The situation is that Hillary Clinton will be in the line of fire no matter where she stands. She does tend to fight back when the shots are directed at her. I don't think the same is true when the shots are aimed at Democrats, generally, and the left end of the spectrum specifically. The truth is that she has not exactly been an ally of the left. Senator Clinton's game is all about Senator Clinton.
Do I damn her for that? No. But I do not accept her support, ongoing support, of the Iraq invasion and occupation. For me it is a litmus test. I may be unreasonable on this, but I am sure as hell not alone.
And being less of a roll-over, mealy mouthed, equivocating, cold plate of spaghetti than Senator Obama is hardly something worthy of note.
Posted by James E. Powell at September 17, 2007 08:24 PMJames - agree,
Posted by Marie at September 17, 2007 08:36 PMThe ad was also bad in that it gave bland Democrats a chance to repeat worn-out DLC strategy points while pretending they were "new". There was a whole list of facts provided with the ad, Barack could have actually used one of them.
Posted by Flamethrower at September 17, 2007 08:54 PM...who have accused her of not being an ally.
They must have read her voting record. Or it could be her republi-con based healthcare plan that makes big corporate insurers even wealthier.
Posted by phidipides at September 17, 2007 09:36 PMWell, I certainly think it was counter productive in the sense that it gave Republicans who had nothing else to stand on, something that kept attention away from the bad policy of the President.
I'm sorry Jeff, I just don't hear the bus crunching bones in this statement. Lots of us here agreed the ad was counterproductive for precisely the same reason, it allowed the chattering class an opportunity to screech outrage and attempt to cover the truth.
He could and should have done better, pointing out that the facts in the ad were indisputable. He did say You know, I probably, if they had asked me, would have suggested that we focus attention on George Bush, the commander in chief. which is correct.
Let's keep things in perspective, please and avoid hyperbole.
Posted by DeminNewJ at September 18, 2007 03:38 AMMaybe one Sister Souljah moment in the family was enough.
Posted by nyc at September 18, 2007 04:36 AMThanks for your observation which is so true. Jane Hamsher knows how the game is played, and I applaud her for her stance on the Move On flap and Senator Clinton's refusal to join the Cornyn Chorus. The majority who comment on Senator Clinton on Jane's site have nothing good to say about her, including Hillary's refusal to bash Move On. A few manage to work in an anti-Clinton slap a la the Republics at least once a day no matter what the subject. It's something I don't understand.
Posted by Sally at September 18, 2007 04:51 AM....after Barack Obama threw MoveOn under the bus for their attack of Gen. Petraeus, following close on the heels of the Edwards campaign sending Elizabeth out to do the same...
As have Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden, John McCain, Joe Lieberman and Ann Coulter.
Am I leaving anyone out?
Posted by Christopher at September 18, 2007 05:07 AMOne reason I will never support sHillary is because of incessant bullshit spinning by the likes of the author of this garbage, along with creeps like Howard Wolfson and Terry McAuliffe.
Hillary is surrounded by corrupt, conniving, unprincipled hacks. Always has been, always will be.
America deserves so, so much better. This woman belongs nowhere near the Oval Office.
Posted by RAM at September 18, 2007 06:18 AMActually I have decided that the MoveOn ad was terrific. I like how they followed up by explaining how Rudy has betrayed the soldiers too.
MoveON has a simple, clear, direct message which is a winner.
I think you Democrats are so naieve to consider that the Move-On ad was terrific. Obama was right. It gave ammunition to Republicans to divert the attention off the General's spinning the facts. It was a classic shooting in the foot incident. Why can't you Democrats understand that?With this kind of tactics, you will never win against Republicans.
The correct approach would have been for Move-On to wait for the General's testimony and then attack point by point to show how he is spinning the truth.
Posted by suresh at September 18, 2007 01:16 PM