gee, thanks Hillary:
“You’re saying that Senator Obama doesn’t have the experience? That he’s too naïve to be president?” Pelley asked.
“No, I am saying that I have that. And if the phone rings at 3:00a.m., I think the American people would want me to answer it first,” McCain replied.
Posted by Gay Veteran at March 10, 2008 10:30 AMSo, when does the support start?
What's the begin-supporting threshold?
That's great...but it's going to cause all sorts of problems for her if the media actually pushes this to the fore. Why, you might ask? Well, because she keeps saying he hasn't passed some arbitrary and imaginary test to be C-in C, so either she's prepared to support someone she deems incapable of doing the job or she's been playing politics the whole time. I assume this was from the same call you are referencing (from the link):
"Clinton spokesperson Howard Wolfson, in a conference call this morning, added, “[W]e continued to believe that Senator Obama has not passed the key commander-in-chief test at least at this point.”
This is more than a little tiresome. But as it turns out, none other than Bill Clinton came up with an interesting perspective on all of this.
Stepping back for a moment, the issue of the Clinton campaign’s criticism of Obama’s commander-in-chief abilities have taken on increased salience lately for a few reasons. First, Clinton inexplicably keeps praising John McCain’s background and abilities, needlessly undermining party unity and messaging. Second, if Republicans attack Obama on his commander-in-chief abilities, it’s predictable. But when a Democrat does it, the attack has a different kind of credibility.
And third, it’s rather awkward for the Clinton campaign to keep insisting that Obama is unfit to lead while at the same time arguing that Obama would make a great addition to Clinton’s presidential ticket.
Wolfson tried to thread the needle.
He said that the possibility of Obama as veep is not something that she is “prepared to rule out at this point,” adding: “At the same time we continued to believe that Senator Obama has not passed the key commander-in-chief test at least at this point.”
A bit later in the call, Wolfson was pressed on this question, and said:
“Senator Clinton will not choose any candidate who has not at the time of choosing passed the national security threshold. But we have a long way to go until Denver, and it’s not something she’s prepared to rule out at this point.”
So, Obama can’t meet the threshold in March, but he might be able to in August? How’s that exactly?"
Posted by Mike P at March 10, 2008 10:36 AMI'm glad to hear it. Of course, if Clinton would prefer Obama on the war and Clinton thinks McCain is ready to be commander-in-chief, how come Clinton said Obama may not be ready to be commander-in-chief? She went too far with her rhetoric and to her credit she's backing off.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 10, 2008 10:39 AMMy God.
Could you be any more full of shit?
You dial into the Clintanic's conference call, regurgitate their increasingly hilarious spin "from Howard fucking Wolfson, no less), and then refer to the Reality Based Community as the "shirllosphere"?
Are you going for irony, or do you just project with abandon in your desperation?
Your candidate is FUCKED. So is this site.
jasper,
i assume the support would begin once obama won the nomination. that's how it works.
mike p,
i may address that veep question later. it was asked by andrea mitchell- whom i usually have no use for- and it really nailed it. the denver part was particularly amusing.
ram,
take it to daily dross. you'll fit in nicely there.
capj,
she didn't go any farther than kerry went against dean, four years ago. it's not how i would play the game, but it's how the game is played. there's nothing unique in what she's doing.
Mike P, I like your style, well written and straight to the point.
Posted by at March 10, 2008 11:09 AMI can't believe anyone is so far removed from reality as to think she'd endorse McCain. And while the primaries are still going on, she's going to keep hitting Obama where he's vulnerable and vice versa. That's how close elections are fought. What is it about this that's so hard to understand?
Posted by elmey at March 10, 2008 11:11 AMit's not how i would play the game, but it's how the game is played. there's nothing unique in what she's doing.
She obviously went to far, and she was called on it. The cognitive dissonance of saying she might have Obama as her VP and yet saying he may not be ready to be C-in-C was particularly obvious. To back out of the corner Clinton painted herself into, the campaign lets fly with the dizzying spin that Obama may not be ready now but he will be in a few months. Right... but hopefully this means the campaign won't be doing McCain's work between now and when Obama has the race officially wrapped up.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 10, 2008 11:12 AMSo, Obama can’t meet the threshold in March, but he might be able to in August? How’s that exactly?"
It's campaign rhetoric. That's how it is.
It's amazing how so many seemingly informed people have conveniently forgotten how politics goes. The feigned, at least I hope it's feigned, naiveté expressed by tenderfoot Obama supporters is stunning.
Posted by snark at March 10, 2008 11:16 AMThe feigned, at least I hope it's feigned, naiveté expressed by tenderfoot Obama supporters is stunning.
Well, as we're often told, it's da yoot what's making him win. They prolly think when a politician acts like a politician, it's unusual, since politicians are not political at all on the tv shows...
Posted by iamcoyote at March 10, 2008 11:21 AMIt's campaign rhetoric. That's how it is.
Obama supporters are just taking it at face value, as it was offered, and throwing it back. It takes really bad campaign rhetoric to invite ridicule - we hadn't seen so much of that from the Clinton campaign since the first half of February.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 10, 2008 11:39 AMelmey,
Of course she's not going to get up and say "I endorse John McCain". The problem is that the more she makes this particular line of attack, she makes them BOTH (Obama and Clinton) more vulnerable to it, just at different points. She might be able to beat Obama in the Dem. primary with this, but who among us would honestly say that she has more Washington experience in any context (military or legislative) than McCain? By making "experience" her argument, she sets the table for it being used against her in the general. The Chicago Tribune already started looking at her claims of experience and the report they had was pretty damning on her thin her resume is in re: her claims of foreign policy experience.
Snark? the question asked at the end of my first post was not mine, but was from the original post at the Carperbagger Report. If you went through, Clinton (Bill) kind of responded with what you did, that "it's just politics". To a certain extent, it is...it's just dumb politics on the part of the Clinton's. She has other avenues of attack open that don't involve her praising McCain's ability to be C-in-C (again, I'd like to see what this "test" is that makes on ready to lead the military).
Turkana, feel better. I look forward to your comments. I don't always agree with the Obama coverage here, but reading makes me check my assumptions, so I find it a good thing.
Posted by Mike P at March 10, 2008 11:44 AMObama supporters are just taking it at face value, as it was offered, and throwing it back.
If that were the case the response would focus on theactual experience issue and less on the "Clinton is undermining Obama in the General" whine.
Posted by snark at March 10, 2008 11:50 AMLooks like Obama is pushing back on the VP/C-in-C thing:
Obama Slams Veep Illogic
"I don't understand. If I'm not ready, how is it do you think I would be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?"
Posted by Mike P at March 10, 2008 11:57 AMGood for him. That's how he should handle it.
Posted by snark at March 10, 2008 11:59 AMheh. wonder where andrea mitchell's question came from...
Posted by Turkana at March 10, 2008 12:39 PM"I don't understand. If I'm not ready, how is it do you think I would be such a great vice president? Do you understand that?"
Seems like a silly answer, to me. Being VP is where he'd get the experience.
Posted by iamcoyote at March 10, 2008 12:42 PMDoes this mean Steve Soto can stop clutching his pearls now over the McCain remark?
Sheesh, this is politics. She hit Obiwanna where it hurts. So what. I'm sure Obama's not losing any sleep over it.
Posted by KB at March 10, 2008 12:58 PMIrrelevant now. Hillary is going to be asked about nothing but Spitzer now for the next week.
Posted by Tim at March 10, 2008 01:08 PMVoters don't expect candidates to praise each other's qualifications while they're fighting for a nomination. That would be stupid (except in the Obamasphere). They do expect them, however, to kiss and make up afterwords. I don't believe that Obama will promise to "enthusiastcally support" Clinton. His campaign's brand of hardball includes a threat to get their people to stay home. So much for Mr. Unity.
Posted by cygnus at March 10, 2008 01:13 PMTurkana: Yeah, that's kinda begging the question, don't ya think? "Winning the nomination" is what's left to be defined for Clinton. Now she's saying that pledged delegates are up for grabs. That seems to say we really are going all the way to a convention floor brawl and giving McCain a summer vacation.
I dunno.
I guess we can wait until 3 AM, until after we Democrats have wasted the opportunity to go on the attack against Republicans. At this point, this prospect looks almost inevitable...
jasper,
very intelligent comment. really. the nomination is defined by someone having enough pledged delegates and super delegates to win. i'm sorry if you don't understand this, but neither candidate yet has enough. one eventually will. if that one is obama, clinton will enthusiastically support him. there- was that so difficult?
Posted by Turkana at March 10, 2008 01:32 PMYou know what? It isn't "dishonest framing". She said what she said and there's no way around it. When she says McCain is ready to be be Commander in Chief and she's not sure about Obama being Commander in Chief, then that sounds pretty clear to me. So quit trying to spin it so it doesn't sound so bad. It is bad and it sucks! If you're argument is correct, then maybe she should be attacking McCain rather than a fellow Democrat. Pull your head out of the place where the "sun doesn't shine".
Posted by Joe B at March 10, 2008 02:00 PMjoe b,
salient as ever. sorry if not everyone drinks the orange kool-aid, but her attacks are no worse than kerry's on dean. and kerry's a hero, now, right- because he supports obama. right?
Posted by Turkana at March 10, 2008 02:06 PMSo she said what she said. And nows she's painted into a corner. With impenetrable force fields no doubt. Because every little word made by the candidates and their surrogates is like, well, I don't know, but they sure seem pretty powerful and must prevent cnadidates from speaking ever again, or changing thier minds, or getting educated on an issue (I know the chances of them actually admitting to that is slim), or growing as a person, or making a mistake, or having the wrong words come out of your mouth (you know, we've all done that more than once, right?) but hopefully they can get break out of their corners after the Convention when our banner carrier is annointed.
Posted by Duckman GR at March 10, 2008 02:13 PMThere is absolutely nothing Clinton can say that Obama supporters won't twist. The only thing people like "gay veteran" want to hear from Hillary Clinton is that she is leaving the race. So why pretend that we can make rational points here?
They need her to be a monster.
Posted by at March 10, 2008 02:23 PMTurkana,
So now we're compairing Dean and Kerry? Personally, I don't care who Kerry supports and, by the way, didn't he lose the general election? As a candidate, I like Hillary. I think she'd make a fine president. I just think both the candidates should focus their attacks on McCain. He's the guy who deserves to be brought down.
Posted by Joe B at March 10, 2008 03:08 PMjoe,
i agree that they should be focusing on mccain, but they're trying to first win the nomination. they're both fighting hard, and they're both fighting tough. and kerry's attacks on dean were, indeed, as hard-hitting as clinton's on obama.
Posted by Turkana at March 10, 2008 03:15 PMI am a non-fan of both Hillary and Obama, so I am about as close as you are likely to get to neutral on the subject, and I did not find the "framing" of that comment of Hillary's dishonest at all. The first thing that came to mind mind when I heard her say it was "OMG! She is saying McCain would be a better choice than Obama would!"
I don't believe that is what she meant to say, but it sure as hell sounded that way. It was a most careless and ill-considered remark coming from her
Posted by Shirin at March 10, 2008 04:12 PMTurkana,
Yeah, I know they're just trying to win the nomination. It's perfectly fine if Hillary wants to try and make the case she would be a better Commander in Chief than Barack. I wish she'd just tone it down a little. I wouldn't mind seeing a joint ticket regardless of who is on the top of the ticket. I'm just nervous that some of these comments might "poison the water". Maybe, in the end, everybody will quickly get over it and get behind the nominee. I guess that is all we can hope for.
Posted by Joe B at March 10, 2008 04:12 PMLiberal Policy
Yes we can.
Far Left Fantasy
Yes we can.
Co-opted Clinton policies
Yes we can.
Far Left Fantasy
Yes we can.
You’re being hypnotized,
Yes we can.
By a sixteen year media smear campaign,
Yes we can.
Run by corporations that hate the Clintons,
Yes we can.
For raising taxes slightly on the very rich,
Yes we can.
And daring to pass laws on behalf of minorities
Yes we can.
And the middle class,
Yes we can.
Instead of just stockholders.
Yes we can.
We’re loosing the greatest policy experts of our time.
Yes we can.
If they can’t have another puppet,
Yes we can.
The corporations will settle for someone weak and naïve,
Yes we can.
Which is why they endorse Obama.
Yes we can.
She obviously went to far, and she was called on it. The cognitive dissonance of saying she might have Obama as her VP and yet saying he may not be ready to be C-in-C was particularly obvious. To back out of the corner Clinton painted herself into, the campaign lets fly with the dizzying spin that Obama may not be ready now but he will be in a few months. Right... but hopefully this means the campaign won't be doing McCain's work between now and when Obama has the race officially wrapped up.Posted by CA Pol Junkie at March 10, 2008 11:12 AM
Bullshit. This campaign is mild by historical standards. People who whine about it need to just grow the fuck up.
And while everyone bitches at Clinton and makes up new double-standards for behavior that Saint Fucking Obama also engages in, tough shit. Neither candidate is running some pristine, fluffy-bunnies and sunshine campaign when it comes to dirt. So if you or anyone else thinks Obama is, you haven't been paying attention.
Posted by Moses at March 10, 2008 06:06 PMmike P: "...She might be able to beat Obama in the Dem. primary with this, but who among us would honestly say that she has more Washington experience in any context (military or legislative) than McCain?...."
and she can't run on judgement either after voting to give Dear Leader the authority to war his war of aggression against Iraq
iamcoyote: "Seems like a silly answer, to me. Being VP is where he'd get the experience."
guess you never took American history in school, ever hear of William Henry Harrison? guess the Hillary campaign didn't think this through
cygnus: "Voters don't expect candidates to praise each other's qualifications while they're fighting for a nomination."
they also don't expect candidates to praise the qualifications of the nominee of the opposing party
and "anon", when did I say Hillary should leave the race? she can stay in but she has to stop fluffing McBush
Posted by gay veteran at March 10, 2008 06:06 PMThe only thing people like "gay veteran" want to hear from Hillary Clinton is that she is leaving the race.
Would she then become the latest "missing blond woman" and get all sorts of media coverage?
BTW, who thinks this is kindergarten or something and it's rainbows and sugar-drops? They're in competition for the most powerful political office of the most powerful (and probably despised) nation on earth. May the better politician win.
And if this give Obama the vapors, maybe he should drop out. Because when the shit hits the fan, he better be able to man up.
Posted by Moses at March 10, 2008 06:12 PMMoses: "...And if this give Obama the vapors, maybe he should drop out. Because when the shit hits the fan, he better be able to man up."
maybe he should just start a war, isn't that how draft dodging ReThugs prove their manhood?
Posted by gay veteran at March 10, 2008 06:23 PMClinton's endorsing McCain -- and making it impossible to win the argument should SHE become the nominee -- was utter stupidity and inexcusable.
Posted by bob at March 10, 2008 07:50 PM