I think GWB used Howard Dean's attacks against John Kerry's inconsistency. Here's a link:

http://www.slate.com/id/2098177/

The shit the Retadicans start throwing will make everyone forget about these petty squabbles.

Before we can understand this latest BS from Hillary, we have to answer one question. At this point, does she really believe she can win the nomination? If she does, then this is just another clumsy attack on Obama. If she doesn't, then what is she up to? (said in a sinister voice)

This fall, if he quotes Clinton regarding Obama's readiness, McCain will be relying on the opinion of the woman who couldn't even win the primary and is despised by half his constituents. Not likely.

I'm not sure it made it into an ad, but Bush Sr.'s reference to Reagan's "voodoo economics" got a lot of play.

Whether it has or it hasn't: they're BOTH going to come home to roost. Sen. Clinton has set herself up for the Kerry-works in placing McCain at her level. If they both have the same experience, he's got Vietnam and a record of actually CHALLENGING Bush far more than she has had and she has no purity on Iraq.

Similarly, Obama's advisor is on record as saying he's not ready for the 3am ad. It's a simple soundbite that is effective; but more than that it was an easy mistake to avoid. It's also easy to correct, but I kinda think the Obama team as a whole needs a pause and time to redirect their attacks. They have a good argument in McCain-Clinton flubbbing all the crisis to date that they verred away from today.

And Rice and the Hillary is a monster thing is a big problem. I hope he fires her, she crossed a line and she needs to be called out.

But yeah, Hillary started this and she is in my opinion creating a box she won't be able to come out of come November. McCain is a strong candidate and has the benefit of saying he can bring competance given how he's been railing against DOD incompetance and pushing Bush on that front; and how he was in front of the terror issue.

He's not as badly positioned against Clinton as many assume. And clearly, Clinton is running on kerry's map as the data right now shows. She's got a solid ceiling and while also a strong coalition not much attraction for Independents.

This whole CIC ready argument while true and a true attack from the right; it's hard fighting this TWICE for either candidate.

JMHO

And these clips WILL be used.

Well, it's nice that Jerome Armstrong is so concerned.

It's not like he's thoroughly discredited MyDD with an obsessive bias against Obama or anything (though I will admit that their other front pagers have been trying to claw the site back from the brink lately).

Hillary's camp should "knock it off" when it comes to elevating the other party's nominee against the current (and likely final) delegate leader?

Gosh, with such a stern warning, I'm sure they'll cease and desist immediately.

Hillary has decided the nomination is either hers or no one's. Her berserker strategy will either gain her the nomination (less likely) or damage Obama's chances against McCain, leaving her to say "I told you so" in her 2012 run against incumbent McCain, who has kept the status quo in Iraq for four more years (more likely).

It's awful, awful. There needs to be much harder pushback against these kamikaze tactics.

According to FactCheck.org the information in the Obama flyer about health care was accurate. I don't think it counts as giving the R's talking points when the candidate is truthfully stating an attribute of another candidate's plan.

it is a demonstration of Hillary's skill at Rovian dissimulation that so many people think the flyer had misindformation in it. Just another of Hil's lies.

Rhoda, it was Samantha Power who called Clinton a monster ...

I have to say, I had a lot of respect for Samantha Power until today.

Al Gore was the first to bring up the Massachusetts furlough program against Michael Dukakis, although he did not explicitly mention Willy Horton.

Since when is "You'll have to ask Senator Obama" ad material?

This is from an article by Rick Pearson in today's ChicagoTribune.com, the quotes are from Hillary Clinton.

"'I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,� the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

“'I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,� she said.

"Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,� Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.'�

If McCain doesn't use that in an ad against Obama then he is an idiot. I don't think he is an idiot. What Hillary is obviously doing is poisoning the well. If she doesn't get the nomination John McCain will win the election.

Up tell now many Democrats haven't really cared which of the two is nominated. They better care now. Somebody has got to tell her to get herself under control. This election is too important.

Flame away, but I think Hillary has disqualified herself. Sorry, no self-respecting Democrat should ever support her again. Even if it were true you never say that the Republican candidate is better qualified than your Democratic opponent. That is over the line.

Speaking as an outside observer (though we all cheer for our favourite horse up here), I'd nominate McCain as the scariest 3am phone call guy. Not because he's too "inexperienced", or too "My Pet Goat", but worse. Because Mcain looks to be a nice guy, but is also the most likely to deserve this 3am-phone-call ad.

Please always remember that US presidents are followed around by a man with a briefcase, which in a crisis allows them to kill us all, american citizens or not.

Sorry, I'll be more specific. From Wikipedia:

He [Gore] did not, however, mention Horton or any other specific criminal by name. He asked it in the form of a rhetorical question, asking Dukakis whether he would extend Massachusetts-style furloughs to the federal level. Dukakis' retort was, "The difference between you and me is that I have run a criminal justice system. You haven't." But Dukakis also quickly noted that the furlough program had been changed. (This can be found in Jack Germond and Jules Witcover's book on the 1988 presidential campaign, "Whose Broad Stripes And Bright Stars?", on page 315).

Well, in 1980 a group calling itself "Democrats for Reagan" made an ad with Ted Kennedy criticizing Jimmy Carter. It went off the air pretty quickly, though, since it was made without Kennedy's permission.

There may be others, but that's the only instance of a primary criticism coming back in the general that I can think of.

Two words: Willie Horton

Gore raised it in the primaries

Rhoda is right, because I say so. And Obama should fire Powell, not Rice.

She was saying that no-one had CIC experience, including John McCain.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/obama-aide-neither-candidate-ready-for-3-am-call/

On the critical foreign policy issues of the day, whether it was a decision to go to war in Iraq or the decision to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt and beat the drums of war with Iran, Hillary Clinton has made the same wrong judgment as John McCain and George W. Bush. Barack Obama has made a very different judgment.

So neither one of them, and nor John McCain for that matter, have had that 3 o’clock phone call that others have had. And I think we have to be honest about that.]

Oh, and this primary has shown one thing for sure; blogs are no better than the media. The gotcha sound bites are flying back and forth, while real issues are ignored. Shame on us.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: NOBODY is "ready on day one" to be President. There is a learning curve. Even a re-elected president beginning a second term is starting over with turnover in staff and other logistical problems that inevitably surface when running an enormous executive organization. Can we stop with this shit already? It's embarrassing. If there is a crisis on Day 1 of any Presidency, either Clinton or Obama will muddle through. The question to me is: which one of these candidates is more likely to be reflexively hawkish in the event of a "red phone" moment? Hillary has proven her militaristic nature on Iraq and Kyl-Lieberman. Obama showed sound judgement in opposing the Iraq war. In the event of 9/11 redux, I would prefer the candidate who showed the most sound and sober judgement, and his name is Obama.

I think Bush's, "Voodoo Economics" line against Reagan was used by Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, and Kerry! Probably by McCain against Bush jr too ;-)

"voodoo economics"

Don't forget Bill Stein in Ferris Bueller's Day Off.

"Something - Doo - Economics, Anyone? Anyone?"

But yeah, Hillary started this..

Really Rhoda? Point out to me, please, the place and time she "started this".

Already mentioned twice in this thread, but it's the gold standard; Willie Horton. However, the lesson is Republicans take legitimate issues and pervert them into over-the-top iconic hate-filled wedge issues. About the only thing that comes close going the other way is "voo doo economics." Not really in the same ballpark.

The "Dean Scream" is up there. Republicans and the Media are still using that one.

Oh sigh. all this talk about this or that attack ad will seem pointless by the end of september.

There are a gazillion things that can happen, one of which will happen, which will totally shift the context of the debate such as

Cheney attacks Iran

All out warfare in Gaza

Ware breaks out between Venezuela and Colombia

Chips made in China are alleged to have secret trap doors

The rapture

McCain tells Cafferty to F*** off in prime time

enozihno,

thanks very much for actual language. "because i say so" takes on new weight.

I don't think anyone should be too angry with Samantha Power. As the nation's foremost expert on our country's nonchalance toward genocide, she knows better than anyone the Clinton Administration's failure in Rwanda - she is just being intellectually honest rather than being a party hack. I guess we Democrats don't really understand that because we really are a lame party that has a large minority of members who have no vision, no idealism, and no backbone.

It's not fodder for commercials.

But it is the kind of crap that gives Russert wet dreams.

On the Samantha Power thing. It's not what she said per se. it's that she sounded like a snarky blog commenter. You should read some of it. Maybe she was drunk or didn't know she was on the record, but she used the word "ergh". I don't even know what that means, but I certainly don't associate it with foreign policy prowess.

Could someone explain to me why Hillary thinks that she's passed the "commander-in-chief threshold"?

What has she done?

She seems to be riding this idea that she's more serious on national security and defense issues. Where on earth did she get that from? People in the military despise her and laugh at her. For most military folks, that 3am commercial where she picked up the phone at the end was their worst nightmare.

Does anyone really think McFill-in will have the luxury of going on the offence in the general? If he does not spend the entire election defending his stance on Bush's Iraq and Bush's economy, then we were just not fucking trying...

Since no one has answered, I'm going to ask again, and then ask several other questions: since when is "You'll have to ask Senator Obama" some kind of evil low blow that will be used in campaign ads? What does it say about Obama and his defense credentials that people could be going into hysterics over a question like that? What, exactly, was Hillary supposed to say? "I think Obama has demonstrated he, too, has passed that threshold"? She'd be laughed out of the campaign. In fact, making such a stupid statement could be used against her in the general.

When Drum can post braindead shit like this and the Obamabots come charging in in a red blooded fury over it, the primary has gone on way, way too long.

People in the military despise her and laugh at her.

Prove it. And what about those 27 or so Generals that came out supporting her?

Prove it. And what about those 27 or so Generals that came out supporting her?

Prove it? Fucking talk to them. I have friends in the military and I hear what they say. I've had co-workers who were former military and they say the same shit. She is not liked.

Ana Marie Cox is one of the most useless political writers known to man.

Albeit, a cute one.

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer in my post. I think Hillary started the back and forth on the CIC by saying she has a lifetime of experience to draw on, John McCain has a lifetime of experience to draw on, and Barack Obama only has a speech he gave in 2002. She's been using variations of that up to today; when she basically said she and McCain are CIC material while Obama still has to answer that question.

Nevermind, exit polls show he wins people who are voting on the Iraq issue as their number one choice.

And Obama's advisor gave them material as Drum pointed out by saying neither has answered a 3am phone call like that and are ready; McCain's staff jumped on it right away. I'm not to clear because I read this a while back today.

Anyway, all of this and above is JMO. I figured that too was given. I guess I apologize for the declarative tone, but they drummed that into me in high school and college so whatever....

IMO either of them (although BHO is better placed because he has been saying I'll tell you the truth, not what you want to hear) should bring up the multiple crisis: economic meltdown, Iraq meltdown, oil unaffordabelity, etc. that we are ignoring. Then he/she, can claim, that he/she are best qualified to lead the American people in coping. These are all issues the Republicans will pretend aren't real. The problem is that neither candidate has chosen to bring them up with enough volume to be noticed.

MG,

Taken in a vacuum, Clinton's "you'll have to ask Obama" is perfectly fine, but when she also said:

"I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," Clinton says.

you can see why some of us are getting tired of her bullshit.

I'm a fucking Vet too, shithead. Your sweeping generalization is par for the course. That's exactly what the wingnuts do...

Equating out of context blurtings of advisors to the candidate herself endorsing the Republican over the Dem front-runner is simply stupid.

While you are correct that Susan Rice's comments and Clinton's comments both "suck" as they tear down a fellow Democrat, Clinton's is a strategic blunder for her if she does win. By saying that McCain is commander-n-chief material she dramatically reduces options for attacking him on foreign policy--think about a nice RNC commercial with footage of Hillary praising McCain. While Rice's comments on Obama's behalf could hurt Clinton if she wins the primary, they are helpful Obama if he is the nominee. It seems as though Clinton is in the running for McCain's Veep spot. With easily exploitable Clinton dirt like the 450k donation to the Clinton library by Denise Rich, Hillary will not have the ethics argument to use against McCain-- she is painting herself in the corner by reducing lines of attack.

Willie Horton was an Al Gore attack first (although it was not racially tinted when he used it)
Ironic, isn't it ?

1968 - LBJ ran several TV spots reprising the attacks on Goldwater by other Republicans, including Romney and Rockefeller.

think about a nice RNC commercial with footage of Hillary praising McCain

Like I asked above, when is McFill-in going to have the time to go on the offensive?

I worry about McCain not because he's isn't "ready" for that 3am call, but because he is. And if the issue comes up in the general election campaign, I hope his opponent is ready to make an issue of it, with images of mushroom clouds if necessary.

Oh Hai!

Invisible Crisis

elmo, McSame can probably walk and talk and chew gum at the same time. Attack ads will run regardless of whether he is on the defensive or not.

Have you ever heard of a member of one party comparing her opponent and the candidate for the other party? I haven't. The three Hillary comments are brand new as far as I know.

Why, there are some lines you don't cross for the sake of the party. I am sure Hillary thinks that McSame is better qualified than Obama. For all I know she might be right. The truth of the matter is irrelevant.

If she looses the nomination, she will have made it harder for Obama to win. That means all those down ballot Democrats are going to have a harder time winning. We might not expand the number of Senators to a comfortable working majority. We might not expand the membership in the house. We will have a harder time electing purple state Governors. All the way down to the grassroots.

Even if it is true, a serious candidate never, ever compares her primary opponent unfavorably to the other party's nominee. It just isn't done.

Here is the entire Susan Rice clip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K1LECapgmGk

The comment comes shortly after the 1st minute. I don't know why she said "they're both not ready"--horribly worded, to be generous. What she should have said is this: "Both of them haven't been in that situation. Neither has McCain. That's a situation only a President faces. What matters is, who has the ability to be calm in a crisis and make the best decision?"

She's Rove in drag.

In 1964 LBJ's campaign used quotes from Goldwater's primary opponents in an attack ad.

Yeah, I'm old.

"While you are correct that Susan Rice's comments and Clinton's comments both "suck" as they tear down a fellow Democrat, Clinton's is a strategic blunder for her if she does win. By saying that McCain is commander-n-chief material she dramatically reduces options for attacking him on foreign policy"

As if anyone didn't think McCain was ready for military leadership. There's lots of ways to follow that up. Obama has even used some. "50 years of experience," for example. That's a good one.

From what I've seen, Hillary is quite capable of taking the initiative away from McCain in the general. And yes, she still thinks she can win. It's not a good shot, but it's a shot. Obama has to take the prize, it isn't going to be handed to him. That's fine with me, we don't like coronations, leave that to Republicans.

elmo ... you tickle me silly!

kevin k, she isn't Rove in drag. Rove is a party man. He would never have allowed his candidate to compare his primary opponent unfavorably to any Democrat, at least not out loud.

Excuse me, but this "red telephone" business is a huge red herring. Please... How much red phone experience did Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan have when they took office? They were all governors with limited foreign policy experience. We can probably name a dozen others. Hillary has zip, perhaps less than Obama. But it really doesn't matter, hasn't mattered in the past. The idea is that you want cool judgment and intelligence on that end of the telephone. So let's not get anal about the scales on this particular red herring.

Even if it is true, a serious candidate never, ever compares her primary opponent unfavorably to the other party's nominee. It just isn't done.

Oh really? Then what about one of Obama's favorite stump bumps...

blah blah blah sending the same people to Washington and expecting different results blah blah blah

"I've said it before and I'll say it again: NOBODY is "ready on day one" to be President."

It's even worse than that: nobody has to be "ready on day one" to be President! Clinton is running on the Republican platform of fear: these are dangerous times and she's "ready". It's complete bullshit.

you can see why some of us are getting tired of her bullshit. Posted by: drjimcooper on March 6, 2008 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

How utterly devastating, what a terrible blow. Poor Obama! And he defended himself by, what? If he had a response he would have made it. If he wasn't so incredibly vulnerable on this issue, this stuff wouldn't be driving you people into a tizzy.

I was at the point where I didn't care who won. But Obama is starting to look so incredibly fucking fragile, especially on this issue, that I don't see what you people think he's going to do in a general against McCain. His own response to this sort of thing is to chant "Iraq War, Iraq War, Iraq War" like it's a verbal talisman, and that might work in a Dem primary (although it hasn't even worked there so far), but no way in hell does it work in a general election. Obama has a serious problem here, Hillary didn't create it, and you people attacking Hillary for bringing it up now isn't going to make it go away.

"Shithead" has just gained 10 points on the insult market. Invest now. "Asshole" is down 12, but still a good buy for the long haul. Analysts claim that the relatively obscure "blackguard" could make a comeback, but the day traders are throwing their spare change at "fuckwad." Most industry watchers agree that the increasing emotional stakes in the primary season are the main variable driving the expletives and ad hominem markets at the moment.

elmo,

In essence what she is saying is "if I don't win the nomination vote for my good friend Republican John McCain, He is much better than Democrat Obama." See what she is doing? She is making an endorsement. That is unheard of. It really is.

Obama's line is pretty standard outsider stuff. It isn't even comparable to what Hillary said. He sure as hell isn't endorsing Republicans.

Remember a few weeks ago when everybody got upset because Obama made a mild comment about Ronald Reagan being a President who changed the national conversation. What Hillary has said goes way, way beyond what Obama said. Reagan's dead. Obama was talking history. McSame is very much alive and here and now.

LOL! That was awesome, lobbygrw!

I think a lot of things could come up again but I think your giving too much credit to the campaigns to say they originated with either Hillary or Obama.

And isn't the phone in Hillary's ad white? Mondale's ad had a pretty different tone IMO.

"Equating out of context blurtings of advisors to the candidate herself endorsing the Republican over the Dem front-runner is simply stupid."

I agree -- the Obama gaffe is much worse. It underscores the amateurism and how not ready for the big-time he and his campaign are. He has no response for CLinton's criticism because they are true. Indicting Hillary for being honest is silly. The sooner Obama gets off the stage and throws his support behind Hillary the better. He can't match her experience and policy chops.

I am so fucking sick of this election, where everyone (including you, Kevin) acts like every stupid thing the candidates say means life or death. You play it as a ballgame, and it's disgusting. Remember how worked up all of you were about Fred Thompson declaring his candidacy? You all could barely contain yourselves, tripping over even your own tongues to proclaim the importance of it and its significance for the presidential race. And the final result? Thompson was a limp dick who could barely even come out of his hotel room to campaign -- a complete loser of a candidate, with no hope whatsoever -- a joke, frankly. And not one of you -- Drum, Sullivan, Corner, Yglesias -- and all your bullshitters, had not a clue. And yet you keep deceiving yourselves and pretending like ever Obama fart matters. It is really disgusting what passes for punditry these days.

See what she is doing? She is making an endorsement.

You've got to be kidding me? Endorsement? Wow. Do you really believe that if Obama wins, she will not endorse him?

The media is not being honest here. The full context of Susan Rice's comments can be found at http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com/swimming_freestyle/2008/03/msnbc-manipulat.html

Elmo, I don't know what she will do. All I know is what she did.

I happened to think the 3:00 am ad was well within bounds and said so right here.

What she is doing now isn't.

In essence what she is saying is "if I don't win the nomination vote for my good friend Republican John McCain, He is much better than Democrat Obama."

I don't think she's actually saying that. She's trying to make Obama's argument in reverse. That since John McCain is the opponent, you need to send someone that can go toe to toe with him. Problem is, she doesn't have a foot to stand on because she unenthusiastically supported the war and hasn't done much but oppose it on the margins.

Maybe it hurts Obama in the primary, although I doubt it. But it certainly hurts her in the general if she wins the nomination. She'll have locked herself into the Kerry, "I was for the war before I was against" trope.

Pretty stupid for someone with so much experience. And yes, this certainly will be used as an ad in the fall, whomever the nominee is.

Now, there's no question that this stuff sucks. Hillary sucks more on this score since her team has been doing more of it than Obama's team, but they should both knock it off.

Alright, first, you're right that "this stuff sucks" and I've definitely noticed both campaign staffs making these kinds of gaffes. You're right that the remark Hillary made was a bad remark.

Having said that-- isn't it a little too familiar for you to write something like "Hillary sucks more on this score..." posted up on your blog for all to see, as one of our elder gentlemen and a representative of liberals? Whether you intend to our not, you represent all of us in some way by writing on this blog, and to use language like that in person among friends is one thing, but sort of "in public" on a blog that oversensitive sorts may read is another.

I and other commenters are just pseudononymous goofballs, so I think we can get away with writing something like that once in a while, but you're the "designated driver," Kevin, the square who's got to get us all home from the party.

I mean, if you go an write it even though you know it's appearing on a big major blog that loads of people read, then those who perceive themselves as kind of moderate may look at it and think things like "Well, these liberals don't really care about anything, look at that..."

I actually don't think McCain would be smart to allude to a Hillary endorsement in a general election. He'd probably do better kissing Ted Kennedy or telling his base that taxes had to go up.

I don't know about Hillary's comments. She's basically arguing she's a better matchup against McCain with respect to (the allusion of?) foreign policy experience. And she's backed up by Axelrod I guess. It's common to start out an argument with some sort of acknowledgement of an opponents strengths but it would help a lot if she quickly turned it around and emphasized that McCain's wrong on the war, wrong on terror, and wrong on diplomacy. Maybe she did and we're just getting a truncated quote.

Meanwhile, Obama's camp claims Hillary is more of the same, compares her to GWB and calls her a monster who will do anything to get power. Oh and she hates black people and thinks white people will respond positively to subliminal and overt race-baiting.

I fail to see why Sen. Clinton could not have said, "Senator Obama's policy plans are certainly a step in the right direction. My policies are a giant stride in the right direction, which is why you should vote for me. The only wrong choice is to vote Republican; that's the fast track to disaster." It doesn't provide any ammunition for the GOP, and doesn't hurt Sen. Obama if he becomes the nominee. Since it doesn't mention Senator McCain by name, it's not a direct personal attack on him either.

Kevin wrote:

I can think of several reasons why this is true, but before I commit those reasons to print I'd like to make sure that it actually is true. Anyone got any examples that come readily to mind? TV ads preferred, but debate references and stump speech sound bites would work too.

My guess is, it's unprecedented that primary staffs have provided so many great openings for the other party. I mean: "they're both both not ready to have that 3 am phone call."??? Give me a break!

I've gone through the thread quickly, but I don't think anyone has mentioned Wolfson today accusing Obama of being like Ken Starr in calling for Clinton's financial records. Just incredible.

"WASHINGTON, March 6 (Reuters) - An aide to Hillary Clinton likened Democratic presidential rival Barack Obama to independent prosecutor Ken Starr on Thursday, comparing criticism of her to the 1998 probe that led to President Bill Clinton's impeachment.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson criticized Obama's promise to take a more aggressive stance with the New York senator after she won three of four states on Tuesday in their hard-fought battle for the Democratic nomination to face Republican John McCain in November's election.

"I for one do not believe that imitating Ken Starr is the way to win a Democratic primary election for president, but perhaps that theory will be tested," Wolfson told reporters.

Clinton Aide Likens Obama to Ken Starr

Elmo, I don't know what she will do.

Yes you do. There you go again, with another wingnut political stunt...

nepeta, really, how could anyone ever think going after the Clinton's financial records would make one think of Ken Starr?

ah yes, as always, both sides do it.

Kevin,

You don't see such ads because candidates, while making negative attacks in the primaries, are careful about how they phrase the attacks. You didn't hear Howard Dean, for example, praise Bush while contrasting him to Kerry. unlike the other comments you cited, the Clinton comments were tailor made for a McCain ad, and WILL be used.

Clinton is the devil. If she somehow wins the nomination, I hope she loses in a landslide. And this is coming from someone who thinks that McCain is crazy and will destroy the country, and hates the Republican establishment.

haven't fished through the comments yet...on the state level, I remember Ahnold using Westley's words against Phil A in a tv add.

elmo,

As far as I remember, Ken Starr wasn't particularly interested in Clinton's financial records until he started investigating Whitewater. Even then, I don't remember a big deal about financial records. As special prosecutor, I'm sure he had access to them from day one. Obviously, this charge against Obama is really subtle. A reminder of long-past sympathy for Hillary and Bill? Some sort of warning that any vetting of Hillary should be seen as unjust? Lots and lots of levels here.

Lots and lots of levels here.

You got that shit right...

Oh, and LarryM, LOL! You sound like a dieing chickenhawk on payday...

"nepeta, really, how could anyone ever think going after the Clinton's financial records would make one think of Ken Starr?"

I know you meant this sarcastically, but I think you're quite correct as written: how could anyone ever think that asking your political opponent to display her financial records would make one think of Ken Starr? There's just no correlation there.

I want to see Clinton's tax returns. Before she utters one more negative phrase or feigns one more tear.

As far as I'm concerned, she has no real party affiliation, and is undertaking a course of self-aggrandizement. I cannot point to a single thing she has done that proves she has competence in governing. She has riven the party. Her supporters arguments here are hollow. She threatens to disenfranchise and demoralize young people while keeping us at war perpetually. Her "win" in Texas was really a Republican cross-over selection of a WEAK candidate. She lost the caucuses as she almost always does. Even with her wealthy backers, she loses the donation battle every day. This means there are far more democratic Obama supporters--Republicans will give mostly to their own party even while they vote for her.

I defended her for years from right-wing attacks. She is an embarrassment--and is an accidentally famous person running for office. Her main qualification for office was that she did not divorce her husband after a public humiliation. Nothing about her, save name recognition, made her moderately qualified to run. She is inarticulate. Mean spirited. Dissembling (NAFTA????). And fatally flawed by selfishness. She and Lieberman need a retirement package and no longer deserve to be taken seriously.

"nepeta, really, how could anyone ever think going after the Clinton's financial records would make one think of Ken Starr?"

I agree. Obama and his band of mudslingers should head back to Chicago...they may have to anyway for Rezko's trial. I can't even fathom the hypocrisy of Obama trying to question Clinton's ethics when he's neck-deep implicated in the Rezko scandal. Time for O to go...

"ah yes, as always, both sides do it."

Sebastian,

I guess I'm just so biased that at least until this past Tuesday (and not since then although perhaps I've missed something), I've seen the political campaign hatchet being wielded completely by Clinton. Part of Obama's problem now is how to respond to Clinton attacks while at the same time staying above the fray ethically. A big part of Obama's charm is his disavowal of DC politics as usual. So far it appears to me that his rational responses to Clinton attacks have worked, and I hope he keeps them coming, as well as refusing to 'throw the kitchen sink' at Clinton.

Snarko, there's an easier way to say it. She's New Coke. The product you're suppose to buy because it has the right name, but you never really asked for in the first place.

Sorry, Sparko, not Snarko :)

Tom: as you well know, the Clintons have more exposure to Rezco and his compatriots than Obama ever did. These are the kind of willfully dishonest attacks that disqualify your candidate. Truly embarrassing to see.

I'd have to go back & watch the interview again, but I'm virtually positive that Susan Rice didn't limit her discussion to Clinton & Obama. She was pointing out the fairly obvious fact that none of the candidates -- including McCain, whom she indicated by name -- had never been in any kind of executive position that would require this kind of response. She committed the sin of stating a very plain truth.

Snarko does have a nice ring of truth though. I admit it. But I want a democratic party ascendant and strong. New Coke Clinton has a bad after-taste.

Junebug, a couple people addressed that in comments. But as I said up thread, bloggers who spend a ton of ink complaining about reports should look before they link. Armstrong has completely jumped the shark, but Kevin should know better.

I cannot point to a single thing she has done that proves she has competence in governing.

SCHIP. Stupid.

Elmo: SCHIP; that was a great Veto debacle--right after funding the war indefinitely and suspending habeas corpus and threatening Iran. I also loved the way Clinton obtained universal health care for everyone in 1994. It saved my best friend's life. She kept me out of three wars. Oh yeah. Guess not. She has a famous husband and a temper. And my friend did not see the Bush years. Lucky guy.

"I agree. Obama and his band of mudslingers should head back to Chicago...they may have to anyway for Rezko's trial."

Tom,

Funny how Clinton hasn't really mentioned Rezko since one of the early debates, don't you think? Do you think it could have anything to do with what is posted on Josh Marshall's muckraker site, i.e., that the Clintons and/or Clinton supporters have received political donations from Rezko?

"Clinton's national co-chair received donations from Rezko. Three of the co-defendants at Rezko trial contributed to Clintons and campaign supporters. Obama didn't receive any donations from Rezko.

"Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama’s political opponents. None have donated to Obama."

Clintons Tied To Rezko

New Coke Clinton has a bad after-taste.

hmm. Like this?

"If you haven't tasted Caffeine-Free Diet Pepsi, but would like an idea of what it tastes like, do this - keep a straw in your pocket and wander around outside until you find a pigeon or squirrel that's been dead for, oh, say three months. Stick the straw into the dead animal and suck. Caffeine-Free Diet Pepsi tastes like that, except worse. Plus, the taste lingers in your mouth for months. And gradually gets worse until it's like your mouth was invaded by the notoriously rare and deadly Asian Shit Ant," - William K. Wolfrum.

I forget the original link--maybe Sully.

pax55, Oh, so true re caffeine-free diet Pepsi. I used to drink it all the time but then they changed something (the sweetener?) several years ago and it's now undrinkable.

She has a famous husband and a temper. And my friend did not see the Bush years. Lucky guy.

Why not? Didn't you save his life? If you are referring to a combat buddy, then you should show him more respect. You hate her, I get it, but I will not bow to your irrational epileptic fervor.

thanks, nepeta. I think it works on the allegorical level too. JMHO.

I'm getting concerned about Hillary's mental stability. Seriously. She seems to believe in her own spin and exaggerations a little too much. Shades of Richard Nixon.

"I have crossed the threshold of Commander in Chief," says Hillary, who has no military training or experience. She believes in "truth by exertion" -- truthiness! We're getting into egomaniac territory here.

"I have 35 years of experience" -- er, doing exactly what? Doesn't matter, she's repeated it enough time she believes all 35 years counts as presidentially qualifying.

"I didn't know it was a bill to authorize war with Iraq." -- uh huh. You mean the bill titled "Resolution to Authorize War with Iraq."?

Hillary is the Democratic Rove. Repeat a falsehood enough times in a believable, forceful manner and it becomes "truth" in the MSM. Never thought I'd see a Democrat use dirty mudslinging against another Democrat.

junebug & enzohino,

I saw the Susan Rice clip tonight on Olbermann. Wow, what a show. I was wishing that the whole country was watching MSNBC. There's no doubt about where Keith Olbermann's sympathies lie. Anyway, I hadn't heard about the Susan Rice blunder but when she said "neither are prepared" I groaned. I'm almost certain that it was a verbal snafu and that she didn't mean to say that at all. Possibly both 'are' prepared. I thought she had a funny look on her face after she said it, as if she knew something she said hadn't made sense but she wasn't quite sure what it was. There would be absolutely no reason at all for her to say that 'neither' were prepared.

hillary's shaping up to be the next nader

I haven't seen the full clip. I just saw Jerome's three second "Gotcha" version. From the transcript, it doesn't seem like a particularly forceful argument, but it's not a "Gotcha" either.

Ms. Rice: He hasn’t and he hasn’t claimed that he’s been in a position to have to answer the phone at 3 o’clock in the morning in a crisis situation. That’s the difference between the two of them. Hillary Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at 3 o’clock in the morning. And yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready. They’re both not ready to have that 3:00 a.m. phone call.

The question is and what Barack Obama raised is, when that phone call is received for each of them for the first time, who’s going to make the right judgment? Who is going to make the right decision?

On the critical foreign policy issues of the day, whether it was a decision to go to war in Iraq or the decision to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt and beat the drums of war with Iran, Hillary Clinton has made the same wrong judgment as John McCain and George W. Bush. Barack Obama has made a very different judgment.

So neither one of them, and nor John McCain for that matter, have had that 3 o’clock phone call that others have had. And I think we have to be honest about that.]

pax55 - For sure, it certainly works on the allegorical level! I wouldn't want this thread hijacked to a discussion of our favorite soft drinks. (big grin)

"I have 35 years of experience" -- er, doing exactly what?

Look, fool. She stayed in law school an extra year to work on a case that secured rights for special education children. 35 years ago.

nepeta and pax, please, the geek shit doesn't make you look cool...

"I have 35 years of experience" -- er, doing exactly what?

I bet her helping in the Nixon impeachment hearings means nothing to you too...

enzohino,

Interesting. That really doesn't sound like the Rice quote I heard on Countdown. But maybe it is. I can't believe she would have said something similar twice. But this gets stranger and stranger. You're right. If she was going to say something like that, then she should have included McCain.

Sparko: "Tom: as you well know, the Clintons have more exposure to Rezco and his compatriots than Obama ever did."

Don't embarrass yourself with statements like that. It wasn't Clinton's name that was invoked by Tony Rezko's defense counsel in his opening statement today.

She stayed in law school an extra year to work on a case that secured rights for special education children.

I'll have to remember this technique the next time I'm putting together my resume.

remind me; when the phone rang at 3AM in the glorious Reagan era, whose job was it to decide whether or not to wake the President?

"I bet her helping in the Nixon impeachment hearings means nothing to you too..."

elmo,

I don't know who you addressed this to, but for me, no, her participation in the Nixon impeachment hearings doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I do think that it was a great opportunity for her though.

"She stayed in law school an extra year to work on a case that secured rights for special education children."

Are you sure that's why she stayed in law school an extra year? She didn't pass her first state bar exam even with the extra year.

her participation in the Nixon impeachment hearings doesn't mean a whole lot to me. I do think that it was a great opportunity for her though.

Well, so, what does count as experience to you? And what exactly gives Obama the experience you say he has?

Are you sure that's why she stayed in law school an extra year? She didn't pass her first state bar exam even with the extra year.

But she did help secure rights for special education students, and continues to do so to this day.

Results mean more than words.

nepeta: "Funny how Clinton hasn't really mentioned Rezko since one of the early debates, don't you think?"

She hasn't really had to, has she? It's all over the news -- just like I told you months ago that it would be, once Rezko's trial got underway.

nepeta: "Do you think it could have anything to do with what is posted on Josh Marshall's muckraker site, i.e., that the Clintons and/or Clinton supporters have received political donations from Rezko?"

That should be an easy thing to prove. Why don't you?

After all, you're the one who's making this serious allegation. Certainly you can support that contention with something more than offering up unsubstantiated hearsay and innuendo offered up by one moonbat (Margie Burns) and referenced by another (Gary Cohen), who actually insists that "Obama didn't receive any donations from Rezko.".

Show us the evidence, i.e., who gave what to whom, when and where. Good luck, and have fun.

...unsubstantiated hearsay and innuendo offered up by one moonbat (Margie Burns) and referenced by another (Gary Cohen)...

Same-O same-O what they offer up over at TPM.

elmo,

What matters to me isn't 'experience.' If that were the most important thing, then certainly John McCain should be elected as the next president. What matters to me most is ideology and integrity. Also, my intuitions are important to me when I have to make judgments about people. If the candidate's ideology tends to match my own, then I use intuition to finally decide zero in on things like integrity, honesty, substance, and character.

What matters to me most is ideology and integrity.

You must be new to the game. Oh, I'm sorry, you don't play the game, right? It's the dissing of Hillary's integrity that sets me off. The woman gave her entire life to this country.

Also, my intuitions are important to me when I have to make judgments about people.

You see, that's the defense between me and you. My intuition is something I use like hope...when I got nothing else...

Donald,

Did you read the story with specific donation amounts and by whom and to whom they were given? Donations to political campaigns aren't secret anymore. It's easy to check FEC data on political donations at opensecrets.org. I'm certainly not going to spend an hour documenting data that has been published at Josh Marshall's site. If you would like to disprove that data by doing the research, feel free.

I'm trying to finally read up on this Rezko stuff. I'm having a hard time though, finding anything very damning. How Obama's time as a State Senator can be considered insignificant, while who he hung out with while he was there is apparently a huge deal, continues to elude me.

Don, do you have anything good that goes beyond the innuendo in the Sun Times? So far he seems to have extended his yard and employed an intern for a month. Is there anything beyond this? And no, bringing it up in every thread for months isn't going to do it if that's all there is.

elmo,

Integrity? Clinton? You can't be serious Even her supporters - the sentient ones, anyway - know that she has none. That's why they like her - they think it will take someone with no integrity to defeat the Republican slime machine.

Mind you, that's not enough for me. If the devil woman wins the nomination, I'm voting third party.

elmo,

"The woman gave her entire life to this country."

Oh, for God's sake, Elmo. This is absolutely pure drivel. The men and women who lost their lives in Iraq have given their entire lives to this country, with no help from Hillary Clinton I might add.

"My intuition is something I use like hope...when I got nothing else..."

You have my sympathy. Another word similar to intuition is instinct. Instinct is genetic and goes hand in hand with intuition, a total sum of lifetime experience, which are two of our greatest resources and probably our greatest defense against danger.

It's easy to check FEC data on political donations at opensecrets.org. I'm certainly not going to spend an hour documenting data that has been published at Josh Marshall's site.

Wait...it's "easy" but it's going to take you an hour to back up what you posted so you're asking someone else to do your work?

You sound like a member of Team obama. You know...you just don't like paperwork...or work in general.

The definition of instinct is not "a total sum of lifetime experience". It is actually something you are born with, well some animals anyway. I'm supposed to be the stupid one around here, nepeta.

And don't throw the lives of the men and women that were lost in Iraq at me, or I can get real ugly real fast. You know damn well what I meant. And you know it is true.

on,

You don't trust Josh Marshall? Even though it was a reader comment which linked to a Margie Burns (?) blog with cites to the FEC and opensecrets.org, I don't think Josh would have published it without having double-checked the accuracy of the content. So if you want to disbelieve the info, go right ahead. If and when I feel like making it a federal case, perhaps I'll do some checking. It's hardly surprising information that rich Chicago businessmen have given large donations to Dems, including Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton (you have seen Rezko posing with the Clintons for a photograph, no?) as well as donations to Repubs. Doesn't surprise me in the least.

elmo,

"It (instinct) is actually something you are born with, well some animals anyway"

That's how I described it, dear. Genetic.

I described intuition as the total sum of an individual's life experience. I don't know whether that's a good definition or not, it's just how I tend to think about it. Or it might be a talent, who knows?

You're right, Elmo. I did know what you meant. I apologize for the low blow. But your comment that 'she gave her entire life for this country' is just plain dumb. I wouldn't say the same thing about Obama either. He hasn't given his whole life for his country. Heck, I'd love to be a senator. I hardly see it as being a hardship. Well, sorry I guess it is for some people, since you only make a couple hundred grand/year.

You're right, Elmo. I did know what you meant. I apologize for the low blow.

Fair enough, it's not like I haven't given my fair share of cheap shots. "Entire life" may be a little heavy, but she has given much much more than most of us, including Obama.

I'm really disappointed in you guys. Months of Rezko and no one is making the connection between this character, Obama, and the Nation of Islam.

Rezko meets Warith Deen Mohammad, and gets his career going in the 70's by joining Mohammad Ali's entourage. You probably don't know this, but their was a huge feud between Warith Deen, the son of Elijah Mohammad, and Louis Farrakhan. I actually saw Warith Deen speak once (true story), where I met "Raj" from What's Happening, who played him in the film Malcom X. Anyhoo. The Farrakhan black nationalist Nation guys would show up periodically to make a scene. They didn't like that Warith Deen had backed away from his father's more controversial teachings.

Somewhere while this is going on Rezko and Obama become friends. Business deals, fundraisers, whatever. By the late 90's Obama comes on the scene, suddenly Warith Deen and Farrakhan are friends again. Coincidence? Puts the Farrakhan endorsement in a new light though doesn't it?

ALSO, I'm pretty sure Leila Ali was on Oprah once... Clearly Obama needs to come clean about his Arab-Christian-Black-Nationalist-Muslim-Land-Grab-Scandal.

elmo,

"she has given much much more than most of us, including Obama"

Can you tell me what she has given? Do you feel that public service is somehow a hardship? She's been paid for her work in government as a senator, and it seems to me it's really interesting work. Being First Lady of the US or First Lady of Arkansas hardly seems like an awful sort of self-sacrifice. And how does being a corporate lawyer for 16 years count as giving anything to the country? Did I exaggerate the number of years of her law career? I think 16 is correct. I know she's done a few good things, such as working for the Children's Defense Fund and later working on education reform in Arkansas, albeit a failure as was her healthcare work in the Clinton administration. I just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I just don't have a clue what you're talking about.

Yes you do. You are just strategically avoiding it. But lets get to your side of the equation. What has Obama done that is so spectacular? Hillary has the sum of her parts, dismiss them as you may, but they amount to a lot of good. Obama has some catching up to do...

OK, Elmo, then I have to go to bed. But I already said that 'experience' isn't my No. 1 priority. And I'm certainly not going to follow you down the 'giving one's life to this country' as a means of reckoning. McCain would win that one too. So, remember, this is just a short list of Obama accomplishments: editor of the Harvard Law Review; community organizer helping laid off workers find jobs; Illinois state senator who sponsored a lot of progressive legislation; US senator with a voting record similar to Clinton's but as far as I can tell a much more active sponsorship and cosponsorship of important liberal legislation. I looked at this sponsorship issue last night at thomas.gov. I've probably forgotten a ton of things, b