn't put forth a "universal" health care plan, he can't criticize it or ask how her plan will be enforced. But even this too is absurd.And indeed, it has all become absurd, hasn't it? Clearly, the Clinton camp has chosen to ride the Mark Penn strategy of negativity straight through Texas and Ohio. So we get a fiery Hillary chastising Obama ("shame on you, Barack Obama"), and challenging him to "meet me in Ohio," as if we were in the middle of a grade school fight instead of a presidential campaign.
Welcome to the height of silly season, folks. It's going to be a wild ride.
The Obama flier on Clinton's health care proposal should be condemned, ot supported.
Here are the facts from factcheck.org:
http://www.factcheck.org/elect...
I haven't had a chance to look at the other mailer on NAFTA, but this attack, and by extension this attack, on Clinton's health plan is grossly misleading.
Not only is it misleading, it employs deceptive right-wing talking points against the plan that have been used to deny health care to millions and millions of Americans.
sorry, but quite apart from Clinton's performance, defending this Obama flier demonstrates skewed priorities.
By "inaccurate," I mean she never said it.
I'm not suggesting that Clinton's support for NAFTA is not a legit issue, or that she needs to answer for it.
But for goodness sakes, folks, think about your reflexive defense of everything Obama.
Support your candidate. Don't support lies.
She never said it. Never. Ever. Never.
I'm not suggesting that Clinton's support for NAFTA is not a legit issue, or that she need [not] answer for it. (corrected)
The flier clearly suggests (more than suggests, actually) Clinton said something she did not say, regardless of her position.
I guess "truthiness" is okay when used by Obama against Clinton.
Former President Bill Clinton was a vigorous supporter of Nafta. He lobbied Congress to pass legislation authorizing the agreement and signed it into law despite objections from fellow Democrats, who believed that it would cost the country jobs.Mrs. Clinton strenuously distanced herself from that Saturday. She said "the agreement was negotiated" during the administration of her husband's predecessor, President George H.W. Bush, and "passed in the Clinton administration."
Right, NAFTA was just passively "passed" during the Clinton Administration. Bill Clinton didn't send his VP, Al Gore, to argue for the free trade agreement against Ross Perot on Larry King's show? The Clinton Administration didn't launch a full-court press to get the deal through Congress? My memory must be failing me, I could have sworn...
Is the position of this blog now that it is okay to attribute words to someone they never said as long as it supports a larger point that one is trying to argue? Wasn't there just a big to-do at this site over that very issue?
As for the timing of Clinton's outburst, I am shocked -- shocked, I tell you -- to find out that a candidate might be using a tactic to sway voters. What will this evil, manipulative candidate do next? Make a speech? Air a commercial. The horror!
One issue is Clinton's support of NAFTA.
The other issue is Obama's character.
The third issue, for me, not the candidates, is the loss of perspective Obama supporters have when it comes to defending their candidate, and their inability to admit any mistake or misjudgment on his part.
By the way, I strongly recommend that everyone read Frank Rich's column in today's New York Times:
Clinton fans don't see their standard-bearer's troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones's Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.But it's the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it's a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate's message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.
Meanwhile, here's the scene inside the Clinton campaign:
... while advisers are drawing some hope from Mrs. Clinton's indefatigable nature, some are burning out.Morale is low. After 13 months of dawn-to-dark seven-day weeks, the staff is exhausted. Some have taken to going home early - 9 p.m. - turning off their BlackBerrys, and polishing off bottles of wine, several senior staff members said.
Some advisers have been heard yelling at close friends and colleagues. In a much-reported incident, Mr. Penn and the campaign advertising chief, Mandy Grunwald, had a screaming match over strategy recently that prompted another senior aide, Guy Cecil, to leave the room. "I have work to do - you're acting like kids," Mr. Cecil said, according to three people in the room.
Others have taken several days off, despite it being crunch time. Some have grown depressed, be it over Mr. Obama's momentum, the attacks on the campaign's management from outside critics or their view that the news media has been much rougher on Mrs. Clinton than on Mr. Obama...
Not a pretty picture. No wonder why Clinton is lashing out.
The New York Times. Guess it's more than rumors.
With the Times going on the attack against McCain and publishing stuff like this about Clinton... could they be changing their minds about who the next president should be...
The Times' op ed page is clear that it does not exercise control over the content of its contributors. It doesn't even make them print corrections when they get something wrong, leaving it instead up to each individual columnist.
Furthermore, at the Times, the news pages (which published the McCain article) and the op-ed pages, operate independently of one another.
Obama 44%
McCain 43%
McCain 50%
Clinton 38%
Also, see this one for New Mexico:
Obama 44%
McCain 44%
McCain 50%
Clinton 38%
Starting to sense a pattern here?
I'm obviously not as well-read in the op-ed field as you two, and don't know who's who. I've just recently gotten into reading the New York Times (I've always been a Post person) and don't know who their in-house columnists are and who writes outside op-eds.
Forgive me for what appears to be the horrid sin of confusing an op-ed columnist with a Times journalist.
I will now address each of your arguments, in turn:
1. I have said too many times now, but I will say it again: No, I do not think it is a good idea for Hillary Clinton do adopt right-wing talking points in criticizing Obama. It is counter-productive.
By the same token, I think it is equally wrong for Obama to do so -- and he clearly did so in this ersatz Harry and Louise mailer his campaign dropped.
2. I do not think it is the job of Obama supporters to discuss his character flaws, should he indeed have any. Disingenuousness in the pursuit of virtue is no vice.
3. As for Obama's flaws outside of the "normal" human ones -- what are they again, oh yeah, lust, gluttony, greed, sloth, wrath, envy and pride -- I'm sure he's clean.
I just think if we are going to discuss them with respect to Clinton, then we ought to discuss them with respect to Obama.
On the Health Care flier, this is the infamous Harry and Louise flier that was debunked several weeks ago. The diary states:
Your (Clinton's) health care plan will in fact punish people who don't purchase health care.
That is just flat out false.
On the NAFTA flier, it clearly puts the word "boon" in quotes, suggesting that is what Hillary Clinton said. she did not. Newsday ( a newspaper on Long island) said it.
I mean, you're not saying you're opposed to possibly using some form of payroll deductions to force everyone into the system, are you? After all, if you are philosophically opposed to that (as you have said you are based on the experience of a relative in Massachusetts), then I suppose you object, in principle, to Social Security also.
For this "universal" thing to work, she would need the buy-in of Congress. Good luck with that.
As for the use of the word "garnish," in its classic sense, all it means is that you will collect the money from a third party (i.e. an employer or a bank) rather than seeking to collect the money from the person themselves.
The flier is lying, however, when it says everyone will have to buy insurance even if they can't afford it, and it will punish people who don't. This is patently and demonstrably false. The plan provides credits and other mechanisms to deal with the issue of financial burdens.
Maybe you think these will work, maybe you think they won't. But to assert that they are simply not there, as this mailer does, is in common parlance, a lie, designed to scare people.
I can't believe people who are progressives are defending this.
"Clinton heightens terrorism rhetoric."
Comment #1: "Wow, that is a scare-mongering tactic right out of the Republican playbook. Clinton must be terrified of Obama right now."
Comment #5: "The last time I heard that line it was coming out of the mouths of Bush and Cheney in `04 versus Kerry. Yuck."
Clinton is my admittedly imperfect choice for president.
I have no qualms about stating flat out that her rhetoric suggesting that Obama is not ready to be CiC is also a scare-tactic, right-wing talking point that she ought not to be using, and I wish she would stop.
I criticize the Clinton campaign and Clinton herself plenty.
But Rarack Obama, it seems, is without flaw.
There are three obvious responses. The first is, not knowing her specific situation, perhaps she ought to be fined. Perhaps she doesn't need as nice a place as she has. Perhaps your brother-in-law is planning on catching the Red Sox this season in high-def.
I don't know them, and I'm not suggesting anything beyond once you use their personal situation as a basis for your argument, lets get all the facts out then so we can make an informed judgment.
The second is that taking an individual situation is no way to make policy. Out of millions and millions, there will always be some specific situations that require special treatment. Perhaps this is one of those cases.
The third response is I hope your sister-in-law and her husband don't get sick. Because if they do -- if they, get in a car accident or need to go to the hospital, well, that's going to get expensive. So, rather than control those costs upfront in a orderly and less expensive manner, what's the worry? Taxpayers will pick up the tab for them anyway.
Besides that, it's very simple: she and her musician friends struggle to make ends meet, don't live extravagantly at all (a small apartment, a car that's about to die, etc.). They simply can't afford much, let alone an expensive health care premium. That's why I agree with Obama that the top priority is making high quality health care accessible and affordable to any adult who wants and needs it. Mandates are tricky and unwieldy, though, as the Massachusetts example demonstrates.
I really didn't mean to make her life or the lives of her friends an issue. The fact is that under Clinton's plan, if you can't afford the insurance, you will be provided with a credit of subsidy that makes it affordable. No one is forced to purchase something they can't afford.
In any event, I get the point you're trying to make. So, as a matter of principle, you must oppose Obama's health plan also, since it includes mandates as well?
A more apt analogy to universal health care would be social security. The social security tax is, in effect, a garnishment of wages. Should folks be able to opt out of that?
I don't blame her from wanting to distance herself from NAFTA, which could lose her Ohio, but by her desperate complaints she's just drawing attention to the truth: she supported NAFTA.
Also, Hillary Clinton has been quite clear that there will be an enforcement mechanism on her universal health care plan. Although she's a bit mysterious as to exactly what that will be, wage withholding was clearly mentioned as a possibility. If she has some other enforcement mechanism in mind, why hasn't she bothered to tell us what it is?
Sorry, but I don't make it personal or use insults.
You can dish it out, but you can't take it, methinks.
Now, you wouldn't know it from Smith's description of the story, but if you click through to Thrush's article, and read all the way to the 20th graf, you come upon this:
Rodham, legal and child welfare experts say, did nothing unethical by attacking the child's credibility - although they consider her defense of Taylor to be aggressive."She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate," said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School's Center for Children, Families and the Law. "He was lucky to have her as a lawyer ... In terms of what's good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn't Hillary's problem."
Smith, on the other hand, does not state that independent observers say Clinton did nothing wrong -- he attributes her defense solely to her aides. I'd say this is a significant difference, since, of course, her aides would be expected to defend her regardless.
The other thing I'll note is that this was an indigent defendant -- the same kind of defendant who is often wrongly convicted because too many court-appointed attorneys don't advocate effectively for their client.
I don't want to defend a rapist -- this defendant eventually cut a deal and was never convicted for this crime. As progressives, we should applaud Clinton for her efforts on behalf of this guy, as disgusting as that sounds.
If more public defenders were as aggressive and conscientious as Hillary Clinton was, perhaps we'd have fewer innocent people on death row these days. I certainly wouldn't have the stomach for it, but it is a net positive given our justice system that there are people who do.
Let me do my George Will imitation. People have been saying that Hillary Clinton's campaign is sleazy and ruthless and morally bankrupt. Well. Wait until she is on the sidelines soon, and you will see the real thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...
It seems that many universal health care systems also have options for people to purchase their own health care. And some systems are NOT mandatory like Hillary Clinton's. So if anyone is being deceptive about the issue of universal health care I would say it is Hillary since she is claiming that Obama's plan is not universal because people can opt out. It seems that some systems which are called universal offer that option.
A health care system that does not cover everyone is not universal.
This insistence that Obama's plan is universal is Orwellian.
Hillary, on the other hand, has the most health care dollars behind her of any candidate of either party. And when that's the case, it will be the so-called person-hood of corporations and their right to take advantage of us which will prevail.
Barack Obama received $2.2 million.
Just for context, Romney had received only $1.6 million by then.
So, no one is pure. So, if you are arguing that money corrupts, per se, then aren't both Clinton and Obama corrupted?
Link:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/...
If you want to watch it.