Does she think he is ready to be commander-in-chief?

Orwell,

Read his actual "promise" He promised to accept public financing if the Republican nominee did *and* they were willing to discuss reigning in the 527s. McCain refused.

Take a look at Obama's donors. How much cash comes from maxed-out wealthy people, and how much comes from sub $200 contributions from ordinary people?

Check your sources, dude. You're being lied to.

Now the only thing wealthy donors will be making unlimited contributions to are the 527s. Swiftboaters will be out in full force on both sides.

Yeah how about that public finance promise?

And a good thing, too. No more packing knives at the gunfight.

BTW, the promise was just to negotiate over a dual agreement for public financing. Since McCain is breaking his own finance law and not taking public financing either, it takes some nerve to accuse his opponent of being merely unethical wrt a law he himself is actually breaking.

But then lack of nerve never stopped any Republican from making a hypocritical argument. Or trolls from repeating it.

But, but Hillary is a racist! The netroots said so!

Maybe this whole Internet thing wasn't such a good idea after all.

That's nice, Kevin, and I'm glad to read that she is doing that. It doesn't change the fact that she ran a repugnant campaign, particularly in the weeks during which Obama was the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. What she's doing now is better than nothing, but whether intentional or otherwise, she did damage to her party's nominee and his electoral fortunes. It's better that she's helping than not, but it doesn't mean we have to forget the way she and her surrogates conducted themselves until a couple of weeks ago.

Check your sources, dude. You're being lied to.

oh he knows that. he's just trolling.

Good for Hillary. I'm glad that most of her supporters are backing Obama just as she is, and I hope the very small proportion of her supporters who are currently saying they won't be voting for the Democratic nominee will take a cue from the way she's conducted herself since her concession.

How did the senator from NY vote on the FISA capitulation?

Dislike for Sen. Clinton is not based on her campaigning for president, it is based on her official acts representing the people of NY in the senate.

I was really mad at Hillary and her supporters but it seems to me that if my hope is that they will forgive and forget then I need to forgive and forget too.

It is unfortunate that we had two candidates who could arouse such passionate support in the same year!

I am grateful that she is pitching in so helpfully.

John M: she did damage to her party's nominee and his electoral fortunes. It's better that she's helping than not, but it doesn't mean we have to forget the way she and her surrogates conducted themselves until a couple of weeks ago.
------------------------------------

Yeah, Hillary forced Obama to go to Rev. Wright's church for 20 years, and forced him to make friends with Father Phlegler, and to put Jim Johnson on his vetting committee, and to send Golsbee to Canada, and to backtrack on campaign promises to use public funding.

What is Larry Johnson going to say?

Hillary is going over to the enemy. She is betraying Larry. He should be pissed.

"Yeah, how about that public finance promise?"

Boo-hoo, snif, snif. It's just soooooo unfair, Obama has more money.

Well, I probably should leave it alone. We're all on the same side again. None of the things that you mention were Hillary's fault. On the other hand, "commander-in-chief test," "Jesse Jackson," "as far as I know," "Zimbabwe," "Florida," "disenfranchisement," "Denver! Denver!," and the insinuation that the nomination was stolen from her weren't Obama's doing, were they?

John M., Teresa.

Go to your rooms, and don't come out until you can stop bickering. The grownups are getting tired of this crap.

It was a tough campaign. Both sides did things that in retrospect they might not be proud of. It's over. McSham must be stopped. That is now Priority One.

I'm delighted she's doing that -- but I still don't want her as Obama's running mate.

Thankfully, I sense that's already a moot point, and that very few potential veep choices could alienate most sane Clintonites.

"Yeah, how about that public finance promise?"

Ok, he is taking money from over one and 1/2 million small contributors instead of a few lobbyists running large Political Action Committees. I would say that Obama's financing is pretty public.

In the meantime didn't John McSame back out of public financing after he accepted public financing benefits?

But...but.. Kevin started it! No fair!

"Yes, it was a tough campaign"

Was it really, in a historical sense? Doesn't feel that way to me. I was initially a (reluctant) Hillary supporter, and I think Obama handled his criticisms of Hillary fairly respectfully. I didn't see any of the "sexism" - but if it existed at the more vituperative sites, then it was coming from Obama supporters, not the guy himself.

And Hillary's attacks on Obama were mostly fair and respectful, as these things go. Implying that he didn't have the experience necessary? He IS fairly junior, and young-looking - what criticisms WOULD be okay, if not obvious ones like that?

My guess is, we had a female front-runner and a black man, both novel, in a tight race. Race and gender sensitivities made the typical affronts of a campaign seem more personal, and hit the supporters more personally too, as many identified with the candidates along their own race/gender lines.

How would Obama supporters have handled a close loss? Would there be whining about racism (similar to the whining about sexism now)? I'd think so, but less, because (1) blacks are a smaller % of the population than white women, so the # of supporters who took the loss as a personal affront would be less, and (2) because Obama wasn't the leader initially, like Hillary, so there would be less disappointment.

Oh, I forgot - that "as far as I know" crack was pretty creepy, as was the assassination insinuation (if that's what it was).

Boo Hillary!

> How would Obama supporters have handled a close loss?

That depends how the loss came about. If it came about by seating Michigan and Florida fully, you'd have a mutiny on your hands.

Looks like another bad call by Andrew Sullivan.

He has been saying for months that Hillary Clinton was a hideous monster concerned only about her own political interests, and that the Clintons would sabotage the party if it didn't give her the nomination.

Now she's acting as generously as any politician could be expected to act on behalf of the good of her party.

No, Hillary isn't trying to sabotage either the party or Obama's chances to win the White House.

Sure, sure, whatever you say boss...

She said she was running cuz of possibility of assassination and she used kkkarl rove's talking points to proclaim white votes were more imports, that SHE was the white candidate.

And she tacitly condoned that support of rush limbaugh's "operation chaos."

Yeah sure - the candidate of the primary architects of the "republican revolution" and the election of the smirking chimp was working for the democratic party...

whatever, moron...

Now that she isn't running anymore, I bet she votes for Telecom Immunity. Gotta pay off that debt! Come on, big money!

The campaign wasn't all that tough -- there was a lot of manufactured outrage and "controversy," and this became tiresome partly because it had no substance and partly because the campaign went on for so long.

But the "Us" vs. "Them" mentality is hard to shake off.

Can she please call my dad?

I'll believe Hillary when she faces down pumaparty.com

Tres creepy

No, Hillary isn't trying to sabotage either the party or Obama's chances to win the White House. OK?

Nah, the Democratic-controlled Congress' evisceration of the 4th amendment via FISA and Obama's no-show on said gutting will sabotage just fine.

Nah, the Democratic-controlled Congress' evisceration of the 4th amendment via FISA and Obama's no-show on said gutting will sabotage just fine.

It's really too much. It's so bad it's hard to know what to say.

The MSM overhypes the horse race and controversy. That is what sells. They under-report policy.

I am in Indiana, and I heard Hillary, Bill and Obama all speak live. NONE of them targeted the other during their campaign speeches. ALL of them focused on their policies. That is NOT what was widely reported by the press. The press was covering backstories and NOT the campaigns themselves.

it's hard to know what to say

The lesser of two evils are back stabbers. They may be better than eye and throat stabbers, the major of two evils, but stabbers they are.

I had issues with some of Sen. Clinton's tactics and remarks, but I'm happy to give credit where due: she's been fantastic and classy since bowing out and she's proving that she'll continue to be an asset to the party. What's in the past is in the past.

I am so sick and tired of the endlessly false allegations of racism against Hillary Clinton. Anybody at this late date who is still repeating the "as far as I know" comment is either incredibly lazy or being intentionally dishonest. The transcript, as reported by Media Matters, is as follows:

"CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that's--you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn't any reason to doubt that.

KROFT: And you said you'd take Senator Obama at his word that he's not a Muslim.

CLINTON: Right. Right.

KROFT: You don't believe that he's a Muslim or implying? Right.

CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know.

KROFT: It's just scurrilous --

CLINTON: Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors. I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time."

[http://mediamatters.org/columns/200803110002]

Since Kroft seems to be playing "gotcha" and since there really is no way to prove someone's true religious beliefs, denying the rumor emphatically, listing yours reasons, while stating that as far as you know, there is no reason to disbelieve Obama, is far and away NOT dirty politics.

Repeatedly truncating Clinton's response to make both it and her appear racist IS dirty politics (and Obama's campaign did send out the Post article spinning it that way).

So, Hillary Clinton, who has fought for Civil Rights since college, is labeled a racist, whereas Obama, who doesn't seem to have fought for much of anyone's rights, and certainly not women's (yes, yes, for political reasons he worked as a community organizer, whoopee. Who owned those substandard buildings in those communities, hmmmm, Rezko comes to mind. Is this an example of how Obama is going to work across the aisle? I don’t expect all his contributors to be angels, but if your one claim to selfless work is organizing poor people living in substandard housing, couldn’t you at least not become so cozy with their slum landlord. Is the world of rich benefactors really that small?)

Also if you bothered to look at the interview where Clinton mentions Bobby Kennedy (and others) campaigning into June, it is clearly an appropriate, time-related reference and nothing more.

Someone else (I am not really familiar with the blog, but I did verify the references) listed just some of the things Hillary Clinton has done (when she wasn’t backed by a machine, and it wasn’t particularly popular):

“Octogalore said...

I was talking about policies too.

“seeing HRC loss as a loss to all women assumes that she would govern in a pro woman fashion at all times�

Damn right, and this is the reason I make that assumption (info corroborated here*). Oops, I lied, here are 13 reasons:

1. Clinton in 1995-6 fought against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself, declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights" and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks.

2. She was one of the most prominent international figures during the late 1990s to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban. She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

3. Clinton played a role in advocating for the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act.

4. Following the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., she organized a two-day student strike and worked with Wellesley's black students to recruit more black students and faculty.

5. Clinton took on cases of child abuse at Yale-New Haven Hospital, and volunteered at New Haven Legal Services to provide free legal advice for the poor.

6. In 1970 she worked on the Subcommittee on Migratory Labor, on migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education

7. She worked on child custody and other cases throughout the 1970s and wrote articles which were cited in the field – and actually used to help children in legal cases. Much of this work was pro bono. For her work on poor and abused children, much despised by conservatives, she was cited as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades.�

8. In 1977, Clinton co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund. And later that same year, President Jimmy Carter appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation, and she served in that capacity from 1978 until the end of 1981. From mid-1978 to mid-1980 she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so. During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million; subsequently she successfully fought President Ronald Reagan's attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.

9. In 1979, she successfully secured federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas's poorest areas

10. From 1987 to 1991, she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it.

11. Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.

12. She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare. She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

13. Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady. In 1999, she was instrumental in passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.

June 5, 2008 9:24 PM

[https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4628944419857067470&postID=1639239571497568744

In response to blog

http://octogalore.blogspot.com/2008/06/it-doesnt-affect-me.html
[Astarte's Circus]

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton�]

I don’t know where you all get the time to post endlessly. If I had the time I would go through the various blogs making corrections. but I don’t (apparently posting corrections in Media Matters doesn’t reach many of you).

As I have said here before (the one other time I posted), I don’t really know what Obama stands for or what he will really fight for. FISA is the latest example, where the hell is he on this fight?

Also, Obama’s campaign’s use of Hillary Clinton’s supposed racism (and, yes, they clearly forwarded false stories), reminds me of the Right’s savaging of Max Cleland’s patriotism. It leaves me cold for the candidate pushing it.

Neither Clinton, nor Obama were my first choice, and I don’t consider either particularly progressive, but of the two, I certainly think Clinton has proven that there are issues she will not cave on, and of the two, she clearly has a life-long record of fighting for racial equality, sexual equality, and children’s rights, even when it wasn’t popular.

I admit that John McCain is terrible candidate, and I will not vote for him. However, as the House’s vote on FISA today again proved, the Democratic Party is also worse than useless. Apparently they have no problem with a police state.

So, instead of voting for the candidate that sucks slightly less, yet again, I am going to vote for the candidates I want, whether or not they are likely to win. For me, that is looking more and more like Cynthia McKinney for President. Because if you are all so post-racist, post-sexist, I guess I am post-party.

Have a nice weekend all, I'll be away, so silence does not equal consent . . . .

The more I read from O-teamers, the happier I am with my decision to sit this one out. What a bunch of pricks.

Vote for Cynthia McKinney, Peg. Vote for a real feminist.

Nah, the Democratic-controlled Congress' evisceration of the 4th amendment via FISA and Obama's no-show on said gutting will sabotage just fine.

Watching MSNBC "Race for the White House" and one of the panel said that the Obama team hopes the left attacks him on FISA because it will make him acceptable to the mainstream.

If that's not traingulation, I will kiss your ass on Main Street and give you 24 hours to draw a crowd.

traingulation s/b triangulation

OH, BUT, BUT, BUT, you must be wrong she's evil, she's slimy, she's AMBITIOUS, she's calculating...my GOD...and Obama's a Saint...sadly I'll be able to say I watched it happen AGAIN...fools walk in and mess things up...and off we go for more of the same like what DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY delivered in FISA and Obama supports...HOORAY

"Hillary Clinton, following her gracious and wholehearted speech supporting Barack Obama earlier this month, is making good on her promises."

Just so we're clear: there were two speaches, one graceful, one...not. The "gracious" one was the one she was forced into giving by powerful members of her party after the classless one drove them into a collective fit of apoplexy and they made it clear she had no choice.

"Hillary haters, take note. Yes, it was a tough campaign. No, Hillary isn't trying to sabotage either the party or Obama's chances to win the White House. OK?"

Of course. She is working in her own self-interest, as always. Now that emollience is called for, she'll be a team player and spead the ben gay on the star QB that took her job. She may curse under her breath that the media is very desirous to have a successful black QB, and pray for a debilitating injury to give nepotism the chance that merit stole, but only idiots (yes, that covers Andrew Sullivan) would think she would destroy the team if it meant sacrificing her own ambition.

That said, from the middle of February to the point at which she was forced to make her speech not just a sign of support but an endorsement (she originally wanted to take a few weeks to "explore her options", and her staff made it clear she wasn't planning on endorsing), she was working for her interest, in direct opposition to the party's. She managed to convince most of the rubes, present company included, that she was just doing what any male collegue would do: go $30 million in debt to continue a fight she had no chance of winning, doing everything possible to dishonestly attack the party's nominee and distract him from attacking McCain and the GOP, doing damage that however evanescent was costly to repair...all knowing she could just say sorry and all would be forgiven...then whine about sexism and get some bonus sympathy points.

It isn't that she gleefully kills the party, it's that she does all sorts of damage to it and she doesn't care. With the Clintons, it's never about anything but themselves.

It'll be news when Hillary works against her parochial self-interest for the good of the party. When that happens, cry about Hillary haters all you want--and I'll be euphoric to announce how wrong I was.

BombIranFor Christ @ 12:42 PM "Now that she isn't running anymore, I bet she votes for Telecom Immunity. Gotta pay off that debt!..."
What's Sen. Obama's excuse?

It was Bill Clinton who said "In primaries, you fall in love; in general elections, you fall in line" The Clintons understand power and politics and Hillary has hard practice in getting over life's disappointments and tackling the next job.

I fully expect her to be an asset to the Obama campaign. She will not put herself in a position to be blamed for a McCain win.

Someone above mentioned Andrew Sullivan and I have noticed that he has had an ax to grind against the Clinton's for years, saying she is a ruthless politician.

However, I see Hillary acting in the interests of her own party now and she brings considerable clout. She has working class white voter's support in key states that Obama needs to win the election. If she convinces them to vote for him she has indeed shown herself to be a shrewd politician, as she has been charged. What is wrong with that?

That's nice, Kevin, and I'm glad to read that she is doing that. It doesn't change the fact that she ran a repugnant campaign, particularly in the weeks during which Obama was the overwhelming favorite to win the nomination. What she's doing now is better than nothing, but whether intentional or otherwise, she did damage to her party's nominee and his electoral fortunes. It's better that she's helping than not, but it doesn't mean we have to forget the way she and her surrogates conducted themselves until a couple of weeks ago.

Posted by: John M on June 20, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK

It bears repeating....

You're exactly right, Jim and John M. No punishment is too great for her trying to beat Obama in the primary. I hope her Senate colleagues consider stripping Hillary of her committeee assignments. I also pray that her health has been permanently damaged by the rigors of the 18 month campaign. Fucking pathetic boomers. Did you see Obama's new Presidential Seal!? AWESOME!!!! Yes We Can. IN LATIN or something (Roman?)!!!!!!!!

It's not for trying to beat him, it's for the WAY she went about it, doing her best to stir up racial tensions in the Party rather than bringing people together to fight for positive change. FYI, I supported Edwards at the start of the primaries because I thought he was doing this -- pushing a positive change agenda -- far more than Obama at the beginning. So it has NOTHING to do with opposing Obama!

Fight for positive change. Got it. Thanks, Jim.

Hillary haters, take note. Yes, it was a tough campaign. No, Hillary isn't trying to sabotage either the party or Obama's chances to win the White House. OK?

And you know this how?

Hillary haters, take note. Yes, it was a tough campaign. No, Hillary isn't trying to sabotage either the party or Obama's chances to win the White House. OK?

Kevin, your posts are normally very balanced, thoughtful, and logical. You also rarely make unsubstantiated or sweeping comments.

Disappointingly, this has been much less true of your posts on the primary race between Obama and Clinton. Many of these posts seem not only to lack your usual thoughtfulness but also are accompanied by a petulant and resentful tone.

The irritation, sweeping generalizations, and polarizing labels in your last paragraph is more in keeping with a style I'd expect from the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly than Washington Monthly/Kevin Drum.

"Hillary haters"? Sounds like a great way to discount and dismiss as as angry, irrational and spiteful anybody who has ever criticized Hillary (which by implication means most Obama supporters).

And you know full well -- or should know -- that the question of whether or not Hillary was trying to sabotage the party or Obama's chances is open for debate and something reasonable minds can disagree on... especially when not all of the evidence is in yet. We have still yet to see the extent and quality of Hillary's contributions to electing Obama.

Promises of a few pro forma steps to assist Obama are certainly a positive development but hardly decisive in rendering judgment on Hillary's intentions or sincerity.

Can't.
Get.
Bone.
Away.
From.
Teeth.
Of.
Persistent.
Commenters.

Well, at least you were able to chew through the leather straps and reach the keyboard. Perhaps someday soon you'll be speaking in complete sentences again. Good luck on that.

It's not a matter of who Kevin supported in the primary race, or even that he needed to cover it at all. In fact, for the most part Kevin avoided the race and that's perfectly fine.

What is disappointing is that on the rare occasions when Kevin does bring it up, he often exhibits a discernible annoyance at the topic. If the topic annoys him, why bother? He's under no obligation to cover it. A lot of other mainstream, left-leaning blogs generally gave the primary a miss. And for good reason - if you show a bias, you risk alienating a part of your readership.

Kevin seems either unwilling or unable to treat the subject with his usual level of balanced impartiality and thoughtfulness. If he's unwilling, the just pick a side or avoid the topic. If he's unaware of it, then pointing it out may give him a heads up to be on the lookout for it and possibly check himself.

There is exactly zero evidence that Hillary's tactics against Obama weakened Obama or the Democratic Party. On the contrary, because the primaries were so close, every primary voter felt that his or her vote counted. So people were motivated to register Democratic and vote in numbers that we wouldn't have seen if the nomination had been sewed up after Super Tuesday.

Whether Hillary's attacks on Obama were unfair or not, you can be sure that Hillary didn't think of any attack that the Republicans won't think of in the general election. He's had time to prepare himself for the attacks now.

I think Obama is much stronger for having fought against Hillary.

Augustus writes: "Hillary haters"? Sounds like a great way to discount and dismiss as as angry, irrational and spiteful anybody who has ever criticized Hillary (which by implication means most Obama supporters).

Maybe Kevin wasn't talking about anybody who has ever criticized Hillary. Maybe he was talking about "Hillary haters", and that's why he used that phrase.

What Promise ????