The weird part is that Obama's initial attack was only about 60% as vicious as Hillary's counterattack.

its A-Rod and Jeter on a grand (or at least, larger) scale. Its the only narrative this kind of media knows. And these two were created by this media...and they are condemned to fight this kind celebrity smack off. In the mean time the war goes on. The world warms up. The oil runs out. And so on and so.....

The weird part is that Obama's initial attack was only about 60% as vicious as Hillary's counterattack.

I forsee a long drawn out struggle between the two liberal titans Hillary and Obama with the result that the Republican nominee easily wins in the 2008 election.

Sorry, correction to first post due to lack of coffee:

The weird part is that Obama's counterattack was only about 60% as vicious as Hillary's initial attack. What's up with that?

Ha! Al just made my morning.

Of 2007!

The US needs to switch to a parlimentary system, ending these continuous campaigns for president. Adopting a parlimentary system would give more power to the most representative branch of government, the legislature, and allow for the removal of bad executive leaders quickly, instead of waiting for their term of office to expire.

Kevin: I might add that it's made all the worse by the new conventional wisdom that the only proper response to any attack is an instant and vicious counterattack. This is going to get very old very fast.

Yeah, what gives? Democrats should continue letting people walk all over them like Gore and Kerry did. It worked for them!

Brojo: I couldn't agree more. But a parliamentary system would weaken the Commander in Chief and that again is bad for national security. No American electorate will go for such a model.

Just waiting for Clinton's first slip in calling Obama Osama.

I'm with Brojo. I'm a politics junkie and I need help.

I dunno -- doesn't seem like much in the way of mud. There really isn't anything to see here. Looks more to me like Hillary's trying to put Obama in the middle of a catfight between her & Geffen.

Meow.

Yawn.

It is going to be difficult for Obama to run a campaign decryng slash and burn politics while throwing mud at this opponents. And throw mud he will have to do from now till the primary. That's just the way it works. He will lose his "fresh face" appeal and his promises of a new tone will start to look hypocritical.

"I forsee a long drawn out struggle between the two liberal titans Hillary and Obama with the result that the Republican nominee easily wins in the 2008 election."

The GOP candidates will be doing their own mud throwing.

St John McCain has hired an army of dirty tricks operators. They will be slashing and burning Rudy and Romney until there is nothing left of them.

In the end, noble Gore(Gandalf) will come riding in on a beautiful white stallion,wheezing from the overload, to save the day.

mhr: "Liberal politicians had no qualms about setting up affirmative action programs whereby less qualified "people of color," to use the quaint phrase liberals prefer, are given preference over whites."

Fashion tip: that white hood you're wearing a makes it look like you have a pointy head.

Let's look at this with a different view. We have a Black Democrat and a Feminist Democrat arguing like schoolgirls in the New York Times over the comments and money of a rich, homosexual Hollywood Jew.

The folks that control the media really want this to be a primary between a black man that we don't know enough about and a woman that we know too well. There's just enough reason for doubt with either of these candidates to justify in a middle American's mind voting for a strong, brave, not-Bush Republican.

We are, underneath, a racist. sexist society and nominating either Obama or Hillary is spotting the opposition a touchdown and a fieldgoal.

I read Geffen's comments and don't see anything wrong with them. I pretty much agree with him.

The big media corporations have already chosen Obama and Clinton as the only acceptable contenders for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. That's how national elections work in the USA: only candidates who can get their hands on hundreds of millions of dollars can run a "viable" campaign. This ensures that only candidates who are acceptable to America's ultra-rich corporate ruling class have any chance of being elected.

I don't see a parliamentary system taking root here, but I sure would like to have the option to cast a "no confidence" vote on the sitting administration at the mid terms.

Jim 7: "We are, underneath, a racist. sexist society and nominating either Obama or Hillary is spotting the opposition a touchdown and a fieldgoal."

So, naturally, the thing to do is vote for a white man, rather than the candidate you prefer. Makes perfect sense. And the Democrats did so well with their last white man. I think you're onto something here.

It makes Gore's possible decision to wait until the fall to announce his candidacy sound more and more reasonable. It's starting to look like that scene in LIFE OF BRIAN in which 2 rival terrorist gangs attack each other so hard they don't have anyone left to launch an attack on the Romans.

Maintaining media Silence from now on.

This is all the MSM knows how to do. They clog our airways with gossip columns. Racing to the bottom; lowest common denominator. They make the news into Ricky Lake.

I wrote the ombudsman for Frontline to complain about their new program, "News War." Since there are no veterans of the news war, I suggest that the program was misusing militaristic language -like the War on Poverty, on Drugs, on Disco, on Whatever, etc. There is no news war, unless someone finally says, "If Tim Russert allows one more guest to remain on talking-points, I'm going to get a gun and shoot him." That would be a news wars. Otherwise, it's just a spineless press.

"I suppose the intensely personal nature of today's back-and-forth between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (here and here) isn't that big a deal."

Ummm....

"“Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?� Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.�"

That's a pretty nasty attack. I think they've fielded it well. Obama is going to need to reel in his supporters if he really plans on running the campaign he says he is going to run. If he doesn't, then he loses his claim to the high road.

The clinton camp response was really perfect - it didn't blame Obama, but made it clear it was his responsibility to fix the problem. The Obama response was a clumsy insuation that made no sense - there is no irony as he described the situation. Why would the Clintons be upset when he wasn't calling them hypocritical liars? Now he has, and apparently Obama is cool with that.

Hopefully everyone learns something from this. I don't want a nasty primary.

Jorgen,

I don't think that's a problem. We've already got a mess of a situation because our president's C in C powers are too overbroad.

Cutting them back would be a very, very good thing.

An no one should ever talk to MoDoze. There is absolutely nothing good that could come of it.

If Hillary Clinton's people are that upset about Geffen's criticism, their skin is much too thin. My guess is that the "outrage" is tactical.

And Kevin, your skin is too thin too, if this minor bickering strikes you as "intensely personal".

mysticdog wrote: "The clinton camp response was really perfect - it didn't blame Obama, but made it clear it was his responsibility to fix the problem ... I don't want a nasty primary."

I don't see any "problem" that needs to be fixed by Obama. Geffen's comments were entirely legitimate criticisms of the Clintons. They were certainly not "mud slinging" or "nasty" in any way.

Having said that, I really couldn' care less about this little tiff between the big-business-anointed, corporate-sponsored-and-approved, media-darling candidates for the Democratic nomination. I'm a Kucinich supporter. What concerns me is that the media will devote endless time and attention to every silly inane vacuous thing that the "chosen ones" Obama or Clinton do or say, while pulling a virtual media blackout on Kucinich -- who was absolutely 100 percent right about the invasion of Iraq when he voted against the authorization for Bush to go to war in 2002, and was again 100 percent right when he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004 as the anti-war candidate (and in favor of universal single-payer medical insurance, clean energy, a living wage, etc etc etc), and is 100 percent right today about Congress cutting off funding for the war.

So in the first 9-10 mo. of this extended campaign season, the two top Dem candidates wipe each other out. Terrific. However, it could turn out all right, as long as a Dark Horse candidate comes out of the woodwork around October and runs roughshod to primary wins...

Al Gore? Please?

A strong, confident campaign would have ignored the Geffen quote or used a sense of humor to counter it.

Attacking Obama for a quote by Geffen in a column written by Dowd.

It's as if the Clinton campaign is LOOKING for a fight.

So Clinton gets to distance herself from Hollywood celebrity and Obama tightens his current hold on Hollywood campaign funding. This isn't 'intensely personal back-and-forth', it's more like jockeying for position.

I agree with Kev's main point, however...this is gonna be a damn loooong campaign season.

If we cut back a little on the royal pomp and circumstance surrounding our presidents, maybe the jr. highschoolers wouldn't claw so hard to wear the darn crown.

"So, naturally, the thing to do is vote for a white man, rather than the candidate you prefer. Makes perfect sense. And the Democrats did so well with their last white man. I think you're onto something here."

i seem to remember the last two white male Democrats for president being slimed out of winning by the media's focus on unsubstansiated trivia.

The thing to do is to fight the Republicans, not each other. The thing to do is to win, because if we lose, our grand experiment as a country is over.

Hillary and Barrack should both politely ask the spit wadders on their campaigns to GO AWAY.

I suppose the intensely personal nature of today's back-and-forth between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (here and here) isn't that big a deal.

Its not surprising since their both substantively unremarkable candidates that are only so politically well-positioned because of fairly non-substantive, largely symbolic, personal traits.

And its not a big deal to me because neither has given me a particularly strong reason to consider voting for them in the primary to start with, so the particulars of their attacks on each other don't make that much difference.

What Kevin called a personal attack and mud slinging was hardly that. It is the sort of criticism that campaigns are about. Her sly comments about unidentified candidates being soft on terror are more eggregious. Issues and policies are only part of what has to be decided. Confidence in the leader is even more important to voters. It is sheer nonsense to think the things said about Hillary are not what is on voters minds. This is why she may be stuck with a 40% ceiling. She knows it and that is what hurts. Sure she gets the benefit of being married to Bill. But, she gets the liability of that, too. Rather than attack Obama indirectly she could have disavowed Bill's awful pardon decisions. But Hillary has the same "the king can do no wrong" problem that GWB has. She really needs to get over it.

The thing to do is to fight the Republicans, not each other.

The thing to do is promote good ideas and fight bad ideas, not engage in exclusionary factionism which can not, ultimately, advance liberal aims since it is directly opposed to the fundamental principals of liberalism. Political tribalism is inherently conservative, and fighting against people is too often just a cover for a lack of compelling ideas.

We have a Black Democrat and a Feminist Democrat

Hillary is a female Democrat; I don't know that she is any more of a feminist Democrat than Obama is.

What do you expect swine to sling?

Sorry, couldn't resist the set up.

You know what really bothers me about Geffen's remarks?

That he went so far out of his way to attack BILL Clinton.

What kind of piece of work is this guy Geffen? What kind of Democrat goes so savagely after our last Democratic President, who was, by any reasonable account, a good President and incomparably better than the current one?

And, just as a matter of personal loyalty, what does it say about Geffen that he could turn so viciously on a former friend?

And for Obama not to repudiate Geffen's remarks while pretending to be the shiny new innocent is pretty appalling. How phony can you get?

Is this going to be Obama's strategy? Putting out supporters who are going to attack Bill Clinton the way an ugly wingnut might?

Maybe Geffen and other Obama supporters are looking to join the Joe Lieberman wing of the Party?

I don't know of any other Democrat politician who seems to have taken such relish in attacking Bill Clinton.

I'm reminded of that little story in The Onion where the Miami Heat had to postpone a game in the NBA Finals because they had to play a preseason game from the following season.

One of these days we'll be going to the polls in November to elect a president and also to vote in a primary to choose his possible successor.

Hillary's camp is just trying to set parameters around Obama's camp to limit them. They don't want Obama claiming the mantle of being "above politics" so they now have him slightly boxed in. If he rejects Geffen or the next person they cite, he can keep the mantle but lose money and power. Or he can push back and risk that the medium will pick up on the meme being created by Hillary that Obama says one thing but does another.

Frankly it is this type of "smart politics" by Hillary that makes me back Obama. It wouldn't bother me if it was effective. But for all that the Clintons did that was right, they were horrible at fighting the conservative wing nuts.

But for all that the Clintons did that was right, they were horrible at fighting the conservative wing nuts.

If your popularity rises even while you're being impeached, I think that you have a pretty good idea about how to fight the wingnuts.

Obama is going to flay Hillary alive on her position on the war. He is able to honestly triangulate on this issue. She is not. Good for him. Good for this country.

I suggest folks not get their knickers bent out of shape over a rant publicized in a newspaper column.

At present, Mrs. Clinton is establishing herself as is her campaign and the campaign fired a broadshot over the bow, so to speak, that constituted a wake-up call to the folks in Hollywood that, in effect, calls their attention the goings on of a little clique whose agenda is its own but with somewhat of a spoiler potential unless dealt with firmly at the outset. The Clinton campaign will play a role in dealing with it but when push comes to shove Hollywood itself will deal with it. That's because Hollywood is Hollywood. On that note, you can bet your bottom dollar that a lot of phone calls are being made today in an attempt to head 'em off at the draw, as might be said in the movies. Some hand wringing and head shaking, too, that will translate rather quickly intoa well-considered resolve that will pretty much settle the matter.

As far as Obama goes, those who maintain his chances of winning an election for the presidency at this stage in his career are slim to nothing are, of course, correct. And everyone who knows anything knows this. Obama is a Republican dream. Note just on this blog the outline of the Republican challenge to "Osama Hussein Obama," and that, folks, is just for starters.

The coming presidential election is about national security; it's "national security, stupid." The candidate preceived as holding the best credentials on the safety and security of the nation will win and will carry the Congress, too. This is not to say that the state of the economy will not play a role or that there will not be other issues, but all issues, including the economy, must be wrapped in the flag of national security this time around, or else.

Given the realities of the situation, that leaves Mrs. Clinton and Rudy Giuliani.

'Hillary is a female Democrat; I don't know that she is any more of a feminist Democrat than Obama is.'

I used the word feminist because I was trying to convey how Democrats are perceived in the wider world. And it ain't good.

There wiil be people looking for any excuse to vote for a Republican. Can we please quit giving them reasons?!

buford,

Let's leave aside Giuliani's parasitic attachment to the issue of national security in the wake of 9/11 for the moment. Let's also ignore, again for the moment, the question of what he's done to make the country even the slightest bit safer since becoming the most famous ex-mayor of New York City.

But please explain how Clinton's vote sending American troops to usher in the current failed state of Iraq makes her a more credible candidate than Obama when it comes to national security.

While you're at it, you might also explain exactly why four years of seniority over Obama in the Senate makes her that much more qualified to be president. Legislation she's passed? Proposed? Do tell.

Maybe she's the better candidate. I dunno. But I'd love to hear you explain why. Maybe because she has a name even you can pronounce?

So, a former friend and big wallet for the Clintons got so ticked off by Bill's behavior that he doesn't like them anymore, he decides to put his money and friends behind Obama, and got all catty about it to political gossip columnist MoDo. Said former Clinton friend isn't on Obama's staff, and may be supporting Obama just because he feels Bill and Hill lied to him.

How does this constitute an attack by Obama, exactly?

As far as I am concerned, the viciousness of political attacks says more about a candidate's lack of character than the issues being fought over, especially when they distort the facts. Bullies make lousy decisions & lousier politicians & diplomats.

BTW, that goes for attack dog reporters, also. That is the main reason I avoid O'Reilly. Hannity, & Olberman. Didn't care much for Dan Rather, either.

Italy's president accepted Prime Minister Romano Prodi's resignation on Wednesday following the government's defeat in a Senate vote on foreign policy.

Parlimentary systems are better suited to rid their governments of poorly performing or unpopular leaders.

Thank goodness for David Geffen actually expressing what millions of Democrats have been silently feeling for months now.

All we need is another triangulated, DLC-Clinton presidency. Have we really forgotten the last one, whose signature accomplishments included a rogue justice dept. headed by Janet “Who Needs Ed Meese� Reno, that murdered a boy and mother at Ruby Ridge, incinerated hundreds of women and children at Waco, and passed the Welfare Reform Act, much to the glee of the GOP. Reform is one thing; reform without adequate retraining or education is simply cruelty.

And then there is that whole reality, that Geffen was straightforward enough to mention…millions of squandered dreams because of a President who couldn’t keep his willy in his trousers. Oh, yes please, let’s have more Clinton!

The arrogance of demanding that Obama denounce Geffen, and return his money, suggests a hubris and detachment from reality that reminds one of our present (mis)leadership.

And the ongoing touting of Hillary’s experience reminds one only that all her experience resulted in a bad vote on Iraq, while the novice Barrack (who has the same experience Lincoln had when he ascended to the Presidency) was infinitely wiser.

Not to mention Bush’s “Dream Team�, a foreign policy group with more experience than ever seen before, which only resulted in the worst policy plunder in U.S. history, one that was mismanaged and run in the most incompetent manner ever seen in world history.

Barbara Tuchman could write a new book simply on the follies of all our current “experts�, Hillary included. Keep hammering, Mr. Geffen!

Barbara Tuchman could write a new book simply on the follies… filmex at 5:29 PM

I share Kevin's dismay at the length of the campaign season, though honestly it's been years since campaigns did much more than slow down. They never really end anymore.

But in the silver lining department, neither Clinton nor Obama should be President. It's true that the one thinks being Bill Clinton's wife entitles her to the job, and that the other is convinced of his inspirational qualities. But their skills are all applicable to campaigning, not to governing, which is why they are front-runners right now. It would be poetic justice if the campaign made them look so unattractive that voters wanted them to go away before the primaries even start.

"What kind of piece of work is this guy Geffen?"

Geffen asked Clinton to do him a favor and pardon Leonard Pelltier who was convicted of killing two FBI agents. Clinton declined. Geffen turned on him.

It is shocking to think that Geffen believed his campaign contributions could buy a pardon for someone convicted of murdering FBI agents. He is delusional.

Poor Hillary, what did she expect, out of the gate with her uglyness.

But it's like I said, she's no Bill Clinton, as certainly I don't think Bill would have said anything so stupid, knowing better then too say what Hillary just did - "return the money", of course Obama won't do that.

And anyway this Hollywood guys got a point:

“Marc Rich getting pardoned? An oil-profiteer expatriate who left the country rather than pay taxes or face justice?� Mr. Geffen says. “Yet another time when the Clintons were unwilling to stand for the things that they genuinely believe in. Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.�

It wasn't the sex with another woman, it was this Bush like lie that Clinton told Americans about WMD, pro-emptive wars, and Marc Rich's pardon.

Clinton was in lock step with Bush and his war in Iraq, saying, "those 16 words were just a mistake", when clearly, those 16 words were an intentional LIE that Bush made-up and Bill Clinton knew darn well and good that it was LIE, not a mistake.

The Clinton's are the OTHER presidential party that LIED about the war in Iraq, cherry-picked evidence about WMD, talk about pre-emptive war - an illegal war, AND about Marc Rich.

Americans are tired of liar for President, so that Obama may well be the very first black president. THUS the lefty liberals, the MoveOn.org crowd that Kevin so hates, and the Republicans simply WILL NOT VOTE for Hillary, that leaves a tiny so-call centrist crowd, the DLC gang, that's the only group left that supports Hillary. Hillary is from "pay to play" politics of corporate American - and we know how awful that's been since Bush has been in office.

Kevin is right about that the new CW of an instant and viscious counter attack is stupid. It makes the counter attacker look juvenile. Here, it brought more attention to Geffen's remarks. My guess is someone told Hillary it would be a good preemptive counter attack designed to deter future attacks against her.

But remind me, why is Hillary considered a good candidate or, more importantly, a highly qualified person to be president? That question has always baffled me. America is filled with unusal stories, but the humiliated wife of a disgraced president fueled by burning ambition calculates her way to becoming president ten years later? The amazing part is that their might be about a 20% chance of it actually happening, much higher than I thought a year ago -- Iraq has the potential to make any democrat a winner and Hillary has about a 25% chance (probably not much more) for the nomination.

cmdicel has hillary accurately assessed (I think it is too soon to tell on Obama)

"Its not surprising since their both substantively unremarkable candidates that are only so politically well-positioned because of fairly non-substantive, largely symbolic, personal traits."

Hillary has responded a second time. I guess she is trying to send a message to everyone "don't mess with me." I wonder about the process that leads to these reponses being made. I assume Hillary approves. It would be nice to see a little more maturity.

I might add that it's made all the worse by the new conventional wisdom that the only proper response to any attack is an instant and vicious counterattack.

Do you write those idiocies on purpose? The conventional wisdom is that the proper response to an unfair or inaccurate attack is an immediate factual rebuttal.

I suppose the intensely personal nature of today's back-and-forth between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama (here and here) isn't that big a deal.

I makes the job of the "swift boaters" that much easier.

I suppose spider is right it there is a factual rebuttal. Hillary did not have one. Obama actually did pretty well in coming up with some facts. But unless she actually accomplished a deterent effect (which I doubt), Hillary should have let is slide. Now, the press will be on the lockout for the next dust up.

The only time I remember an aggressive counter attack working pretty well was when Bush aired that hilarious commercial showing Kerry wind surfing, and Kerry's folks came back with pretend outrage that Bush would try to be funny when soldiers were dying in Iraq. I think Bush took down what was a very effective ad.

I share Kevin's dismay at the length of the campaign season, though honestly it's been years since campaigns did much more than slow down. They never really end anymore.

I expect that what we'll have is some major candidates joining in late 2007 or early 2008 and doing quite well against candidates who have spent the year whittling each other down.

I really couldn' care less about this little tiff between the big-business-anointed, corporate-sponsored-and-approved, media-darling candidates for the Democratic nomination. I'm a Kucinich supporter. What concerns me is that the media will devote endless time and attention to every silly inane vacuous thing that the "chosen ones" Obama or Clinton do or say, while pulling a virtual media blackout on Kucinich

Or John Edwards, for that matter...the media power structure wants an Obama-Clinton head-to-head race because they sell. Or would that be "sold out"?

this brings back too many very bad memories of why we were so glad to see the clintons go. i hate to make a comparison to the resident characterless monkey in the white house, but unfourtunaltey, the bushs and clintons share a sense of imperialism and a belief that their rightess goals justifies any ruthless means..

Nan, the fact that you immediately assumed Leonard Peltier is guilty of murdering two FBI agents goes to prove you know virtually nothing about the case.

Amnesty International, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, National Congress of American Indians, the Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Rev. Jesse Jackson are among those who have joined Geffen in calling for Peltier's release. They joined Coretta Scott KIng, Robert Redford, William Styron, Barbara Streisand, Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Don Edwards (FBI Retired), 8 Nobel Laureates and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, along with several European Parliaments.

The FBI destroyed the American Indian Movement in the same manner they destroyed the Black Panther Party. 40 Native Americans were forced into a gunfight with over 150 FBI agents. Peltier was chosen along with two other Indians and accused of killing the agents, although no one could tell who fired the fatal shots, although it was obvious all the shooting was a result of self defense.

When the first two activists were found not guilty by reason of self-defense, the government stacked the deck, as is their practice.

In Peltier's trial, the feds provided affidavits signed by Myrtle Poor Bear who said she was Mr. Peltier's girlfriend and she saw him shoot the agents. In fact Ms. Poor Bear had never met Mr. Peltier and was not present during the shoot-out. Soon after, Ms. Poor Bear recanted her statements and said the FBI terrorized her and coerced her into signing the affidavits.

Never mind, two feds died and someone had to pay. Peltier has now served 32 years for a crime he did not commit, making him America's own Nelson Mandela, who served 27 years for having committed no crime other than speaking truth to power.

If you honestly think Marc Rich was more deserving of a pardon then Leonard Peltier, Hillary is undoubtedly your candidate.

Roll on November 2008!

I plan on sleeping in the meantime.

Wake me about March '08, will ya?

Hillary is starting to sound like she has Rove as an advisor. Now, she's even attacking fellow Dems with Repug talking points.

While Gore '08 is attracting a lot of attention in certain quarters and being violently dismissed by others, it really is worth examining in the context of this first real skirmish.

The received wisdom is that Al Gore will wait until the fall to announce that he will, "reluctantly, acquiesce to the will of his supporters and enter the race".

Whatever the merits or demerits of a Gore candidacy, it is hard to ignore the strength of the strategy. If Obama and Clinton decide to fight it out in the mud, the Democratic party will need to unite the party behind a nominee. A compromise candidate will be needed. Someone with the profile and stature to capture the imagination of the party and the wider electorate. Someone who can raise money fast. Someone who is aligned with the party platform on the Iraq war.

If this skirmish is a sample of the next few months, there are only two groups that should be overjoyed by the prospect – the Republicans, and Team Gore.