You know, when I was going through my tortured analysis of who to vote for, I went to both Hillary's and Obama's sites and poked around. I was pleased to see that Obama actually does have proposals spelled out in some detail--not just the bulleted items, but pdf files of policy (like Hillary has.) Right now he is allowing himself to be defined as all talk by her and McCain and if he doesn't do something about it loudly and soon, he's going to be in trouble. I know he gave a policy speech on the economy the other day (and Hillary accused him of stealing her ideas--maybe true, but maybe they're just so close on the issues that there's essentially no difference), but I don't think that's good enough. He has to do something more to fight this image that he has no substance. If he can't fight this talking point that can barely even be considered an attack, then he won't be a good GE candidate.
Posted by CG at February 15, 2008 06:16 AMAnd actually, she kind of stole the empowerment theme from him, just like she stole the yes we can theme (she says we're a can-do nation.) I still like her--just saying that if she can paint him as all words while stealing his best inspirational themes, he'll never hold up in the general.
Posted by CG at February 15, 2008 06:18 AMI heard that speech. She was very passionate when she was talking. I think she should have started this type of attack well before ST. Even winning OH/TX/PA I do not think she will be ahead in pledged delegates. I will vote for her irrespective of the outcome. Without being ahead in pledged delegates and her super-delegates moving away from her to Obama I do not think she will win the nomination. Obama can start his GE campaign. Hope he can win GE.
If they really want to shut her up on this tactic they'll tie it into the previous "fairytale" kerfluffle and spin it as another vailed racist MLK Jr./LBJ comparison.
I've just started reading John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's book The Israel Lobby. Literally just finished the introduction but the main premise of the book has to do with the influence of the Israel Lobby on US politicians and policy. In their introduction they speak about how universally amongst American politicians, especially those with ambitions to national office, there is a total avoidance of any criticism of Israel or Israeli policy. We're all aware ofthis. And it occured to me that, all the rhetoric of "change" not withstanding, the likelyhood that a President Obama is gonna 'change' that is pretty slim. He's just as guilty of blowing platitudes at AIPAC as is Clinton. And if he's not gonna be able to buck the influence of the most influential lobby in Washington (one which affects policy in a lot of other areas as well) what makes anyone think he's gonna be able to 'change' the culture of the place? This is one of my fears for an Obama administration. It's akin to Clinton's problems with gays in the military. Almost out of the gate he was seen as reneging on a campaign pledge. It gave the press it's narrative for the rest of his administration. As soon as Obama gets in the door and comes head to head with the realities of entrenched special interests the press, and the right wing, is gonna have a field day with pointing out how the president of 'change' is mired in 'business as usual'.
Posted by snark at February 15, 2008 06:49 AMshe gives a speech, telling us not to listen to candidates giving speeches.
Posted by T2 at February 15, 2008 06:50 AM"I want to empower you".
What claptrap. As though this phrase has actual "substance" or meaning, while what Obama says doesn't.
Imagine that CG, you go read Obama's stuff and you find that he DOES have specific policies! But he's got no substance.
I'm sure that Hillary and McCain can together drive up the negatives of a popular candidate and drag him down to Hillary's (and McCain's) level of national unpopularity. Nothing is easier to do.
Definitely the way to "win", especially when you're a candidate with extremely high negatives that are never going away, who has nothing to lose.
This is why Repubs have a candidate, even though they are (actually) a splintered party, ideologically. We, on the ohter hand, are a unified party ideologically, but are being splintered by a narrow appeal, unpopular candidate because we have to give the Clintons every opportunity to become Most Influential Power Couple in American History (tm). Full steam ahead! On to the convention, no matter what!
Posted by euzoius at February 15, 2008 06:54 AMa little research shows both candidates are similar in policy and goals for the nation. a little more research shows obama kickin hrc's tail in the popular vote. this is a popularity contest, right now, obama's voted most likely to succeed by the majority of the electorate.
they both bring something to the table. now, it seems she is willing to throw the party under the bus to gain the nomination. superdelegates are reconsidering their earlier pledges to her.
fl and mi were deemed anathema by the dnc BEFORE the primaries started, and now she wants them counted, even though she agreed to terms, as all of the candidates did so. she and kucinich were the only names on the mi ballot.
she's adopting his talking points, becoming more progressive in her speeches, trying to become obama lite in her 'hope,' message.
i will not count her out, she is a clinton after all. i just hope she does not echo mccain, and sell her soul, her principles, for the nomination. however, she appears to be doing just that. she's notching up the negative attacks, as he is highlighting their differences. i read he's disingenuous and dishonest. she's the same, if not more so. she needs to earn the election, not pander to one demographic (latinos) because another (african american) seems to have left her. if she plans t unite the country, then do so, but to divide just to win an election, thats pathetic. she will cause irreparable damage to the party.
i will still vote for her if she wins, but not as enthusiastically as i'd like.
Posted by anthony at February 15, 2008 07:13 AMHillary won't even commit to getting us out of Iraq if she's elected. At least Obama says he would get us out.
Posted by JohnT at February 15, 2008 07:15 AMshe gives a speech, telling us not to listen to candidates giving speeches.
That's funny! And true!
But this Obama brainwashing has to stop. And he can have all the pdf files in the world on his website, but how about interjecting a little of that into what he's actually saying in front of people.
I watched that "Yes We Can" video and would have thrown up if it hadn't been for the Scarlett eye candy. I watched the whole thing just to see her again.
But when it was over, I was left screaming at my laptop, "Yes We Can WHAT??? WHAT??" What the fuck are they talking about?? Hope? Change? Change what? Which country we're bombing? What am I supposed to Hope for? That Obama's the second coming of Jesus or JFK or John Lennon or Ghandi?
Posted by MaskedVigilante at February 15, 2008 08:12 AMfrom the post...
Hillary Clinton's attempt to define a narrative of her own has been hobbled because her campaign is defined by the rejection of rhetoric. Obama's eloquence and idealism are dismissed as "abstract" and a "fairy tale" in contrast to Clinton's experience and policy substance. It is difficult for a campaign to inspire while using "inspiration" as an epithet.
This theory has other drawbacks. As a lawyer, first lady and senator, Clinton has had little actual experience running anything -- except for a White House health-care policy process that was a spectacle of arrogance and ineffectiveness. And on a purely political level, this argument for experience comes at an odd time, when Americans are generally disillusioned with both Democrats and Republicans in Washington.
The challenge for Clinton is that her other options -- the other narratives for her campaign -- are equally flawed:
First, there is Hillary the Fighter. In recent interviews, Clinton has come out swinging with negative attacks -- what she once referred to as "the fun part" of politics. Obama has "questions to answer about his dealings with . . . a big nuclear power company" as well as with "Mr. Rezko." But it is hard to imagine American voters thinking: "If only the Clintons were a little more ruthless, I'd finally support them." It is this very trait -- after a series of racially charged attacks -- that many Americans, including many liberals, found more repulsive than "fun."
Second, there is Hillary the Comeback Kid. One campaign official commented, "We're taking a long-term approach to the campaign and look at it as a delegate game. This is not like the playoffs, where if you don't win you don't advance." No -- my mistake -- that was not a Clinton official, it was Rudy Giuliani's campaign manager speaking last year. Giuliani tried -- as Clinton is trying -- to disprove an iron rule of politics: When you lose a lot, you eventually look like a loser.
Third, there is Hillary the Tested. "I've been examined one side up and the other side down," argues Clinton, while Obama has not. Well, it is true that the Clintons have been endlessly vetted -- but mainly because their shared career has been an endless string of scandals. Stuart Taylor of the National Journal recently took a depressing stroll back through the derelict funfair of the Clinton years: the deceptions about Gennifer and Monica, the Travelgate firings, the prosperous trade in cattle futures, the questionable transactions of Castle Grande, the strange case of the misplaced billing records. In the midst of these colorful controversies, Taylor observes, Clinton has developed "a bad reputation for truthfulness and veracity."
It is not enough to be vetted. The goal is to be vetted and found clean.
Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination -- and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.
Unlikely -- but it would be a fitting contribution to the Clinton legacy of monumental selfishness.
and these folks endorsed her.
Hillary voted for the Iraq war and has no excuses for it. Hillary won't release her income tax information unless she is the candidate. Obama is the only candidate who did!
What are Hill & Bill hiding?
Her vote for the war is a big problem for the anti war progresives, despite the comments on this blog. Kos & TPM have been anti war emm since before Hillary voted yes to war.ergo they have remained principled since Hill won't even admit she was wrong. can't remain principled on this blog, you get snarked and slimmed, amid twisted reasoning.
God help our country,The United States of America if Bomb Iran McCain gets elected,because Hillary was a damaged goods nominee/
Hillary voted for the Iraq war and has no excuses for it.
Yes, she does, you just don't accept them, as is your right. I believe she is entitled to her reasons, which is my right.
Hillary won't release her income tax information unless she is the candidate. Obama is the only candidate who did!
Big fookin' deal. Manufactured controversies are stupid.
What are Hill & Bill hiding?
Who cares, except panty-sniffers like you.
Her vote for the war is a big problem for the anti war progresives, despite the comments on this blog.
I'm an anti-war progressive and it's not a huge problem with me, so your statement is false. The damn thing would have passed anyhow, and if it didn't Bush would have attacked Iraq anyhow.
Kos & TPM have been anti war emm since before Hillary voted yes to war.
Not really. Josh Marshall argued for the attack and Kos was lukewarm until Powell's UN speech, but you're on a revisionist history roll, so carry on, honey...
ergo they have remained principled since Hill won't even admit she was wrong.
She already has admitted to being wrong in trusting Bush, but you don't want to see it since it messes with the fairy tale in your head. And being "principled" just doesn't mean much anymore, since words don't mean what they used to.
can't remain principled on this blog, you get snarked and slimmed, amid twisted reasoning.
You got that right, dear. I admit, I'm having a hard time keeping up with your smears and twisted "reasoning," though I could do with more "slimming," as I've put on a few pounds since Xmas.
God help our country,The United States of America if Bomb Iran McCain gets elected,because Hillary was a damaged goods nominee/
Why would an invisible sky wizard care what happens to this country? If he can't manage to stop wars, pestilence and genocide, he sure doesn't give a shit about fixing the US. We're on our own, and the world isn't gonna end in November no matter who wins or loses. But I'm disappointed. Nothing about Vince Foster today? You're slipping, kiddo.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 15, 2008 10:25 AMIs it tough working for the Clinton campaign Iamacoyote? Mark Penn polled your replies to the Iraq War Vote and you twisted well just as he told you.
If the Great and Most Powerful Hillary Clinton had taken to the Senate Floor and actually "Lead"
the vote could have been different, we'll never know. She didn't speak out and she caved to Bush, this example of "leadership" speaks volumes. Sorry the great wizard in the sky stokes your snark, pity really, when you have no faith in your beliefs it shows.
Those american soldiers who went without proper armament, and no plan for the Civil War appreciate your reasoning, the vote would have passed anyway, oh well, why have faith in anything? What the hell elect damaged goods, it doesn't matter anyway. Your so good at whats wrong with everything, got any info on whats good about HRC?????????????????
Poor dear. I see there's no sense in trying to reason with you, since your mind seems to have gone to mush and you're just not making any sense, not that you ever do. You have no interest in the truth, it's obvious; you just have a need to spew your rage, and I understand. But you're missing the target, which is Bush, not Clinton. I'm sure you think you're clever doing an Osama/Saddam merge with Hillary/Dead Soldiers, but it's just dishonest and unpricipled. Seek help, honey, before you do yourself a damage.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 15, 2008 02:09 PMStill waiting for the "good news" on Hillary as a leader of the Progressive Democratic Party. Snarkey remarks about the dead american soldiers who died in a war of lies, illustrates your lack off faith in your own beliefs. If anyone needs medical help it would be someone who likens the lack of WMD and the facts surrounding Saddam Heussein inablility to attack America in anyway, to make a political point on a blog is really sick.
You can call me "dear" since I told you once a was a grandmother who marched for civil rights before you were born, sarcastically demeaningly, I suggest to you, you love Hillarys vote for the war why aren't you fighting the good fight she voted for in Iraq?????About that ledership thing on the senate floor???
Still waiting for why you think she would be such a great President, you spend an inordinate amount of time defending her, but never post any reasons
Your having a good time writing double talk.
Finally I never mentioned Osama, you shoot buckshot hoping something will land. Grow up Junior,this is serious stuff go play with the kids.
Well, all rightie, then. Who's up for some scrabble?
Posted by iamcoyote at February 15, 2008 07:07 PM