Someone get this to Peter Daou, stat.
Posted by Mister Go at November 21, 2007 02:44 PMThe love letters for Obama will only last until he is the nominee.
This piece sums up better than anything else I've read how I feel about Senator Clinton's candidacy. I like what Edwards is saying, but don't believe he's any more likely to implement any of that than is Dennis Kucinich.
Posted by kaleidescope at November 21, 2007 02:50 PMAt least thanks to experience, Hillary will be on her guard if a young chubby male intern brings her pizza in the Oval Office and flashes his underwear.
Posted by TIKI AL at November 21, 2007 03:10 PMthe chance that America will elect a Black man for president are slim and none, and that's what the GOP is counting on. Their Corporate Media, hence, is all about bashing Hillary to get Barack nominated. It won't work. Then we'll see if America will elect a woman. The chances on that being slim, but maybe. Its so transparent...the GOP Media will unite to kill the candidate they fear most, and that person is named Clinton.
Posted by T2 at November 21, 2007 03:43 PMWell, Hillary always has Wolfie ...
And the idea that America won't elect a black man is mere media hype that hasn't been backed up by any polling numbers done by Zogby or Rasmussen. I don't think we should keep repeating the disengenuous mantra of the media.
Posted by CitizenBoo at November 21, 2007 04:53 PM"""But is living in the White House between the ages of 45 and 53 foreign policy experience?"" Sez MOdo. But I do not remember HRC suggesting that it was. This is typical MoDo..the use of poor analogy and script (anti Clinton) journalism.
As the blog post points out..8 years in the WH sure beats grade school in Indonesia.
The Clintons are liars. I say that as someone who lapped up every minute of her husband's successful prosperous, peaceful administration. For America's image abroad, he was the best president we've had since JFK.
But Hillary is no Bill. I licked Bill's lies up like icing on my ring finger, but somehow Hillary is so much more... transparent. Like when she said the Clinton libraries were releasing their records "as fast as they can." Or when she called individuals making over $97,000-a-year the middle class. Fudging the figures is a fact of politics, but she does it so much less convincingly than her husband. She doesn't shine up there like Bill did.
Don't get me wrong: Obama hasn't turned out to be the luminescent being that he seemed to be during that 2004 convention speech. But he has a point here: you can't push one failed healthcare reform through the congress, call it quits, administer the presidential easter egg hunt for the next 7 years, duck out during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, run two subdued senatorial campaigns based off one's name recognition, then claim to have some sort of experience. Laura Bush doesn't have presidential experience. Neither does Hillary, or Obama, or Edwards.
I lieu of a public record, the three of them will have to win back the white house based on who is more trustworthy. This is why Hillary's politicking, and Obama's middle name are such liabilities.
So I reject most of what Steve Soto wrote above. Hillary is an experienced candidate, not an experience public servant. She may have witnessed the oval office interior for 8 years of her husband's administration, but she didn't accomplish anything there. None of our front tier candidates have accomplished anything of note in the senate. Or elsewhere.
So this will ultimately become a campaign about trustworthiness-- another race in which sophistication is a handicap, and nuance is a death blow. Go... Hillary? Obama? Edwards? Heck, you got me.
Posted by drew at November 21, 2007 05:21 PMI respect your position Drew.
Posted by Steve Soto at November 21, 2007 05:31 PMDrew,
Do you think someone who makes over $97,000 is rich? If so, I can assure you that you are very wrong. I make more than that and am very much middle class. I own a small home, 1 car, and have put my children through university. For that I am grateful but I'm damn sure not rich!
Social security is not in crisis and I don't care how many dumb ass limousine liberals think it is. I put more faith in Paul Krugman and the SS actuaries than in Tim Russert and David Broder. Too bad that Obama doesn't do the same, since his position is a pure pander to the beltway establishment.
Have you watched republican campaigns? Don't you realize that the "trillion dollar tax increase" theme will be in 1000s of ads against democrats everywhere, not just the presidiential nominee.
They will sell it because they are experts at that and have been doing it for decades. When Clinton brought that up, it was a shot across the bow. Kind of like saying, "hey dumbass, this is what's coming, so shut up".
Remember $97K/yr isn't rich.
""I will end this war"
Maybe. Some day. But not by 2013, and after that, who knows? First I have to make sure to get those damned Iraqis to sign that damned oil law that we paid that American corporation millions to write for us - err, I mean, for the Iraqis. And make sure we will keep those permanent military bases fully occupied. Oh yes, and that Regional Command and Control Center - errrr, I mean, embassy - that Bush built will have to be finished and fully staffed with - ummmmm - diplomats, yeah, that's it. And of course we have to make sure we have a proper puppet government in there. After that maybe - MAYBE - we can start ending the war.
Oh yes, and she should be sure to make it clear that she intends to continue using military force as a tool of foreign policy - but only if she can't get compliance by other means.
Oh yes, and Hillary's White House foreign policy experience consists largely of watching her husband strangle Iraq with sanctions while bombing it two or three times a week.
Hillary? No thanks.
Obama? No thanks.
Bill Clinton's peaceful administration? Really?
Well, you might want to check with Iraqis about that. They might see it rather differently as his "peaceful" administrations both starved and bombed them.
And Serbians too. I doubt they would characterize Clinton's administration as peaceful.
Not to mention Afghans and Sudanese - and the Pakistanis who caught a stray bomb or two that missed their targets in Afghanistan. They might not have found Clinton's administration all that peaceful.
And then there are the Turkish Kurds - the most oppressed and abused of all the world's Kurds. They might not have found his strong support of their government's racist war against them particularly peaceful.
And Colombians might also take issue with you on this matter.
The main difference between a Clinton and a Bush in regard to "peacefullness" is the style with which they go about using military force to impose their imperial will.
Posted by Shirin at November 21, 2007 06:43 PMMaking $97,000 a year is not middle class?
Maybe not where you live.
Posted by snark at November 21, 2007 06:43 PMKaleidoscope is dead on. When Dowd doesn't have her claws out for Hillary - and even when she does - she will happily refer to the gentleman from Illinois as "Obambi". She probably enjoys dishing a girl even a little more than she enjoys implying that each and every Dem is secretly a cross-dresser. But au fond she's an equal opportunity disher and trivializer.
She seems to have just one iron clad rule: adhere to the eleventh commandment and lay off the Republicans, until such time as they're safely in office. Otherwise, the most important thing about having a national megaphone is to prove how clever you are by belittling everyone in sight. Actually helping people figure out how to preserve, much less advance, the Republic? Not a consideration.
Posted by nicteis at November 21, 2007 07:25 PM$30,000 is middle class in Phoenix.
I was sorry to hear about the Jehova's Witnesses' multiple pedophile scandal and church coverup today.
I trust this won't impede them from ringing my doorbell and trying to spew their crap all over my welcome mat.
Dowd has been begging for Obama to get tough on Hillary for quite some time. She is trying to turn Barack into some sort of Rocky hero as I explain in my blog.
Posted by Mo MoDo at November 21, 2007 07:30 PMDear Smart Steve Soto: Damn nice analysis. Ya got flair,kid. I know you're for HC, but if she doesn't go the distance, who is next in line for you? Why isn't John Edwards taken more seriously? Barack Obama is obviously a brillant guy, but is saavy enough? I'm haven't made up my mind. Talk to me, Steve. Anyway, all three are very interesting candidates. Thanks for your time. mv
Posted by m. vaughan at November 21, 2007 08:23 PMHey Ralph, that 97K places you in the top 10% of wage earners. To Democrats you're rich, you're the people they want to pay more taxes, you can afford it having only one car. I bet you only have one TV too. Democrats want to transfer your wealth to others, it's their way, and you're evil if you resist.
Posted by peter at November 22, 2007 04:04 AMbeware the msm..that is corporate america...they obviously do not want hillary to run..it speaks volumns
Posted by dennis at November 22, 2007 05:13 AMActually Peter, none of the Democrats that I know us is asking that income group to pay more in taxes. That is why Hillary is blasting Obama for talking about a Social Security income ceiling increase when families in that $90,000-$200,000 income group are being squeezed just as much as the middle class. Any talk of tax increases among the candidates seems to start at about the $250,000 range and above.
Posted by Steve Soto at November 22, 2007 07:03 AMI'm sorry Steve, past performances doesn't necessarily mean future results either way. Top 5% or 10%, not much difference from most of us in the bottom 90%. Democrats and taxes seem to go together like turkey and dressing.
The Social Security increase is needed, that $90K level is foolishly low. Increasing it to $250K should help out this funding. Should have been done already.
Posted by peter at November 22, 2007 08:00 AMpants pissing peter: "Democrats and taxes seem to go together like turkey and dressing."
You mean like when Clinton raised taxes on the rich which helped balance the budget. As opposed to Dear Leader cutting taxes for mega-millionaires and charging it on his Chinese Express credit card.
I agree with Steve. Senator Clinton is my candidate. Edwards is irrelevant and Obama is unelectable. I will not vote for Obama but not because of the color of his skin. He is too inexperienced and he does not have the stomach for presidential politics. His debating skills are sophmoric. I subscribe to the New York Times and will no longer read Dowd's column or buy her books. And Chris Matthews can go square to hell. He reminds me of a rabid dog too long locked in the closet. Senator Clinton has been a terrific Senator, a consensus builder and her years in the White House give her a credibility the other candidates cannot match.
Posted by Judith at November 23, 2007 05:36 PMRussert and Mathews are owned by GE/Jack Welsh. They are not ever going to support a democrat. And Dowd is a Washington Star alumni
http://www.nndb.com/newspaper/782/000048638/
" I'm not running because I'm a woman or a Clinton, but rather because I feel I am best able to push for real change"
How about she tells the truth: "I'm running because I want to win"?
Or "I'm running because I'm insanely ambitious"?
I still don't like her, Steve. She's been a toady Senator and she'll be a preening President. If she gets there, and lord help anyone in her way.
Posted by nyc at November 24, 2007 06:24 AMShirin,
You said above that we might want to ask Serbians about Clinton's "peaceful" administration. Just a history check - the Serbs were committing genocide during this time period, and the bombing was the final straw to get it to stop.
Posted by CitizenBoo at November 24, 2007 03:23 PM