During the "YouTube" debate on Monday night, Democrats generally made themselves look good, particularly in playing off their collective agreement with the priorities of the American people and their strong disagreement with the unpopular and disastrous policies of the Bush Administration.
When they were asked whether they'd be willing to meet in the first year with leaders of countries with whom the Bush Administration has at various times refused to negotiate, Senators Obama and Clinton both gave acceptable answers. Their answers differed, but only because there were different pieces of the question that each chose to respond to, and the answers weren't mutually exclusive. They should have left it there, but unfortunately, their respective campaigns -- with Clinton firing first but Obama following quickly behind -- manufactured an artificial debate about what neither candidate actually said. And by last night, both candidates and their advisors looked like idiots.
Senator Obama indicated that America should not refuse to talk to our adversaries, drawing a contrast between what virtually all Democrats believe and the obstinacy and failures of the Bush Adminstration. Point for Obama.
Senator Clinton stated that she would not promise to meet with all of the listed foreign leaders in the first year. She didn't refuse to meet ever, but she clarified that such meetings should occur only after careful preparation and that a President should not enter such talks under conditions that might be exploited. Point for Clinton.
Two good answers, not mutually exclusive, and together even better. If the candidates had just left it there, the American people could have walked away from the exchange reassured that the Democratic Party had candidates who understood the value of talking and the value of preparation, both positions consistent with each other and both implicit criticisms of the Bush Administration's history of diplomatic failures. But neither candidate could leave it alone.
Instead, we've been treated to a growing display of ambition and campaign stupidity, in which the campaigns have manufactured a dispute that never had to be. Last night, both campaigns sent their spokesmen onto CNN and Hardball, and both managed to make their respective candidates seem petty and silly -- Clinton for her insincere charge of inexperience, Obama for the silliness of his comparing Clinton with Bush on this point, then Clinton for the arrogance and condescension of Wolfson's response and finally Obama for the incoherence of his advisor's reply. Nice going guys. And the point of this was demonstrate how wise the two of you are in talking to adversaries?
The country desperately needs grown up leadership, people who can rise above the massive incompetence and duplicity of the current Administration, who can talk straight to the American people and draw a strong contrast between the irresponsibility of the Bush/Cheney regime and the responsible leadership Democrats are prepared to offer. Having the Democratic front runners and those around them look like jerks is not the way to win the voters, help the Party and earn the Presidency. And don't start with the "he said, she said" stuff. The lot of you need to get serious.
Photo: AP photo via CNN
Login Here
Spotlight



Support this site!
Keep
up with news
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search


RSS/XML Feed
caw caw!
Yes, now to read the post.
morning.
Hellooooooo…:)
zed
HILLARY RULES OUT ‘MEETING’ WITH CASTRO’S WAX FIGURE AT MADAME TUSSAUDS
Triangulation in all its glory.
But the Beltway loves them.
Zed!
Scarecrow, your disdain for their childish tactics is running through the tubes and dripping onto my keyboard - Yuck.
OT - Annual Revision at the BEA is over. I now have my life back. Yeah!!!!
Half the battle of running a campaign is knowing when to let something go. In the words of Jed Bartlet, “What’s next?”
There’s enough real substance to distinguish between the candidates without having to manufacture something like this.
epu’d -
tommy yum -
And snowbird, I *was* thinking about how close you are to the eastern end of your state. *g*
OK, so how do we go about putting together a plan? I don’t do facebook so scratch that as a communication vehicle for me, at any rate.
Suggestions from the Texas crew would be greatly appreciated.
Off to run errands before the touroids clog the roads. Will check back later on (previous), this thread and the next one upstsream.
This is good. Let the battle of the annointed heads begin. Is Al watching from the montaintop? Hope so… if not , Edwards will reap the gains.
Too right, Scarecrow!
And spokespeople better be able to speak, intelligently and coherently. Wolfson and Axelrod on Hardball last night? Embarrassing.
One word: Edwards.
Beautifully stated, Scarecrow. Amen.
Mornin!
Today, CNN is talking about the contrast between Obama and Clinton on this issue. They are referring to it as “the Clinton/Obama Slugfest”. I laughed at first, then rolled my eyes about how the media wants to make a simple difference in opinion into something “exciting”. But then, I thought about how this is a good thing for two reasons:
1. It keeps our Democratic party candidates in the headlines, actually discussing issues of some substance (rather than hair, “blackness” and cleavage), and
2. The “slugfest” term, while initially a little repulsive to me, actually makes them sound “tough”. (blink twice here - the media is referring to Democrats with language that makes them look like the tough guys, not the wimpy little whiners).
Meanwhile, as they use language to illustrate Democratic party candidates as tough, the GOP candidates are wimping out on the YouTube debate format. (I think it’s a fair guess that Giuliani doesn’t want to be confronted by NYPD firefighters, not to mention other issues. All of the candidates might be afraid of facing angry voters from their base). And, of course, there is more evidence that people in the Bush admin have been lying about the DOJ scandal, about Pat Tillman’s death, and about the war.
So, it’s not April Fools Day - the Democrats are the tough guys, the Republicans are the whiny, scared, lying guys hiding from the truth and the people.
Exactly, that BS on Hardball reinforces to me that the dems will figure out a way to piss away the next election.
Yep. Watching the glee in eyes of the media hacks covering this story is pretty telling.
I gotta say, Wolfson sure makes Axlerod look like a yammering greenhorn.
-GSD
I just wish they would all shut up long enough to get some real work done before Bush and sick gang of thugs can be put out of office.
God forbid they’d talk about issues of real substance…liket heir plans for the budget, the economy, health care, the resurrection of constitutional government and the like…
Hey quick question firepups: I happened across an individual last night who had swallowed the whole faux news point that “Well Clinton fired eleventy billion attorneys when HE was prez, so who gives a flying whatever about these nine assholes.” Gimme a good, dispassionate coverage of point by point? I’m gonna chip away at every bit of obnoxious conservatism around me, so help me. Thanks!
Need some help — does anyone remember the title of the two-part series that Jane did back when we were on blogspot on messaging and the Democrtaic party? One of the pix she used for one of the posts was of Sigourney Weaver in Alien? Arrrrgh…there is a particular quote that I want to pull for a post today, but I cannot for the life of me find the posts…help my tired brain. Anyone?
Quien es mas macho? Hillary o Obama?
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani are afraid of snowmen.
-GSD
Great piece. They both need to step back, take a breather and chill. This thing has been blown way out of proportion. But if they wanna fight I guess they will. Somehow I don’t think the Obama supporters will chill. They sense and opening an will exploit it. The Hillary/Bush/Cheney comparison is over the top but I predict it won’t go away. I hope I’m wrong.
Ooops — I found it. Never mind. Thanks…
Hillary Clinton wants to keep 50,000 troops in Iraq. That’s Bush Lite enough for me.
Waccamaw @ 11
Left response downstairs at #103
joejoejoe @ 25
But, but, but she has to appear tough on defense or she won’t win.
Hillary didn’t have to get into this pissing contest. She was strengthening. It’s her damn consultants. They’re too trigger-happy. They are so ‘2000′. Times have changed, and their audience at this point is the somewhat (but possibly not much) more informed primary voters.
Leadership? I’ve waiting for over seven years for this very elusive commodity to reappear. But leave me not be negative. Let me be constructive. I support Al Gore to be the next president of the United States.
I think the argument is not hurting Hillary.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 20
Wish I could help–am amazed at how good your memory is already! No “mommybrain” for you.
When Hillary ranted about Castro and Chavez and other dangerous dictators (ya, right), she sounded like she was channeling Bush. She’s always been Republican Lite, and we all know what Howard Dean said about that brand…Not that Lieberman protege’ Obama is much better, mind you, but he doesn’t have HRC’s war lust.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 29
Me too. He’s the only one who has called bullshit on all of this administration’s criminal mess.
Scarecrow. Great point.
landofthefree @ 15
How soon before MoDo calls this a Cat Fight — not Slugfest - in her next NYT waste of space? And Hillary will no doubt be cast st the Tom Cat.
I think the “Republican lite” handle is going to stick to Hillary. While I hate that Senator Clinton voted for the 2002 war resolution and has never just stepped up to the plate and say that she made a very serious mistake.
Hillary’s voting record is generally focused on the welfare of the majority of Americans.
PB @ 19
YEs, Clinton fired all the USAs when he took office
So did Reagan when he took office.
so did Chimpy when he took office
The only reason Poppy Bush DIDN’T fire them all was he took over for Reagan, another Republican.
Firing 7/8/9/10 at once in mid-term is/was un-precedented.
Only Clinton firings or firings by other Presidents in mid-term was due to demonstrable unfitness for office show as going crazy at strip clubs or other provable idioicies.
A start for you anyway.
RT Firefly @ 35
With the exception, perhaps, of Gravel, I would enthusiastically support any of the Democratic candidates over any of the Republican candidates. Moreover, I think significant criticism of any of them can ultimately help to bring about a continuation what we’ve had for the last 7 years. Failure to strongly support whoever the Democratic ‘08 candidates are will bring back a 2000-2006 government.
EPUed Ann in AZ @ 85
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/
BTW, the soapbox is full of shouts for impeachment :)
Media & Petiton Resources
^^^ Send a letter to the MSM too
The view in this house is that neither Hillary or Obama are the right persons for the job. There are, much better Democratic candidates.
Knut Wicksell @ 28
Attributing it to “consultants” strikes me as a little superficial. It’s a question of where her money comes from. Whether it’s also a question of her genuine conviction, who can say? — the woman is so opaque.
I’ve said it before, no matter how impressed I am with Hillarys’ intellect and ambition I am not all that interested in “Dynastic Politics”.
Potentially having over a quarter of a century of “leadership” by two families at the reigns of power is simply too much for me. We have no hereditary monarchs in this country, and should keep it that way. Beloved Leader has weakened the Constitutional checks and balances enough that it will be difficult for anyone in the Oval Office to keep from encroaching on more freedoms even if well intended.
Obama is not acquitting himself any better it seems to me with his triangulating advisors and focus-grouped responses to some of the questions of the day. He seems to posses a passion of the moment, but when the moment passes, so it seems, does his passion. I like him as a potential presidential player, but in a couple of years when he’s had more exposure to the national and international stage… look what we have now and what he’s done based on all his experience or lack thereof before showing up for his inauguration.
Just sayin’. I’m sort of digging a Gore/Obama thing myself. That might be a truly winning ticket.
Kathleen @ 36
I could not agree more. Hillary is my Senator and she has been great in that role. However, it seems clear that from the get she has been the right’s dream candidate. They can’t wait to run against Hillary and ressurect every dead scandal of the Clinton Administration. They began this farce just this week in the hearings.”Clinton did it.” I dread an election cycle with the Clintons.
Obama and Hillary. Two children in a play-pen, duking it out.
Landofthefree at 15: “lying guys”
Wasn’t that an Eagles tune?
My dream ticket: Gore/Obama in ‘08.
Hillary: Senate majority leader.
landofthefree @ 15
Where did you hear about GOP candidates wimping out? We were speculating that this might happen, that they couldn’t take questions from journalists who weren’t reiably under control.
lisadawn82 @ 9
As someone who used to toil in the BEA stats, would you care to give me any highlights?
PMA @ 39
Actually I could even support Gravel, but I’m not sure I could pull the lever for Hillary. I’d seriously feel like I was voting for a Republican, which I just can’t do for Prez.
I don’t trust any politician much, but I don’t trust her at all.
CNN is now covering the Gonzo/Mueller controversy - they are saying Specter “slams” Gonzales. They’re showing Schumer & Feinstein talking about how Gonzo has lied.
then, they show Specter doing his about face, saying “he threw a life vest” to Gonzales.
Then, they have Gergen and others talking about how the WH needs to acknowledge that not only are the tide waters rising, they have been hit by a tidal wave.
Malveaux says that everything is coming to a head for the WH - Gonzales and the war in Iraq. She says September will be the flash point.
Geez, I wish our Congress didn’t take August off. Things need to be addressed and fixed NOW, not a few months from now.
Neither Hillary or Obama have a record of wanting to settle the Palestinian-Israeli situation fairly.
Good morning, Jane. Apparently McCain and Paul have agreed to a YouTube debate.
Jane, over at talkingpointsmemo they mention that only Paul and McCain have signed on for the debate, and some discussion on the topic.
Rudi & Mitt Won’t commit!
Rudolph Giuliani and Mitt Romney, both with dozens of videos on their YouTube channels, have not signed up,” the Post reported Thursday on their popular campaign blog. “Neither have the rest of the Republican candidates, including Rep. Tom Tancredo (Colo.), whose ‘Tancredo Takes’ on his YouTube channel draw hundreds of views.
“Sources familiar with the Guiliani campaign said he’s unlikely to participate,” the Post’s blogger added. “Kevin Madden, Romney’s spokesman, said the former Massachusetts governor has seven debate invitations covering a span of 11 days in September.”
And now, CNN is reporting about the allegations of abuse against those who were (allegedly kidnapped) to build the US Embassy in Baghdad.
Wow, they really are stepping up and reporting actual news today.
Actually, I have a different read on this. I think it’s about time that the other D candidates go after Hillary. Otherwise we’re going to end up with her, and I can’t see that’d be much difference from what we’ve got. For all the BS about “Clinton did it,” in fact he did start a lot of things that the Rs picked up & ran with. Do you really think Hillary will roll any of them back?
I’m loving the fact that the repubs are afraid of the you-tube debate.
Solai @ 59
Me too. Another chickenhawk manifestation.
Jane Hamsher @ 48
Jane,
Josh Marshall covers it here:
Solai @ 59
Call it the “repube” debate.
citizensue @ 44
I am really hoping that Gore shows up in November. He stood solidly against the invasion based on facts and he let it be known. He all ready won in 2000, and has let the world know about his deep enviromental concerns and commitment.
I really think he would trump the Clintons and every other candidate.
SufiLizard @ 51
I hope you think again if it comes down to it. I don’t see any similarity between Bill Clinton’s Administration and the things Hillary Clinton has advocated, and the disastrous Bush Administration. I seriously don’t think we could stand 4 more years of Repubs, and while not using his name, none of their candidates forswear his policies.
eCAHNomics @ 58
Actually, I have a different read on this. I think it’s about time that the other D candidates go after Hillary. Otherwise we’re going to end up with her, and I can’t see that’d be much difference from what we’ve got. For all the BS about “Clinton did it,” in fact he did start a lot of things that the Rs picked up & ran with. Do you really think Hillary will roll any of them back?
Hillary is, all by herself, an absolutely free GOTV campaign for the R’s.
Not holding my breath waiting for her to do the right thing.
Don Davis @ 6
Great headline; I think it’s prudent for the next President to be careful about waxman thingies.
landofthefree @ 57
Any news on Tillman?
Scarecrow @ 66
707!!
She’s also mine, and I’d like to know a single thing she’s done for NYS. Upstate is still an economic hellhole, and she can’t even get a fair share of anti-terrorism money for NYC. She’s a complete bombastic waste of time.
Programs begun under the first Clinton administration:
Faith-based initiatives, NAFTA, rendition
Programs not begun under the first Clinton administration:
universal health care, universal access to college
If HRC is elected you may as well say ‘Rinse, repeat’ because she’s yet to repudiate one minute of Bill Clinton’s presidency. The Clintons did nothing during the Rwandan genocide and supported a war in Iraq that killed the roughly the same number of people. Forgive me if I’m not impressed with that kind of “experience”.
landofthefree @ 57
To me, this is explosive. It’s one of those stories that will hit Americans in the gut. Very disturbing. This alone may take down the Bush administration.
Jane Hamsher @ 48
Jane,
TPM had this last night. I linked to it on a thread then. I’ll see if I can find it.
joejoejoe @ 70
Bingo.
eCAHNomics @ 60
While I thought the You Tube debate was great, and Anderson Cooper really did stay out of the way with the exception of his swipe at Kucinich that he was more to the left than anyone else on the stage. Cooper did not do this to anyone else on the stage and this is often the way the MSM endlessly paints Kucinich.
I just hope the next debate You Tube/CNN focus more on diversity of age, gender and race. Most of the questioners were white males between the age of 25-50
Jane @ 48: Sorry, I probably wasn’t clear - I didn’t intend to imply that CNN said that the GOP candidates are wimping out on the YouTube debates.
I’d been reading several postings on places like Talking Points Memo, where they said that the candidates appear to be wimping out. There is a new WaPo item (TPM cited another blog that cited WaPo) saying that only McCain and Paul have agreed to do the debate so far. I suppose that doesn’t mean anything - they may be just negotiating the terms. Meanwhile, CNN has been promoting the YouTube debates, acting as if all the candidates will participate.
jayt @ 65
Hillary is, all by herself, an absolutely free GOTV campaign for the R’s.
Not holding my breath waiting for her to do the right thing.
I think this liability of hers is overstated.
I work with a guy who consumes and regurgitates almost every last item of Republican propaganda, including the Swift Boat stuff, and he voted for Kerry.
Jane Hamsher @ 48
TPM
Scarecrow @ 66
I think it’s prudent for the current President to be careful about Waxman — you know, investigations, inquiries, subpoenas, and such.
Of course, there are lots of waxman thingies, but only one Henry Waxman.
JPL @ 67
I didn’t recall seeing any story about it, but I’ve only tuned in for about 40 minutes. Gotta run now… I hope everyone has a good day!
CNN got a ton of viewers for the Dem debate, they probably want the same for the Repub debate.
The fact that CNN is promoting the debate is just pressure for the Re’s to come.
eCAHNomics @ 69
I deeply resent this.
I knew Buffalo.
I worked with Buffalo.
Buffalo was a friend of mine.
And Rochester, sir, is no Buffalo.
Yeah, and on MSNBC this a.m., Chip Reid portrayed the whole Special Prosecutor request as purely partisan, that Dems would actually be sad to see AGAG go because then they’d lose a big political hammer.
Nevermind many Dems truly believe the politicization of our Justice department MIGHT actually be BAD for our country.
Grrrrrrr…..
GSD @ 22
Romney is going to be on C-Span today at 5:30. Open for phone calls
Friday, July 27
Fmr. Gov. Mitt Romney in
Ottumwa, Iowa
On C-SPAN & Radio at 5:30pm ET
Increasingly, my money is on Edwards. Clinton/Obama are playing the old “listen to the advisors” game that we are all so tired of, and I don’t see any Republican presidential material out there.
When Edwards first picked up on the thread about economic inequality and health care and a number of other populist threads, he found his groove. And I think the American people are ready for that kind of thinking.
lisadawn82 @ 9
I owe you a can of spray-clean.
I really like the picture of Hillay and Obama upstairs.
Sorta OT -
I received this letter from Diane Feinstein. I believe this explains a lot.
————– Original message from : ————–
Thank you for your letter concerning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Richard Cheney. I appreciate the time you took to write and welcome the opportunity to respond.
In our most recent elections, the American people expressed clear disapproval with the path this country was on. They are tired of partisan politics and of an Administration that pays little heed to the wishes of the American people. They want-and deserve-a Congress that holds the Administration accountable and fulfills its Constitutional responsibility to check and balance the Executive branch. I share this sentiment and am determined to work hard and across party lines in the United States Senate to promote issues that are of real concern to most Americans, including the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan, homeland security, global warming, and lobbying and election reform.
At this time, however, I believe that impeachment proceedings against President Bush or Vice President Cheney will only divide the country even further, frustrating our hopes for a meaningful change in direction, while having little chance of success.
I have been deeply disappointed by many of this Administration’s actions and have been outspoken in those instances. Nevertheless, given the challenges our country faces I believe that we need to focus on constructive and cooperative steps that would lead us in the right direction.
Again, thank you for your letter. If you have any further questions or comments, please contact my office in Washington, D.C. at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.
Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator
Further information about my position on issues of concern to California and the Nation are available at my website http://feinstein.senate.gov/public/. You can also receive electronic e-mail updates by subscribing to my e-mail list at http://feinstein.senate.gov/pu.....up.Signup.
‘deeply disappointed?’ Is she for real? What, pray God, does this administration have to do to outrage her?
allan_in_upstate @ 77
sofistic @ 84
And Edwards doesn’t take corp money. Never forget Molly Ivins: You Gotta Dance with Those Who Brung Ya
I’m not necessarily in his corner at the moment, but I haven’t understood much of the dislike for Obama that’s on the Toobz. Yes, he has dissappointed me on a couple of votes and his recent statement against impeachment, but overall his voting record is quite good, especially while in Illinois.
We’re always saying we want Dems to stand up to bullys and ATTACK ATTTAACCCKKK!!!, so seems to me that’s exactly what he was doing with Hillary. I like that! Plus, what a breath of fresh air - actually talk to people first? What a novel concept. Didn’t see the video referenced above, but maybe it’s a case of: “My consultant can beat up your consultant….nanny nanny nah nah!”
I wonder if it’s because people had their hopes up so high after his breakthrough speech in 2004, and maybe he hasn’t lived up to that since then? I still think he’s been quite good for the most part, and regardless of the historical precedent his election would set, it would be great to get some new ideas and fresh blood in the WH. End the dynasties!
eCAHNomics @ 73
This is all true — and their Iraq policy is particularly worth remembering in the interest of historical accuracy — but you ignore the tide of events in the intervening years. Circumstances have changed. Clinton couldn’t repeat those years if she wanted to.
I have the same reservations, but I won’t suffer a quiver of doubt in voting for her in the general election.
OT from my morning email:
Apple Computer announced today that it has developed a computer chip that can store and play music in women’s breast implants. The iTit will cost $499 or $599 depending on size. This is considered to be a majorbreakthrough because women are always complaining about men staring at their breasts and not listening to them.
Next: the iTeeth?
landofthefree @ 15
Ya know, I detected a bit of white flag coming from the Clinton camp — I think they may have concluded this can hurt them, and give Obama a chance to point out her proximity to Bush when she was on the other side of the triangle. When Hillary says “this is getting silly,” what she really means is, “this is getting embarrassing for me.” But I didn’t want to let Obama off the hook either.
RawStory also.
AnnieW @ 80
And if the GOP backs out, it only makes the reporting CNN would do on the demise of the debate that much bigger.
Of course, CNN could still solicit and run the videos, and let folks ask the questions for two hours. I can only imagine the sputtering that would be taking place in the various campaign headquarters, as question after question goes unanswered.
eCAHNomics @ 69
But seriously. I’m not a big fan of Sen. Clinton’s, but I don’t see how she can be held accountable for the effects of deindustrialization and globalization, any more than Carl Levin in Michigan or
Russ Feingold in Wisconsin
Tom Friedman, on the other hand…
eCAHNomics @ 73
FDR didn’t solve the race issue, put Japanese-Americans in internment camps, didn’t deal with gender issues, had to keep the support of southern conservatives, and other failures. Still, he introduced the idea that government could work for the common good. I think we were better off for it, and I think both of the Clintons pursue that concept as opposed to laissez-faire capitalism and social Dawinism.
This sort of thing leaves me unimpressed with all those involved.
Al?
You’re absolutely right. But then she shouldn’t promise to do something.
landofthefree @ 15
It keeps Hillary and Barack in the news. Aren’t these two the most similar of the group? Personally, I think either of the two of them would do the least to change the course the country seems to be on. I hope I’m wrong about that because through articles like this it seems the MSM is intent on making the choice between one of them an inevitability.
allan_in_upstate @ 96
Personally accountable, maybe not.
On the other hand, can you spell NAFTA?
My short take on Hillary and Barrack:
Clinton ran to replace Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and she’s uniquely qualified to serve in that role. She is — and will continue to be — a great senator. I’m not comfortable with her being a great, good, or even adequate President.
Obama has many great characteristics of a visionary leader. What isn’t clear from his formation through his election to the Senate is a set of accomplishments that would frame being a good, or great President. And the question of experience and judgment is one that’s telling in this exchange.
Now, I’m fairly certain that no one expected greatness from Winston Churchill when he became Prime Minister, nor did people expect Harry Truman to fill Roosevelt’s role. But both of them did. So leadership is always full of surprises. And any of the Democratic candidates for President are head and shoulders above any of the Republican candidates, whose virtues and flaws I will leave to others to debate.
Peterr @ 95
Nope, they would allow McCain and Paul to sit there and answer every question. Hell, even I’d love to see that.
This would be Christmas come early for both campaigns and really make the others look like the cowards they are.
“The tussle could be a turning point in the Democratic race, which has seen little direct engagement between the top two candidates until now, and highlights how the competition between them has been framed: Clinton’s experience vs. Obama’s freshness.”
Clinton’s experience? Aren’t both of these people junior senators. Or are we talking about Senator’s Clinton’s “experience” as first lady. If that is the criteria then Laura should throw her hat in the ring perhaps.
Any candidate with close connections to the DLC is suspect.
How soon before MoDo calls this a Cat Fight — not Slugfest - in her next NYT waste of space? And Hillary will no doubt be cast st the Tom Cat.
I have hope for MoDo (I’m such an optimist!). This year, she did her “my family thinks this” post and several of them were moving left. Last year she gave her column to her right wing brother.
Impeachment Happens @ 87
Why are the Democrats always using the word “disappointed” and always asking for apologies? Don’t they realize that it telegraphs weakness to speak in this manner?
The Republicans don’t ever say they are “disappointed”. They point at particular behavior and they say “so and so is not a good person” (Lynne Cheney to Kerry) or something similar. They go on the attack. We need to do more like this.
And, on a related note, have you ever noticed that the Republicans don’t ask for apologies? They attack the behavior in question and put the other side on the defensive. Asking for an apology is basically admitting you are weak and asking for the other side to start playing nice for fairness’ sake. Weakness, weakness, weakness.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 105
You got that right.
scory @ 102
The mention of Moynihan should illuminate Clinton’s foreign policy decisions. He was a proto-neocon. It’s the NY Senate seat and its constituency that are neoconservative, not just the Senators occupying it.
mack @ 101
That was the other Clinton as I recall.
And
Goldman SachsBob Rubin.Gore/Edwards ‘08…
Best ticket, for me at least…
This should lead to a wipe out of the rethugs for at least a few election cycles..
First thing they need to do is get rid of Diebold and ChoicePoint (voter roll scrubbers) to restore faith in our elections..
brendan @ 109
Any good links to Moynihan-as-proto-neocon, short version, or should I just wiki him?
Feinstein also states that the American people are “are tired of partisan politics”.
That is just a terrible frame because it inadvertently supports the Bush narrative of Congressional oversight as nothing more than playing “partisan politics”.
Why is she using Frank Luntz’s language?
The old saying is correct. I would vote for the “yellow dog” rather than any of the Republican candidates. And, I would do so based on reason, rather than emotion.
eCAHNomics @ 112
Any time George Will refers to someone as a “Scoop Jackson Democrat”….
I’ll try to find links.
How about Clinton/Obama? Or the other way around.
Oklahoma kiddo @ 105
Never have truer words been spoke
brendan @ 115
This is a long libertarian rant, but there’s a section at the beginning about the blowback from Wilson’s intervention in WWI. Argues that without it, would never have had Hitler or the USSR. Worth thinking about.
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/20.....nberger-2/
Mojo @ 111
With you on that one.
I would like to see a Gore/Helen Thomas team.
*xyz @ 113
Maybe because her husband is a very rich “investor”?
I can just picture the CNN/Youtube Repubs debate with two candidates on the stage. When the questions are posed to the absent candidates let the camera focus on the empty podiums. Just like Harriet Miers seat at her hearing. *insert chirping crickets*
Actually, “Scoop” Jackson was a very liberal Democrat. Neo-cons acting as if their views came from him is sacrilege. Of the WWII and Cold War era, he happended to believe in a strong national defense. That was characteristic of all liberal Democrats when the Democratic Party was called the war party by the isolationist Republicans.
eCAHNomics:
Just google his name and “neoconservative”.
For lack of a better term I’m using the word “neoconservative” in my own private sense to mean militaristic advocates for Israel of any political persuasion, not just right-wingers; you might take issue with that. I won’t dignify “liberal hawk” by using it, much less the aforementioned “Scoop Jackson Democrat”.
If Gore ran for President, I think Howard Dean could be persuaded to be his running mate.
This would be every Gopers nightmare.
Prairie Sunshine @ 13
A-yep, if for no other reason that if he wins, we don’t lose a Senate seat and our razor-thin majority.
brendan @ 123
Great idea. Off I go.
*xyz @ 107
come on Diane is covering her own ass. Diane’s family and conflict of interest in the Iraq war should be investigated. She is a guilty as Cheney on this one.
http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=8609
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank02282006.html
http://www.fogcityjournal.com/.....0409.shtml
It took Feinstein far too long to admit her conflict of interest. If we are going to hold the Bush administration up to the light on the war in Iraq the same should go for Senator Feinstein.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/n.....E_ID=54932
HRC is the one candidate who can energize the demoralized Republicans. Is she worth it? Hardly.
Clinton called Obama naive and irresponsible. Is he supposed to roll over and wag his tail? Hardly.
She gave him an opening and he took it. What else could he do?
Is the MSM making it Liston vs. Ali. Of course they are. What else have they got to do? (nevermind).
…but then we could run Al Sharpton agains anyone from Goper Gulch and still win in a landslide.
Joe Conason argues that this is the media playing “let’s you and him fight” between two candidates with nearly identical foreign-policy stances. Granted, both of them are silly to fall for it, but bear in mind that the press must have its bread and circuses.
Four days after the Democratic debate in Charleston, S.C,. more than 400 questions directed to the GOP presidential field have been uploaded on YouTube — targeted at Republicans scheduled to get their turn at videopopulism on Sept. 17.
But so far, only Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and Rep. Ron Paul (Tex.) have agreed to participate in the debate, co-hosted by Republican Party of Florida in St. Petersburg.
“Aside from those two candidates, we haven’t heard from anyone else,” said Sam Feist of CNN, who’s co-sponsoring the debate with the popular videosharing site.
GOP OPT OUT
I am completely flummoxed by the dynamics of this whole Dem presidential primary, particularly Clinton and Joe-Bama, who I always considered peas in a pod.
Christy’s upstairs, folks.
Fresh thread, up and running for everyone…
eCAHNomics @ 118
Yeah, Mr. Wilson’s War basically blames Wilson for all the isms of the 20th century. Kind of like blaming the wafer thin chocolate mint in the Monty Python gluttony sketch.
Phoenix Woman @ 129
Agree on the media motives; CNN is playing a lot. I assume hillary’s instinct was this might just be a knockout blow, but the fact she couldn’t see the comeback is telling. And Obama, who’s been looking for an issue to emphasise the Bush-lite theme that might very well have traction, just couldn’t resist using this phony issue as the vehicle. Neither of them saw this might make both look silly — but whadda I know? I watch CNN!
eCAHNomics:
Antiwar’s a great site, but I read it less than I used to. I always particularly liked the links to “American Conservative”.
WWI? U.S. banks were protecting their investments in England and France. It’s a good reminder that we need a palatable term to replace “isolationism”, which gets a worse rap than it deserves.
Maybe all that bickering between Obama and Hillary is paying off for Edwards:
Edwards leads latest Poll in Iowa!
PMA @ 122
See my #123 for my use (or misuse) of the word “neoconservative”. Pay attention to who lauds Scoop Jackson. And what does “strong on national defense” mean?
I’m convinced, by the way, that “Scooter” is an oblique homage to “Scoop”.
PMA @ 97
FDR was President during the Great Depression and World War II. Bill Clinton was President during a peacetime economic expansion. There’s no comparison of the challenges the two men faced. Facing down Newt Gingrich isn’t quite the same as facing down Hitler, Mussolini and imperial Japan. It’s also news to me that our 42nd President “introduced” the idea that government could work for the common good. I thought that was Thomas Jefferson, not William Jefferson Clinton.
Few of Bill Clinton’s accomplishments are enduring and many of his grand ideas have proved to be prone to devastating abuses (rendition, faith-based initiatives) as many at the time predicted. I like Bill Clinton, I just don’t think there is anything great about him. He’s a good man who was an historically average President. He looks better in hindsight because GWB is the worst President ever.
I want great on the merits, not great by comparison.
Mojo @ 111
BINGO! A real dream ticket, which would lead to an absolute landslide of a victory for the Dems. Gore is amazing at being Gore, when he is not being “handled,” & Edwards is also good at being Edwards.
Run Al, run!!!!!
I agree with everything “Dear Senators Clinton and Obama’ said, but I am not at all sure that dwelling on campaign maneuvers and how they could have been different is a good focus for us now, especially when we agree on the substance of our candidates’ policy, as is the case here. I think that the tone of good-humored contempt for Democratic candidates could be particularly destructive, particularly as it implies that Clinton and Obama are child-like.
When Republicans screw up, their supporters immediately shift to “the larger picture,” “the context,” how far seeing their candidates are about terrorism which makes their screw up (and crimes) irrelevant and not worth bothering about, blah, blah, blah. Sadly, it is quite effective.
Chris Bowers on OpenLeft takes another Clnton-Obama “spat” (on health care) and relentlessly drowns it in several posts on the substance of health care policy and the candidates’ health care proposals and how they differ. You come away feeling, okay, the candidates may have mishandled their disagreement, but they have really serious proposals that would make a huge difference to millions of Americans and way overshadow any occasional bungling by their campaigns.
http://www.openleft.com/
Bobbles
It seems that both the author and the commentators have lost sight of the fact that Hillary and Obama are running against each other for the nomination. This is exactly the sort of conflict that Obama needs to separtate himself from Clinton without initiating the attack himself. She offered him an excellent opportunity to liken her to Bush and remind voters of her support for the war.
Primary candidates have to spar with each other - that’s why we have these debates. I would be happy to see them engage more often like this - especially since this is an actual issue and their differing positions are nuanced disagreements, not personally destructive attacks. Although Hillary’s irresponsible and naive were perhaps a bit below the belt.
Woodhall Hollow @ 141
Yes Run Al Run!
My take: The U.S. is and has been for some time (the beginning of disco? the end?) in a Dark Age. No fresh ideas. No theme except making money. Lousy music. No art. Etc.
Shrub is an ideal Dark Age president. He’s about as anti-Enlightenment as I can imagine.
Hillary would be another Dark Age president. Maybe a few worthwhile ideas, but nothing fresh. She’d concentrate on avoiding mistakes. (And, god, would she be opposed by haters.)
Obama and Edwards, on the other hand, do seem to say they’d offer fresh ideas. At least try.
My opinion: This country is in bad need of fresh ideas.
Woodhall Hollow @ 141
Don’t forget, Rethugs no longer control Ohio.
Tim Irving @ 142
Of course they may need to spar with each other when there are genuine disagreements — but there was none here once you understand that the question had multiple parts and each candidate chose to respond to a different part — not give different answers to the same part.
Hillary is free is suggest Obama has less experience than she, but his response decrying the Bush propensity not to talk to anyone on the “evil” side of his duality way of thinking was not an honest vehicle for that — and in the process, she managed to give cover to Bush’s intransigence.
Obama is free to call into question Hillary’s judgment wrt to the Iraq vote as a way of saying experience is not everything; judgment and instinct matter, too. But her response to the would you talk to them question was not the vehicle for making that point. I don’t disagree that once she attacked him for inexperience/judgment, he had to respond with something. But if your response is that you’re competent and have good judgment, you can’t convince people by sending out Axelrod on national tv. And anyone could have told him that.
This is the essence of the disagreement.
The YouTube contributor’s question was, “Would you be willing to meet such foreign leaders within the first year?”
Obama answered, “Yes”. In other words, he’d be willing; he wouldn’t rule it out.
Clinton pounced: “It’s naive and unwise to commit to meeting such leaders within the first year”. But Obama never said he would definitely meet them. So she misrepresented his position.
The truth is that both of them take the position: “It depends.” Even Clinton is not saying that she definitely would not meet with such leaders. So it’s all a waste of time and energy based on a misrepresentation or misunderstanding. Let’s all Move On, shall we?
Joe Klein’s conscience @ 146
…and we need to remember to keep a 24/7 eye on Kitty Harris down in FL :).. what’s she doing now anyway?
I am glad, all the more room for Edwards. If these are who the candidates are then we will see it.
Another Edwards supporter weighs in: more of this from the two “front-runners,” please.
For what it’s worth, I would like to say that I could not understand the diffidence and seeming support (albeit somewhat passive) shown to the Clintons by CHS and JH and others who write on this site. Now I did some homework and I understand that CHS and JH did not live through the Vietnam era (at the level of intensity that I did due to age difference) and their optimism and perhaps tolerance levels remain much higher than mine.
I for one refuse to give the Clintons a second chance. Their 8 years were an utter waste of this country’s time and resources. Nothing progressive was done and the Clintons revealed themselves as simply nothing more than petty office seekers and careerists. Gore has always been something of a pathetic figure to me, forced into politics by his parents without the intellectual capacity to figure out what makes him happy and to go for it which is clearly not politics.
My particular intolerance of the Clintons come from knowing Bill Clinton and their cohorts way back when in the McGovern campaign when it was clear to me that many in that campaign (Hart and Clinton) were going to be unimaginative careerists who had avoided any direct consequence of the Vietnam war operating from an elitist perch.
HRC is an utter waste of time. I am not interested in her petty goals. She cannot write well, she cannot think independently and she is goddamn boring.
Word.
CNN and Hardball? Who watches that garbage? Christ sometimes I think the blogosphere is like the nutritionist who spends all day telling people how to eat right and then goes home and has a liter of coke and a giant bag of chips for dinner.
As for the content of the post, you’re never going to win hearts and minds if you’re unwilling to talk to those who disagree with us. We now have Romney and McCain chiming in on Hillary’s side of the argument. What does that tell ya? I know what it tells me.
I also know what Hillary’s “it’ll take a month to get each brigade out” answer during the debate means. With 15 to 20 brigades in the country she’d take a year and a half to end the war in Iraq.
The more I see of Hillary the more I see of the triangulating manipulator trying to appeal to the Dick Morris’s of the world who are never going to vote for her anyway instead of moving with the rest of the country to the sensible left.
mui @ 132
Edwards — seeing the big picture and leading the way
Clinton & Obama…not so much