The activist base of the party has opposed Clinton, so it's no big surprise that she's not very happy with them.

how so ? she's losing overall, but still getting good numbers. that can't happen without at least some of "the activist base" pulling for her, can it?

and wasn't one her assertions that so much of Obama's primary/caucus support came from cross-over Republicans that he wasn't viable because they'd abandon him in the G.E. ? that doesn't seem to square with the idea that the Dem base is pulling for him but not her - or is the idea that Obama's support is die-hard, activist Dems and crossover Republicans, but not the non-activist, but non-centric Dems ? he has the extremes and she has the soft, squishy middle ?

in other words: is there any data out there to back this up ?

Posted by: cleek on April 19, 2008 at 5:37 PM | PERMALINK

I agree that Hillary has gone too far. She isn't just hurting Obama, she is hurting the Clinton brand. I voted for Hillary in the Wisconsin primary. I used to be a fan of both her and Bill but now I wouldn't walk across the street to see either of them (I still like Chelsea). I'm going to do the only thing I can think of, which is to contact my Congresswoman and ask her to switch her support to Obama.

Posted by: cathy on April 19, 2008 at 5:41 PM | PERMALINK

If either Clinton or Obama take the election away from John McCain, I am going to have to start eating people again.

I'm just saying.

Posted by: Wayne on April 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM | PERMALINK

What I find most interesting is the sourcing of this tidbit and the Obama "Bittergate" ( or is it "Clinggate now?) stories. In Obama's case, it was a closed-door meeting for supporters, and the context was a question about what out-of-state volunteers might need to keep in mind about Pennsylvania voters. In Clinton's case, it was a closed-door meeting for fundraisers meant to fire up further contributions.

In both cases, an attendee at the meeting recorded the candidates comments (almost certainly without permission)and later decided to make the comments public (almost certainly without permission). And in the case of the Clinton remark, the timing suggests that it was released as a response to Obama's remark.

First, in many jurisdictions (including Oregon, where I live), live taping (video or audio) of anyone without prior knowledge and approval is illegal. I don't really expect that to be applied here. More importantly, it seems to be a reflection of the new generation of blogging, cell phones, tiny cameras, YouTube and other technologies that empower ordinary citizens to be (a)reporters, (b) film-makers, (3) snoops), (4) all of the above.

I am from an older generation and find the idea that a person would be invited into a private meeting, taken into confidence and then spread confidences shared there to the world just because I can to be highly disturbing. At the same time I now that this technology is also a tool to keep the powerful honest.

My questions are these: What are the new rules? Should we now expect that shared confidences will be gone on a whim, and without a sense of guilt? (At least in the recent past, they were disclosed to the tabloids for money.) I one wants to have meetings within a political campaign, should it now be standard procedure to require all recording devices to be left outside, or to have a contract that ensures massive liability if someone tapes without permission?

We are all on edge about the government taking away privacy and rights. What about when it is us taking them away?

Posted by: anoregonreader on April 19, 2008 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

Cleek: Hillary certainly has support from parts of the Democratic Party's historical base (labor, women, the working class), but the more lefty activists seem to be pretty strongly in Obama's camp. As you say, Obama also appears to be getting crossover support and a lot of independent support. It's kind of weird. But that seems to be the way things have shaken out.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on April 19, 2008 at 5:55 PM | PERMALINK

I like reading a blog that writes about more interesting topics than the trivial garbage that comes from the so-called M$M and the Clinton Campaign.

Posted by: Mazurka on April 19, 2008 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

By adopting the neoconservative rationalization for the continued destruction of Afghanistan, Mrs. William Jefferson Clinton is appealing to the same base emotion of tribal retribution that has ruled our foreign policy since 9/11. She has become a Lieberman.

Posted by: Brojo on April 19, 2008 at 6:03 PM | PERMALINK

You're a douchebag, Kevin.

Posted by: Petey on April 19, 2008 at 6:07 PM | PERMALINK

To say that the activist base of the party has opposed Hillary is to over-simplify.

Lots of "activists" or "liberals" or "progressives" were originally in Hillary's camp. We were willing to overlook her Iran vote because Obama seemed too eager to pursue the illusive dream of bipartisan relations with the modern Republican party. But then came the Iran vote. And then came the Clinton campaign negativity. Then more and more negativity, until now the Clintonistas are composing Republican talking points for the final election.

Somewhere along that timeline, most notably around South Carolina, a lot of us decided that Obama could win and that Hillary no longer deserved our benefit of the doubt. But it wasn't just the "activists" that peeled off from her campaign. The torch-and-burn strategy is causing her to shed growing numbers of "moderate" Democrats every week.

Posted by: Walter Crockett on April 19, 2008 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

Oh Petey, there ya go, acting just like your favorite candidate.

Posted by: Keith G. on April 19, 2008 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary will be the next Lieberman. She might even go further considering that Michael Savage seems to be endorsing her. Maybe she sees power coming to her from the right. She will follow power, wherever it leads, I have no doubt.

Posted by: Manfred on April 19, 2008 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Hillary continuing the race is hurting Obama which is her goal. Her kitchen sink slash and burn tactics is hurting Obama and herself for no purpose other than her vain illusion Democrats want her to win.

One good thing is that Obama is defending MoveOn.org in this debacle rather than let Hillary attack it. It's good to see Obama defend MoveOn because he's been defending them from the start from Hillary and the right wing.

Anyway, I've seen Obama's last ad in Pennsylvania pointing out how Clinton's health care plan is bad because it forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it. Good for Obama to point out Clinton's radicalism.

Posted by: TLM on April 19, 2008 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

He doesn't have the nomination yet. Why on earth should she step aside for him?

And after his lackluster performance on Wednesday, one has to wonder how on earth he is going to do against the Republican attack machine.

Posted by: mollycoddle on April 19, 2008 at 6:29 PM | PERMALINK

To me, this is a pretty big deal, because Hillary is actually confiding that she is a closet republican. Worse, her campaign lied about the context of her remarks in relation to the primaries then or previously in progress. She basically says she dislikes the core values of her own party, but would pander to Lieberman wing of nuts and naive numbnuts in order to win and aggrandize herself. She is as superficial and self-serving as her enemies contended. She is a huge waste of oxygen right now.

Posted by: Sparko on April 19, 2008 at 6:35 PM | PERMALINK

And on cue, mollycoddle representing the scorched earth republican wing of the Democratic primaries appears to spread more positive energy about the winner of the process . . .

Posted by: Sparko on April 19, 2008 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK

I support the lack of primary coverage until there is real news.

Posted by: Scu on April 19, 2008 at 6:42 PM | PERMALINK

Well, Scu, you enjoy the cat graphs then. The board has been dead. This is my first visit in a few weeks because it has been just dead. This is a political blog without an interesting narrative lately. The lack of comments, or even regulars here speaks volumes. . .

Posted by: Sparko on April 19, 2008 at 6:47 PM | PERMALINK

mollycoddle,

I have to agree with you that his performance at the last debate was rather lackluster. But you should know that when it comes to debates Obama is hit or miss. One good thing is that he learns from his mistakes.

Posted by: Micheline on April 19, 2008 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

And although it's not true that MoveOn opposed the Afghanistan war, it's such a close call that this hardly rates higher than a 1.5 on the Misrepresentation Richter Scale.

Bull. Shit.

Kevin, on what possible grounds do you call this "question" a close call?

Indeed, this is a MAJOR misrepresentation, and a particularly noxious one b/c it feeds into all the GOP/Fox News BS points about Democrats somehow loving al Qaeda & lacking the desire to go after them. Virtually no mainstream Dem or org like MoveOn opposed military action in Afghanistan against the Taliban and al Qaeda. For Hillary even to suggest otherwise is just so ridiculous and such a borrowing of bogus wingnut "facts" that it really, really enraging.

For me, Hillary became a "Fox News Democrat/Lieberdem" with this comment. I hate her guts now, I really do.

Posted by: J on April 19, 2008 at 6:52 PM | PERMALINK

Sparko, I can't speak for anyone else whose commentary has slowed down, but I am just not interested in the pie-fights that erupt in every thread.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on April 19, 2008 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

You are a coward Kevin-- afraid to speak up against the thugishness and ugliness of the Clintons.

There are times in ones life that speaking up against that which is obviously wrong and unjust is not just an option,but a duty. Kevin, you have consistency avoided your duty in this regard, nd it is shameful.

At some point, those who do not repudiate her racist McCarthyism and dishonest divisive campaign will be exposed under the bright cleansing light of day.

Clintons and Rove do not have a monopoly on retribution. Obama would not think in terms of retribution. But many of his supporters are keeping score and will exact retribution to show that the Clinton McCarthyism, Racism and Rovian tactics will not go unnoticed or unpunished.

Those who do not repudiate her campaign will find that they have limited political careers and will be on the outside looking in, wishing they had done the right thing.

Posted by: Fides on April 19, 2008 at 7:06 PM | PERMALINK

I opposed the Afghanistan war at that time, because the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over, and I thought we should give them a chance to make good on it. If they didn't, we could have considered an invasion afterwards.

I think MoveOn is a little bit lame though. And yes, Hillary might be furthering Republican frames by her comments. I think it means something. (But buying into Republican frames is incredibly common, even here, regarding terrorism and foreign policy). Hillary's prominence makes it really suckie.

She's tacking towards the middle to try and get the white male vote for the remaining states.

Posted by: someguy on April 19, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

"Those who do not repudiate her campaign will find that they have limited political careers and will be on the outside looking in, wishing they had done the right thing."

Sieg Heil!!!!

Posted by: Mrs. Peel on April 19, 2008 at 7:22 PM | PERMALINK

I think it's worth pointing out that Clinton didn't just attack MoveOn; she attacked the entire activist base of the party. Her words.

I've never been a member of MoveOn and I'm not wild about some of the things they do, but this is not just about Clinton being pissed at MoveOn for endorsing Obama. This is the latest and one of the most explicit expressions of her active contempt for the next generation of Democrats, for the netroots, for the 50-state strategy...for everything the Democratic party is now embracing to the detriment of the old DLC gang.

Clinton is entitled to foolishly turn her back on one of the most engaged and committed segments of the party if she wishes. But it's worth pointing out that her remarks in private are in direct contradiction to what she has told Democratic grassroots activists to their faces. During a week when she's taking a good deal of heat for public perceptions of her as sneaky and dishonest, this sort of thing isn't going to help her cause.

It is certainly ironic that she would speak as she has of an organization that was created for the purpose of saving her husband's ass 10 years ago.

Posted by: shortstop on April 19, 2008 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

*

Posted by: mhr on April 19, 2008 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

'"Those who do not repudiate her campaign will find that they have limited political careers and will be on the outside looking in, wishing they had done the right thing."

Sieg Heil!!!!"

Calling Richardson JUDAS and pooring gas on the smear that OBANMAis a Mulim who hates America.

Hillary and Bill are sucre one classy couple... kinda like Rove/Cheny/Bush.

enough of their sick lies, McCarthyism and racism

Posted by: Verna on April 19, 2008 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

How annoying it must be for the privileged classes to find that we (the people) have grown weary of Republican-lite and corporate control over the agenda, and that we (the people) want at least a little say in the big issues. Barack Obama may turn out not to be quite so willing, or able, to live up to his promise of hope and change, but we know that Hillary Clinton is just more of the same old same old. A chance for improvement is better than a guarantee of none.

Posted by: on April 19, 2008 at 7:59 PM | PERMALINK

(oops, I did not mean my note "How annoying . . ." to be posted quite so anonymously . . . not that anyone else is likely to care.)

Posted by: Outis on April 19, 2008 at 8:01 PM | PERMALINK

"I imagine everyone has noticed that my campaign coverage has been pretty minimal over the past few weeks. That's deliberate. I'm tired of Hillary, I'm tired of the insane depths of trivia the media (and the candidates) have descended to, and I don't feel like writing much about it."

There is nothing new to say about the campaigns at this point and won't be until either HRC or Obama secures the nomination; Feelings are raw and tempers riled up. After eight years of The.Worst.President.Ever, we are polarized and quarrelling. I guess this is how it feels when leadership fails.

I can't imagine what KD can find to say at the present time even though he is paid to stay in the game day after day; Even professionals have to get the blues. For my part, I wish I could avoid all news until November. I'm anxious. In November I will vote for the Democratic candidate, and I just hope that I feel good about that instead of disgusted. The only reason I am here now is the nerdly pleasures of catblogging research.

So successful have I been that I managed to miss a 5.4 earthquake in Illinois. Whazzat?? A sign from God???

Posted by: PTate in MN on April 19, 2008 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin...great post, couldn't agree more, especially the part about being tired of the campaign. Make it stop, already!

Posted by: jrw on April 19, 2008 at 8:12 PM | PERMALINK

Moveon has nothing to do with it's reason for creation ten years ago. It's an email list that is kept alive and transformed from time to time for fundraising, issue campaigns, and general liberal activism.

Posted by: B on April 19, 2008 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

This election cycle just becomes more ludricrous. These comments by Sen. Clinton are nothing.

Posted by: cali on April 19, 2008 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Guys, I wish that we would not insult each other. It's possible to respectfully disagree. And insults have come from both Hillary and Obama supporters.

That said, I am an Obama supporter. Like many others, I originally favored another Democratic hopeful, but I've been very favorably impressed by Obama's speeches.

I thought his speech about the whole Wright hoohah was brilliant, and as for "Bittergate", I thought he was right on. As someone who spent a number of years working the reference desk in a medical library, I found that I did much better work with patrons if I found something to buy into about their concerns, even if I didn't agree with them on everything. That's how his speech about bitterness came across to me.

And hell yes, I am a BITTER AMERICAN! I'm one of the millions whose income has dropped in the Bush years, but that's a small consideration in comparison with his having started an illegal war, his trashing of our country's reputation, his trashing of environmental causes, Torturegate...you all know what I'm talking about.

What bothers me about at least some of Hillary's supporters is that they are expressing views that sound like they would come straight out of an authoritarian right-wing Republican's mouth. Dredging up Ayers and Bernadette Dorn? Come ON, folks, communism is dead! And neither of them holds the exact opinions they held in the Others 60s; they've managed to evolve since then. Besides, how much influence do they have over anything? And to what extent is Obama connected with them anyway? Talk about shades of McCarthyism and fearmongering!

Others have said this better that I, but Hillary, in all that she has recently said and done in particular, comes across as being part of that same establishment which has made such a cockup of things in this country. And I, too, resent her statements about MoveOn, and about those of us who are "activists".

Obama isn't perfect, which he'd readily admit, and if elected, he isn't going to be able to wave a magic wand and reverse all of the bad trends. But at least he recognizes that there are problems and is willing to talk to us in an adult fashion. He seems like he'd be open to input from various quarters as well. So that puts him head and shoulders above Hillary. And McCain--God help us!

Posted by: Wolfdaughter on April 19, 2008 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks for your forward looking focus Kevin. I'm glad somebody is doing it. There are times when I feel that there is a limit to outrage, and we shouldn't be using it all up in the primary.

Posted by: Barbara on April 19, 2008 at 8:58 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin--

1st paragraph: OK.

2nd paragraph: So bad it seems more like it was written for you than by you. Don't you think you're laying it on a bit thick? She's "done a lot to piss you off lately?" What, is she your personal friend who forgot to feed your cats while you were away for two weeks? No, of course not. So why take it to such a visceral level as she's "done a lot to piss you off"? What, does she owe it to you to make arguments that are a little more substantive than the "bitter" argument?

3rd paragraph: Then why don't you write about things like how biased and bad the ABC debate was? Ooh, you signed a letter- you got to clear your conscience. Good for you. But since somebody arranged for all you wimps to sign some damn letter, you're all going to let it stop at that and not do anything that's really going to start something to correct the grievous, scary, anti-democratic problem with our 4th estate in this country. It's not a good enough excuse, that you don't feel like writing about the campaign.

And you know what the polls say, right? It's not so certain McCain isn't going to win as you make it sound. Don't go making everyone think they can just coast. I really wish you hadn't written this, Kevin.

Posted by: Swan on April 19, 2008 at 9:28 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sure we can look forward to having some pretty bad, biased debates in the general, because we've come to the last debate in the primary, and it was just as bad as the first, and no one's done anything to improve things that is going to make a wit of difference.

Do you want to stop sitting on your hands, Kevin? Why don't you try to get yourself slated to ask the questions at one of the general debates?

Posted by: Swan on April 19, 2008 at 9:30 PM | PERMALINK

She really is contemptable. moveon helped bail out her husband at what was probably the lowest point of his life and this is how she talks about them behind their backs? I'm not even a member and I find that offensive.

I cannot wait for her to lose and go away forever and I never thought I would say that. The absolute worst part of this entire campaign has been to find out that her Republican critics were right about her and Bill all along. I always thought it was their right-wing critics who were pathological. But I don't think that anymore.

I'm really looking forward to her losing, she deserves it at this point.

Posted by: Dresden on April 19, 2008 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

AND... we have the Lakers to entertain until Obama gets to the general! GO LAKERS!!!!

Posted by: Losdela on April 19, 2008 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

AND... we have the Lakers to entertain us until Obama gets to the general! GO LAKERS!!!!

Posted by: Losdela on April 19, 2008 at 9:45 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: Basically, I don't think it's a big deal.

(insert the sound of all of the cars on the 405 screeching to a halt at once)

WHAT!?? Do you just use that phrase out of habit? This is practically a 'Zell Miller speaking at the GOP convention' moment. Or maybe the term now is a "Lieberman" moment.

MOVEON.ORG WAS FOUNDED FOR THE SINGULAR GOAL OF PREVENTING THE IMPEACHMENT AND PROSECUTION OF PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON!!!!!!!!!

MoveOn.org and similar grassroots efforts are the sine qua non of Hillary's entire political career. She would not have become a senator, yet alone a presidential candidate, if Bill had been impeached and removed from office. Period.

And now Hillary is throwing them under the bus?!?

Carter was spot on when he criticized the Clintons for thinking loyalty was a one-way street.

Why is this important? It shows the Clintons have no principles or loyalty beyond doing or saying anything they need to in order to win.

The Clintons will slime an organization that saved their political careers. They'll blame Democratic activists for their losses (when in fact she should be trying to win them over - they are the key to a Democratic victory in November!)

This incident is comparable to when Hillary Clinton met and made nice with the founder of the "vast Right Wing conspiracy", Richard Mello Scaife (and used him as an outlet to trash Obama).

He hasn't changed - he's just thinks she's a weaker opponent for McCain than Obama, so the meeting was purely 'an enemy of my enemy is my friend'.

Kevin: The activist base of the party has opposed Clinton, so it's no big surprise that she's not very happy with them.

Or maybe her losses in caucuses has more to do with the fact that she, like her husband, paid so little attention to the "small" flyover states that they were simply out-organized. After all, her campaign dismissed all of the small caucus states she lost in as "insignificant". They had also blown their entire campaign war chest by SuperTuesday. [Sounds a lot like Bush and Rumsfeld doing no planning beyond the invasion of Iraq]

This should help remind people how the Democrats lost control of the house and senate under president Bill Clinton. They not only don't think or care about the little states, they actively disdain them (cf. Hillary's "screw them" comment while First Lady). And she has the temerity to call Obama an elitist?

And although it's not true that MoveOn opposed the Afghanistan war, it's such a close call that this hardly rates higher than a 1.5 on the Misrepresentation Richter Scale.

Have we really gotten to the point where Democratic bloggers will accept without complaint politicians implicitly branding their opponents as being in bed with terrorists? That's only a 1.5?

Or wait, I'm sorry, the rules are probably different for the Clintons. They always have been.

Maybe Hillary would be more comfortable as John McCain's running mate. I hear he's considering a DINO.

Posted by: Augustus on April 19, 2008 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

Dresden wrote:

She really is contemptable. moveon helped bail out her husband at what was probably the lowest point of his life and this is how she talks about them behind their backs?

I think you're wrong here, and I think you're going too far.

First of all, you say she was talking about them behind their backs. But she didn't make some flimsy or unfair charge in a place where MoveOn was unlikely to ever hear about it or get a chance to defend themselves. She said the stuff she said in front of a huge room full of people who can't be totally aline to MoveOn, and could have easily and without any repercussions let them know what she said. For all we know, Hillary has said the stuff to MoveOn herself prior to the event over the phone or something. And, Kevin called what Hillary said a "1.5 on the misrepresentation richter scale." Maybe MoveOn didn't do a lot to oppose the invasion of Afghanistan, but it sounds like Kevin remembers their position as almost amounting to just just that.

Second, so what if MoveOn helped Bill? They can't do a good thing once and then bad things other times? The right-wing smear machine isn't exactly pulling out all stops to keep Barack Obama from being nominated. On the contrary, Hillary is the one the mainstream media have clearly more consistenly been going after- and I know what people will say about Rush Limbaugh, but that Red Herring or headfake or what have you occurred during the primaries, and did more to make Hillary look bad among the Democratic voters (and thus less likely to get nominated in the nomination race) than it did to help her chances. So maybe MoveOn made the stupid move of throwing their weight behind a candidate the right-wing smear machine feels less threatened by, and thus did a totally stupid thing Hillary has every right to feel angry at.

Posted by: Swan on April 19, 2008 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

She said the stuff she said in front of a huge room full of people who can't be totally aline to MoveOn,

'aline' was supposed to be 'alien'

Posted by: Swan on April 19, 2008 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

Read Colbert King in the Washington Post today. Some of you Hillary supporters just don't get it, do you?

There are three lessons to be observed by watching Hillary in action:
(1) The enemy of my enemy is my friend: cuddle up to McCain and Limbaugh to destroy a fellow Democrat.
(2) Resort to McCarthyism: Link Obama to controversial figures even though you know the link is patently fake.
(3) Getting too big for your britches is costly: Carrying spears for the Clintons is OK, but one shouldn't get too uppity.

Obama has never tried to DESTROY Hillary. Hillary is quite willing to go the full distance: her goal is to DESTROY Obama, not just for this nomination but permanently. How can any Clinton supporter here argue that she is doing anything less?

What do the Clintons have on Stephanopulos that made the pup from hell do their bidding? What were those questions other than aimed to destroy? What was that fake sanctimonious smile on her face as she added on about Ayers, about Wright, about the Flag?

Yes, Obama did not perform great in that debate. It showed that the man still has a soul. Yes, 45 minutes of relentless quizzing that NO WHITE MAN would ever have been subject to, and then the commentariat says he can't take the pressure.

Wait for the reckoning. It is beginning. The crowd of 40,000 in Philly is only the beginning.

Posted by: Manfred on April 19, 2008 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

Manfred, I think we're all a little unsatisfied with Hillary's campaign techniques, there is no reason why criticism of her has to be unfair as well.

Hillary has been dogged by the conservatives and by the media since day 1. All the liberals seems to have flacidly accepted this with little notice, and gone along with the bizarre, almost uniform frenzied Obama cheerleading that popped up on the (ostensibly) liberal side of the blogosphere.

Liberal got desperate as her chances sank and resolved to more and more unseemly behavior. It sucks that she did this, but the vast majority of even good people are far from perfect, and for an example of this, I guarantee you that if you had been a Jew dying in a gas chamber during WWII, you would have got to see otherwise civilized people climbing on the bodies of still-living little children in a desperate attempt to get above the gas. Other desperate situations are just the same- when people feel threatened they act worse, and it's not something so much you can justify, as something you just have to excuse and accept to a certain extent, because people are just people and the person who is perfectly strong is nonexistant.

Let's not pile on this warrior who has done so much for liberal causes her whole adult life and has received so much grief and a vendetta against her from the Republicans because of it. She has enough money that she doesn't need anything, doesn't need to run for President. She's been through enough shit, and running for President isn't a ball, even if you're not Hillary Clinton. She's running for President to use the powers for good and for liberal causes, and for no other reason.

Posted by: Swan on April 19, 2008 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

Liberal got desperate as her chances sank and resolved to more and more unseemly behavior.

Sorry, I'm tired- this should have been something like "Hillary got desperate as her chances sank and consequently resorted to more and more unseemly behavior."

Posted by: Swan on April 19, 2008 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

Good post Kevin,

Salient points:

1.) Nothing substantial is happening, catering to the babbling only gives it strength.

2.) Hillary continuing her campaign IS hurting Obama and Democratic chances in November. Hillary has little chance of winning the nomination.

3.) Focus needs to be on McCain, Hillary is a distraction from McCain.

Ironic that the partisan ticky tack that you are tired of makes up a large part of the comments. Most of those comments don't address these issues.

I have to agree with one poster who called you to task on dismissing Hillary's lie about Moveon's Afganistan stance. Attacking a party organization should be strictly forbidden, misrepresenting them along the same lines as the Republican's should get you banned from the party. This is a war between candidates, attacking a segment of the party is not acceptable, even if they don't support you.

This is an extremely important issue. One of the main reasons Republican's have dominated American politics over the last 14 years is because the Democrats insist on running a circular firing squad. This needs to stop, if we are to endure as a free country. It is bad enough we only have two parties, but when it is reduced to one, we are done.

Posted by: TT on April 19, 2008 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Sorry, I'm tired- this should have been something like

That's okay, son. No one gives a flip what you have to say anyway. I see they went so far as to simply remove your inane comments the other day--word has it that you're on the outs with management. I heard a whisper from a girl I know in Human Resources--they're sitting on your termination papers til Friday so they can have security escort you out of the building without too much fuss. The thing I heard, and this is strictly on the QT, is that you've been using the petty cash to buy cats for unnatural experiments that you and your friends down at the waterfront are using as a cover for your elaborate cheese smuggling ring. Another wag said to me the other day that your comments of late are so inflammatory, they might call in some special trolls from Balloon Juice just to keep you from looking too stupid. Now, I'm not saying I overheard this at the watercooler, but Johnson says that the bosses upstairs are concerned that you're going to crap on someone's desk when they pull the trigger and get rid of you. And this is all hearsay, but what the deuce is it with you and your inability to simply make a comment without having to correct yourself over and over again? Are the voices kicking in, is that it? They have pills for that. Sometimes, they even let you take the pills without force.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on April 19, 2008 at 11:05 PM | PERMALINK

Well, I am going to vote for Hillary because I think that she is not as bad as I think she is.

Posted by: gregor on April 19, 2008 at 11:23 PM | PERMALINK

Swan:

You think I went too far? Heck, I was trying to be nice. HRC has run the lowest intra-party campaign I've ever seen. Advancing the notion that her Dem opponent is "elitist" and mimicking right wing talking points is repulsive and like I said she cannot lose fast enough. I am at the point where I actually look forward to her losing, not simply so that we can get on with the real campaign but because it will serve as a public repudiation of her Dick Morris, Karl Rove, Mark Penn inspired politics. Sorry Swan but the political game she's playing is everything that is wrong with our politics and our country.

This campaign has shown me that the Clintons don't give a damn about me, you or our Party. To even flirt with the idea that Obama is unpatriotic in some way is about as low as a fellow Dem can go given the history of that attack being used against our nominee by the Repubs. Well, she didn't flirt with the idea, she french-kissed it in front of the whole world on ABC. It's great to see her doing McCain's dirty work for him.

And the notion that HRC-who voted for this winless war out of either politcal calculation or because she got outsmarted by Bush (!), voted for the bankruptcy bill and even suppoorted a law against flag burning of all things-gives a rat's ass about "liberal causes" is just delusional.

She and Bill are bloodsuckers on the Dem Party. They are vamping our energy, our resources and our unity in some ugly, humiliating and self-serving quest that has ruined their standing in the Party and is bound to end in her deserved humiliating defeat.

Don't ever forget, if she had had the wisdom or the courage to stand up in 2003 against this war she wouldn't be in the place she is now. Nonetheless, I was willing to support her anyway. Until now. She lost me at the debate forevermore.

She's losing because she's a loser. Good riddance, maybe she can go join whatever party Lieberman belongs to.

Posted by: Dresden on April 20, 2008 at 12:15 AM | PERMALINK

Very well put, Norman. But now that Swan's asleep, you need to take off Dr. Drum's suit and take your own meds.

Posted by: nurse ratched on April 20, 2008 at 12:33 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary should keep-on running hard & dishing dirt until the last dog dies.

And if you can't vote Clinton, in November, vote McCain - the next best thing.

Posted by: Democrat2 on April 20, 2008 at 12:40 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, are you saying MoveOn did oppose the war in Afghanistan? I can't believe that. Can you clarify your remarks please?

Posted by: tomato_freak on April 20, 2008 at 12:59 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin at 5:17 PM: And although it's not true that MoveOn opposed the Afghanistan war

tomato_freak at 12:59 AM: Kevin, are you saying MoveOn did oppose the war in Afghanistan?

Learn to Read. Then, extra Valium for everyone!

Posted by: nurse ratched on April 20, 2008 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

nurse ratched: Kevin falsely claimed that, while MoveOn did not oppose the Afghanistan war, "it's such a close call that this hardly rates higher than a 1.5 on the Misrepresentation Richter Scale".

I've been a member of MoveOn since 1998. Kevin, you're full of crap here. It's not a close call; there was never any action taken by MoveOn, or any proposal made for an action, that would oppose the Afghan war. It's considerably higher than a 1.5.

It appears that the Clintons have decided to declare war on the Democratic party base. Too bad; I can only conclude that she wants a McCain victory, so she can run again in 2012.

Posted by: Joe Buck on April 20, 2008 at 1:40 AM | PERMALINK

Joe Buck,

People can disagree about what this means. But Kevin isn't wrong.

Posted by: nurse ratched on April 20, 2008 at 3:05 AM | PERMALINK

The reason this matters is because she used the argument against Obama that he's too inexperienced to avoid blunders like Bittergate. Meanwhile she inartfully (that's snark) expresses similar sentiments about Democratic activists.

So how can she claim that Obama's the one making gaffes, when she's making them as well? Turnabout, all that.

Note that she admitted she didn't believe Obama was an elitist; therefore her argument rests on the gaffe being a gaffe.

Posted by: KathyF on April 20, 2008 at 4:38 AM | PERMALINK

Quite seriously, I'm wondering lately if the Democrats messed up in not nominating Edwards. He has a mixture of Obama's freshness and Hillary's tough skin and would probably have coasted to a landslide against McCain.

And I say that as someone who has been vocal in support of Obama (who I still like), not as some die-hard Edwards supporter.

Posted by: Glacier on April 20, 2008 at 6:06 AM | PERMALINK

"And on cue, mollycoddle representing the scorched earth republican wing of the Democratic primaries appears to spread more positive energy about the winner of the process . . ."
Posted by: Sparko on April 19, 2008 at 6:38 PM | PERMALINK
_________________________________________
Ah, I see that you are from the Kos wing of the Democratic party. Those who don't agree that Obama is godlike should be cast out, right?

Look, if the fellow gets the nomination, then I will vote for him. But I don't like the adoration of this guy. It is creepy. Read the article in yesterday's Politico by Vandehei and Harris about Obama and the bias toward him.

Posted by: mollycoddle on April 20, 2008 at 6:43 AM | PERMALINK

THANK YOU mollycoddle, for saying better than I could why I'm "bitter"...sick and tired of OBAMADORATION!!!! Don't dislike him but apalled at the unfair sliming of Hillary at every turn...it's been 8 years since I watched the sheeple of America be sucked in by BUSHCO and our MSM who helped manipulate that selection and also helped nudge us into this loverly "war"...now they have taken up the banner of Barack and have made it more difficult for those who still have functioning brains to sort out the facts and information they need to make a wise choice...LET'S JUST JUMP RIGHT ON THIS BANDWAGON and hope it stops at the WH...let's see how that works out!

Posted by: Dancer on April 20, 2008 at 9:31 AM | PERMALINK

Hillary now lives in RepublicanLand. She's joined Lieberman. So, the Big Money Crowd (aka Hillary, Bill, DLC, etc.) is leaving the Democratic Party. This could be good as a new Democratic party emerges which is pro-regular people and not the Party of the Rich. Let the Republicans keep that title.

Posted by: Dr Wu, I'm just an ordinary guy on April 20, 2008 at 11:13 AM | PERMALINK

Dancer, mollycoddle:

The success of grassroots organizations like MoveOn is the best check possible on the kind of corporate cronyism seen in Bush administration.

By demonstrating that they can win caucuses for you, that they raise money for you, they are constructing a democratic counterpoint to the religious right.

Corporate democrats like HC are pissed with organizations like MoveOn, because they want to be able to stiff-arm the base. They want to be able to say "Who do you want - me or the republican" and force the base to accept the lesser of two evils.

Posted by: Adam on April 20, 2008 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINK

All the people who are on the Internet now claiming that Hillary's tactics are low, or that they hurt Democrats, should have been on the Internet criticizing all the people who criticized her in comments before she started resorting to all that stuff, and for the same (claimed) reasons-- all the anti-Hillary mudslinging was total gutter-crawling, was uncalled for, barely founded, and sounded just like stuff Republicans would write.

Instead, you're all only making those arguments against Hillary, and now. Odd, very odd. I guess what you all are doing doesn't really have anything to do with protecting the party at all, but it's just to get Hillary out of the way. And I guess you all don't really care about her tactics (supposed dishonesty or bile or blowing things out of proportion), just that she's the one using them.

Save the criticism of my comments for someone else. I'm not biting.

Posted by: Swan on April 20, 2008 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINK

And sure enough, it's a lot of the same handles launching slings and arrows at Hillary now who were launching Hillary-style slings and arrows at her before they became 'Hillary-style.' Hypocrites!

Posted by: Swan on April 20, 2008 at 12:48 PM | PERMALINK

I have to say that I just love the smell of liberal angst in the morning. Please keep chewing away at each other. Meanwhile, Obama has done more to solidify Conservatives' support of McCain than ANYTHING McCain could have done for himself.

Posted by: BillyBobSchranzburg on April 20, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: "And although it's not true that MoveOn opposed the Afghanistan war, it's such a close call that this hardly rates higher than a 1.5 on the Misrepresentation Richter Scale."

I have NO idea what you mean by "a close call". It is a deliberate, BLATANT LIE intended to slander millions of Democratic voters, and the candidates they support, as "weak on terrorism".

It is EXACTLY the sort of BLATANT LIE that the Republicans will use against Democratic candidates and "the activist base of the Democratic Party" (in Hillary's words).

I have become accustomed to Kevin embracing Republican frames, as of course all "sensible liberals" must.

But is Kevin now saying that deliberate, blatant lies with the clear intent of slandering Democrats with Republican stereotypes are "a close call" and "much ado about nothing"?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on April 20, 2008 at 1:23 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you should have waited to comment, turns out that tape was edited and spliced together. Those comments were actually two separate comments that never said what the edited version led you to believe.

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

Posted by: Radix on April 20, 2008 at 1:58 PM | PERMALINK

Move.on chose Obama over Hillary for a simple reason they polled their membership (I'm one of over 3 million) and Obama got more votes.
There was no bias or conspiracy against Hillary.
Since that time Hillary has proven we made the right decision.

Posted by: Bitter and pissed on April 20, 2008 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Barack Obama's campaign is hurting the Democrat Party and the progressive movement. His attacks against universal health care using handy corporate right-wing talking points is pure BS. Oh yeah, and Ronald Reagan was such a great leader too.

Honestly, the Move On crowd deserves to have their judgement questioned.

Candidates' health care policy:

McSame - Don't get sick!
Obama - Universal health care? Can't afford it!
Clinton - Universal health care? Yes, we can!

Posted by: calling bs on April 20, 2008 at 4:18 PM | PERMALINK

Come on SA. MoveOn put out a petition that's still available on the way back machine. They left it up for over a year after Sept. 11.

http://web.archive.org/web/20010925191442/www.moveon.org/justice/

If we retaliate by bombing Kabul and kill people oppressed by the Taliban dictatorship who have no part in deciding whether terrorists are harbored, we become like the terrorists we oppose. We perpetuate the cycle of retribution and recruit more terrorists by creating martyrs.
(Your personal note)
Please do everything you can to counsel patience as we search for those responsible.

Not saying they opposed it. Just saying that Kevin's perspective is pretty fair. For the record I largely opposed it myself. Never have trusted the war mongers in the white house.

Posted by: asdf on April 20, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

... the more lefty activists seem to be pretty strongly in Obama's camp..Kevin Drum at 5:55 PM

Of course, you mean 'activists' like yourself who talk progressive but who are, at heart, moderate, secure and comfortable. On the other hand, the press is decidedly anti-Clinton and the coverage shows. Clinton is displayed in negative ways, Obama not; that is, until the dice roll his way, than it will be Media For McCain all the time. Negative acts by Obama are ignored, those by Clinton are decried by our blog & media news filters and spinners. The basic facts remain: Obama has the thinnest resume of any major candidate and his triangulation from the right makes him unacceptable to genuine progressives. Hence, his overwhelming support from the likes of MoveOn, Kos, Marshall, Yglesias, Klein and others.

....most notably around South Carolina, a lot of us decided that Obama could win and that Hillary no longer deserved our benefit....Walter Crockett at 6:16 PM

Yup, after Obama's unexpected loss in New Hampshire, his campaign went for the race card big time in South Carolina and solidified the African-American vote.

....Hillary will be the next Lieberman....Manfred at 6:19 PM

That seems contradictory. It's your team that preaches post partisanship and bi-partisanship while singing paeans of praise for Republican presidents. Lieberman should be Obama's kind of guy.

....I've seen Obama's last ad in Pennsylvania pointing out how Clinton's health care plan is bad because it forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it. Good for Obama to point out Clinton's radicalism. TLM at 6:25 PM

Sleazy, misleading attacks like this by Obama are the reason he doesn't deserve the nomination.

.... Hillary is actually confiding that she is a closet republican....Sparko at 6:35 PM

Both Democratic candidates are too moderate to gain my vote, but Obama is clearly to the right of Clinton.

.... Obama would not think in terms of retribution....Fides at 7:06 PM

His petty whining about the debate speaks for itself. When Clinton was double teamed by Russet-Williams and Obama and Edwards gleefully joined in, not one Obama supporter thought it unfair. Sow -- > reap.

.....It is certainly ironic that she would speak as she has of an organization that was created for the purpose of saving her husband's ass 10 years ago. shortstop at 7:30 PM

It would be pusillanimous to support those thrashing one like MoveOn, Kos and Democratic Underground are doing. They have all made some weird determination that Obama is progressive despite all evidence to the contrary.

.... more of the same old same old. A chance for improvement is better than a guarantee of none. : on at 7:59 PM

The same ol' same ol' gave us eight years of solid economic growth and peace. Sounds good. Sounds better when you realize that your candidate has praise for Nixon's and Reagan's foreign policy. Bring back the 'crazy man' theory of international action? Bring back the death squads in Central America? I prefer not.

....Or wait, I'm sorry, the rules are probably different for the Clintons... Maybe Hillary would be more comfortable as John McCain's running mate.... Augustus on April 19, 2008 at 9:51 PM

Clinton rules are exactly as you do: any smear any slime any lie is cool as long as it's anti-Clinton. As for Clinton being a Dino, you need to listen to your candidate more closely.

....What do the Clintons have on Stephanopulos that made the pup from hell do their bidding...Manfred at 10:33 PM

ABC has spent more time sliming the Clintons than most. If you fail to know what the media is doing, you are really too inattentive to take seriously. Did you hear of their phony Path to 9-11 movie , or did you think it accurate when they only attacked Clinton?

.... HRC has run the lowest intra-party campaign I've ever seen. ....Dresden at 12:15 AM

Actually Obama has been running the worst negative campaign. His right wing attacks on her heath care proposals is enough to disqualify him alone, not including his other actual misstatements about her positions. Obama lies, pure and simple. Posted by: Mike on April 20, 2008 at 5:13 PM | PERMALINK

She should have done this earlier, and used Rev Wright and his nutty church too, she would have won the nomination easily. Id like to see her attack DailyKooks too.

MoveOn and the left only act like theyre for Afghanistan and Tora Bora because its an argument they can use against Iraq. At the time, when whe attacked the Taliban, they were against it. They wanted a "police action" to capture Osama, if anything.

Posted by: Jonesy on April 20, 2008 at 5:23 PM | PERMALINK

"Sparko, I can't speak for anyone else whose commentary has slowed down, but I am just not interested in the pie-fights that erupt in every thread."

In my case, it's the lack of intelligent conservative commenters. Unless I feel like playing whack-a-troll, I don't play here nearly as much as I used to.

Posted by: PaulB on April 20, 2008 at 5:59 PM | PERMALINK

Mike's comments at 5:13PM basically sum up my reasons for supporting Sen. Clinton. Originally I was torn between John Edwards and Sen. Clinton, but decided that he was too open to another "Swiftboating".
That left me with the choice of Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama. I decided on Sen. Clinton because of the following:
- no matter which was elected President, they were bound to do somethings that I didn't like.
- I have an idea of some of the things that Sen. Clinton might do that I wouldn't like.
- I have no idea of what Sen. Obama might do that I wouldn't like.
My basic fear concerning Sen. Obama is that there are just too few examples (and none from his Senate career) of just how he operates. What the Democratic Party does not need at this time is another James Earl Carter and too many of Sen. Obama's speeches about "post-partisanship" remind me of Mr. Carter's emphasis on not being from "Washington". Even though Mr. Carter was not comlpetely to blame, we still know how it turned out.
My only fear about Sen. Clinton is that she may have to be prodded from time to time on some issues. That can be overcome with decent leadership in the House and Senate. And I certainly cannot imagine Sen. Clinton vetoing Democratic legislation.

Posted by: Doug on April 20, 2008 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Moveon members voted for Obama, when did he earn your support? When it was time to vote on that Senate resolution condemning Moveon for the Betray Us ad, Hillary votes no, Obama bravely excuses himself and casts no vote at all, was that it? Or since, when he has offered no support for Moveon at all? Does Moveon actually no who it's friends are?

Because there are no facts, there is no truth, Just data to be manipulated

Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

Posted by: Radix on April 20, 2008 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINK

The single biggest selling point for the Democratic Party in the GE is the comparison between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration. Simply asking the voters if they preferred things under Clinton should go a long way towards convincing voters. Unfortunately, one candidate has made it his mission to convince voters that the last Democratic President wasn't that great, and his policies caused a lot of job loss, suffering and bitterness in small towns across America.

And you people claim Hillary is damaging the party? Please. I think creating a situation where people are afraid to speak out because they'll be branded as "racists" is hardly party building behavior. It's amazing how many of you fools think that liberal guilt will be a factor in the GE like it is in the Dem primary. You're in for a rude surprise.

When Hillary was the front runner, and Obama was branding her as dishonest, divisive, and a person who will do anything to win, I hope you were all similarly outraged.

And believe it or not, there's a large number of progressive, activist Dems who could give two shits about MoveOn. From "we paid for this party" to General Betrayus and the relentless, fruitless focus on impeachment, MoveOn has been an arrogant, tone deaf organization, in my opinion. And while 5 million members (or whatever) is a big number, you're kidding yourselves if you think the activist wing of the party is limited to 5 million people.

Posted by: ChrisO on April 20, 2008 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

By the way, when the Senate voted to condemn MoveOn's stupid BetrayUs ad, Hillary voted against the measure. Obama? Well what a surpise, he wasn't there for the vote. How unusual. I guess no one told him about it, just like the Iran vote. What a weasel. I'm sure the MoveOn folks are happy to know they can count on him when the chips are down.

Posted by: ChrisO on April 20, 2008 at 9:06 PM | PERMALINK

ChrisO: Clinton precipitated this numb nuts administration. QED. Hillary was never the answer. I can scarce believe the hardcore supporters of Clinton that still vex this board. There are none so blind as he who will not see. Hillary wants to be president for herself, not for anything as altruistic as doing things for the American people. We need to cast out the last vestiges of dynasties now.

Posted by: Sparko on April 20, 2008 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

I won't even begin to document the ways in which this criticism of Hilary's campaign is delusional. There are plenty of places on the web to see that and some good examples have been cited above. The harm has been done by the so called progressive blog. Let us talk about the harm done by the enlightened progressives as they tried to destroy the legacy of the Clinton presidency.. A great balloon of conceit and false has burst.. and a "movement" has been revealed for what is was... a lot of hot air.

OB has shown himself to be a person incapable of being challenged.. simply too immature to lead this country. It takes an adult.

Posted by: MsComment on April 20, 2008 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

Well, this is the closest-themed thread this should belong on, so: This morning on the show moderated by George Staphylo-crock-a-puss, George Will started out by defending the conduct of the recent Hillary-Obama debate. Idiotically and shamelessly, he said that a very substantive question had been asked [by Charlie Gibson], namely why increase capital gains taxes when that reduces revenue! (That myth has been exposed here and elsewhere in postings and comments.) GW said Obama admitted that (!) but BO thought fairness was more important. The other dorks on the show, like Coki and Sam D., went right along with that fraudulent framing by the aristoprick Will. I don't know which is more disturbing, the misframing by obvious enemies of the public like Will, the play along by folks like George S. who should know better, or that Obama didn't challenge the claim embedded in the question. He should have smacked that right down, and it worries me.

Posted by: Neil B. on April 20, 2008 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, you always seem to be able to strike just the right tone at the right time. I completely agree with this post.

Is Hillary just staying in the race out of spite now?

Posted by: Psyberian on April 20, 2008 at 11:19 PM | PERMALINK

Could you image?... It's June 5th, Hillary is only about 40 delegates behind Obama. But, FL and MI are allowed to be seated. FL with the primary results and count intact, and MI with a slight Obama delegate lead, and count intact ( Hillary majority). Hillary thus passes Obama in the actual vote count... She repeats that she isn't gonna quit...and, oh yea, she has won six of the last ten states, and she wins a majority in PR...

Scary isn't it? She should quit now...save all that uncertainty...

Posted by: tired of the charade on April 21, 2008 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

I support Obama, not Hillary....Kevin Drum 5:17 PM

That shows clearly with your lack of skepticism concerning the media attacks on Clinton.

When the story is examined more closely, one hears that this quote is actually a spliced quote and given without context.

...1) First off, as should be obvious, what Fremon has represented as a continuous, anti-Move-On rant is actually two small snippets from two separate answers that were edited together to make it read/sound like one continuous rant.
I think its pretty obvious that Fremon knew exactly what she was doing here -- normal journalistic practice (I believe) would be to use ellipses when quoting in text form from two entirely separate responses. (actually, normal journalistic practice would not, I believe, allow anything like this to be done at all.)
Here' the quote:
"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party
What you actually hear is the word "so" after "slow down," so there is really no question that this was deliberate.
2) Unlike with the Obama quotes, there is no context. One doesn't know if she praised Move-On.org for its overall activism, etc, etc, because Fremon only wants us to hear what she wants to hear. ....

Typical Clinton Rules journamalism.

Posted by: Mike on April 21, 2008 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK