Clinton continues to hammer Obama on ‘commander-in-chief’ test

Over the last week, as the Clinton campaign has ratcheted up its praise of John McCain in relation to Barack Obama, the candidate and her team have offered themselves just a little bit of wiggle room.

Hillary Clinton, for example, told reporters on Monday, “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.” On Wednesday, addressing what she described as passing the “commander-in-chief threshold,” Clinton added, “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.”

Now, if pressed, Clinton could point out that she never explicitly said Obama came up short, she simply praised McCain’s and her own background. The implication was overwhelmingly obvious, but Clinton came just shy of saying Obama isn’t ready for the presidency.

It appears the campaign has since dropped the pretense.

Chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn told Ryan Lizza that independents and Republicans who had supported Obama are beginning to “get more of a sense that he’s not ready to be Commander-in-Chief.”

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?

Bill Clinton’s answer was more helpful.

[G]iven the Clinton camp’s implicit argument that Obama is not ready to be commander-in-chief or handle a 3:00 am phone call, [Bill] Clinton was asked why then would she consider Obama for the No. 2 spot. “That’s politics,” Clinton said.

It is, indeed. It’s also the first subtle admission that the Clinton campaign doesn’t actually mean all this talk about Obama and the “commander-in-chief threshold,” but they’re making the attack anyway because they think it might work.

As someone said in a previous thread…Hillary is the one who doesn’t meet the commander-in-chief test. Too volatile.

Frankly, she scares the hell out of me.

  • As a Democrat, I’m very glad today that I can say that I never voted for Bill Clinton.

    And yes, of course I’ll vote for Hillary in the general if it comes down to that.

    But maybe it’ll come down to a brokered convention, and Hillary’s “experience” argument will take root, so they’ll choose Sen. Dodd, with Obama as VP.

  • So what are the odds Mark Penn jumps ship to McCain’s campaign if Obama gets the nomination? Considering McCain’s campaign chief is the president of one of Penn’s lobbying firms, it’s looking more and more likely.

  • Chief Clinton strategist Mark Penn told Ryan Lizza

    So much for muzzling the idiot before he could shoot his employer in the foot again. That didn’t last long.

  • I can see the next ad:

    Throughout the primary campaign, Hillary Clinton continually implied tha Barack HUSSEIN Obama is unfit to be be commander-in-chief, based on nothing more than political posturing, innuendo & rumor-mongering.

    And Obama was unable to stop her.

    Is that the sort of leadership YOU want in the White House?

    Vote for Hillary.

    “I’m Hillary Clinton and I approved this meaage.”

  • Of course Obama can’t meet Hils’ CIC “threshold,” he’s against the Iraqi invasion. He’s the the kind of “wimp” that doesn’t want to get US troops killed for someone else’s fun and profit, unlike say the junior Senator from NY who voted for the Kyl Lieberman amendment?

  • I love how the people who approved the worst foreign policy blunder in US history get to impugn the “experience” of the guy who called it right and was ignored. We are truly back in 2004, when Kerry’s war record was being impugned by the draft dodgers.

    And BTW, did anyone ask what foreign policy experience Bill Clinton had in 1996?

  • What I want to know is, why doesn’t Obama hammer back? Why does he not come up with a counter narrative.

  • Some awfully big holes are emerging in Clinton’s “experience.” The people who actually SIGNED the Northern Ireland peace treaty, which she claims as an accomplishment, say she had nothing to do with it. Her longest job was as a corporate lawyer. When she claims she worked for many causes, she basically just sat on boards of directors.

    Her health care reform plan failed; Obama PASSED universal health care for children in Illinois, winning over many Republican state senators. It’s fiscally responsible; even doctors in Illinois like it because they get paid.

    She tries to claim credit for SCHIP? She wasn’t even in Congress when it passed in the 1990s.

    Take a closer look, and you see that “35 years of experience” starts fading away.

  • Does anybody blame Obama for using the tactics he has used? Where is the outcry when he blatently says that HRC has more negatives than any candidate, implying without implicitly stating that the negative view of Clinton played out by the media is the reason he is the better candidate.

    I believe that Obama is unfit to be president at this time, he has way too much to learn about foreign relations, and too little time to learn on the job.. if he was to be VP for 8 years, then he could beat the rap of being inexperienced, but in the meantime, his inexperience will threaten the Democratic party’s chances in the fall, because like it or not, we are at war and a lot of his foreign policy statements have been naive at best, ignorant at worst, just look at the humiliating dismissal of his foreign policy advisor last week.

    I expect you will see perceptions of him change as this primary season moves forward, he will no longer have the free ride he has been given in the past.

  • Dear Senator Obama:

    Get in front of a TV camera and say these words:

    “Senator Clinton lately has been talking about who has and who hasn’t passed the commander-in-chief test. Let me say that both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain failed that test by signing on to the biggest and bloodiest foreign policy mistake in forty years. They let our soldiers down. They let our country down. They let Iraq down. Every life lost there, civilian and military, underscores their failure.

    “As for me, when I was running for senator, it would have been easy for me to go with the flow and support starting this war, or to avoid commenting on it. But I didn’t do either of those things; I came out against starting the war, and I was specific in why it would be be a disaster if we did start a war with Iraq. So out of the three of us, only one demonstrated commander-in-chief qualities of an accurate long view and the courage of his convictions when it came to this most important of questions.

    Now let’s talk about Marc Rich a minute …”

  • scott_m @ 12

    How is this different than the usual plan for Obama? This is how transparent this guy is… the plan has always been to talk in circles returning frequently to talking points, stay away from specifics, and always return to the speech made in 2002 as proof that he has the judgment needed to lead the world.. it’s really too bad it has taken this long for the media to begin scrutinizing him, he might not have made it this far otherwise.

  • Gioven that Billy Bozo was not only woefully unequipped to be Commander-in-Chief and then proceeded to demonstrate it over eight years as he made everything worse by failing to do anything about anything until he’d talked it to death and it was too late to do anything truly effective (Rwanda, the Balkans, etc.), and given that Hillary’s sole “experience” to be Commander in Chief is eight years of pillow-talk, for these two conscienceless scum to do thisw proves that they have never been about anything but the promotion of Bill and Hillary.

    Can’t they be riding in a car that gets hit head-on at 80mph by an 18-wheeler or something? Getting rid of the two of them is worse than killing any monster in a horrory movie.

  • Hey Greg: you “establishment Democrats” are highly reminiscent of the “establishment Democrats” I knew 40 years ago in 1968.

    They were losers, too.

  • My attempt at the HRC math
    by ChrisR, Sat Mar 08, 2008 at 11:00:43 PM EST

    AL(52) 27 -25 Obama. Too southern. So discount.
    AK(13) 9-4 Obama. Discount. Too Red.
    AS(3) 2-1 HRC. Counts, even though not held in state.
    AZ(56) 31-25 HRC. Counts, even though McCain from the state.
    AR(35) 27-8 HRC. Arkansas is the birthplace of democracy.
    CA(370) 202-161-7 Largest state in country. Although both will carry in November, Hillary would double plus carry the electoral votes.
    CO(55) 32-13 Obama. Caucus state. Therefore, undercounts “real” Americans who are too busy to caucus. PS: Screw that open Senate seat — can’t you see we’re trying to elect a President?
    CT(48) 26-22 Obama. Don’t you know that Obama endorsed Leiberman?
    DE(15) 9-6 Obama. Too small. Also, borders a much more important Pennsylvania.
    DA(7) Obama. Too foreign.
    DC(15) Obama. Not a state. For crying out loud.
    GA(87) 60-27 Obama. Democrats there don’t really vote, they aspire.
    ID(18) 15-3 Obama. Larry Craig’s from there. Also, a caucus. Counting a caucus makes the terrorists win, as it disenfranchises the military.
    IL(153) 104-49 Obama. You have to be kidding me.
    IA(45) Obama 16-15. Caucus state. Also violated rules by voting before Michigan and Florida.
    KS(32) 23-9 Obama. Caucus, red state. Also, very flat. Sebelius’ son joked about prison, too.
    LA(56) 34-22 Obama. Uses French law.
    ME(24) 15-9 Obama. Invaded by Canadian latte sipping African Americans.
    MD(70) 42-28 Obama. Too many black people.
    MA(93) 55-38 HRC. Now you’re talking. Take that, KERRY AND KENNEDY!!!
    MN(72) 48-24 Obama. Mondale was from there. Also, a caucus, thereby disenfranchising the elderly and those who work the night shift.
    MO(72) 36-36 Tie. I allow them to stay, despite the temerity of so many voters going for Obama in a swing state.
    NE(24) 16-8 Obama. Caucus. Bill Nelson should just switch parties.
    NV(25) 13-12 Obama. I recall it differently, so I’m changing the results to 15-10 Hillary.
    NH(22) Technically, a tie, but again I’m changing the results to 15-7 HRC to reflect the massive wonderful supercomeback.
    NJ(107) 59-48 Hillary. They count.
    NM(26) 14-12 Hillary. They chose not to secede, but barely.
    NY(232) 138-93 Hillary. Counts a great deal.
    ND(13) 8-5 Obama. Caucus state. We shouldn’t even field Senate candidates there.
    OK(38) 24-14 HRC. Here’s a tricky one. Although a red state, they are allowed to have their delegates seated because we might win this due to a massive influx of women voters who will carry the state.
    SC(45) 25-12 Obama. Jesse carried this. Twice. Also, Ft. Sumpter.
    TN(68) 40-28 Hillary. They’re allowed to stay, if only to prevent a Gore endorsement.
    UT(23) 14-9 Obama. No Ds reside in this state. They also don’t drink coffee.
    VA(83) 54-29 Obama. Too many black people. Also, Jim Webb isn’t a real democrat.
    VI(3) 3-0 Obama. They’re not in the country, unlike American Samoa.
    WA(78) 52-26 Obama. Latte land. Also, a caucus state and therefore chose to secede.
    HI(20) 14-6 Obama. One of ten home states for Obama.
    WI(74) 42-32 Obama. Although a swing state and not a caucus, discounted because Hillary didn’t “try.”
    OH(141) 74-65. Clearly one of five states that matter. Ohio, ohio, ohio. God, don’t you listen to Tim Russert?
    RI(21) 13-8 Hillary. As Rhode Island goes, so goes the nation.
    TX(193) 92-92. Screw this. Only count the primaries.
    VT(15) 9-6 Obama. You’re kidding. Freaking lefties.
    WY(12) 7-5 Obama. Caucus state, which only disenfranchises people. You’re about democracy, right.

    To my count, Hillary should win the nomination as a result of her clear, unambigious victories.

    http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/8/23043/04017

  • Tom – That’s the type of irrational talk that gives Obama and his supporters a bad name. You need to cut it out.

  • What Cheezburger said.

    Tom, you’re only going to help Hillary with that kind of talk, and you know it.

  • Greg @ 13 —

    The difference is in tone. What I’m suggesting is that Obama drop Clinton and McCain into a single bag and wail away on it. I think that the 2002 speech is informative of Obama’s character and it’s entirely substantive to keep referring to it.

    As for the rest of your comment, if by “transparent” you mean, won’t allow blocking of disclosure of, say, presidential library contributions or presidential library records concerning pardons, that kind of transparency we could use more of.

  • But when a Democrat does it, the attack has a different kind of credibility.

    I think the last thing we really need to worry about is Hillary Clinton lending credibility to anything at this point.

  • Hillary seems to forget that Obama is the presumptive nominee. She is simply presumptuous I guess she thinks if she keeps talking as if she is the top dog, people will become math-blind and start to believe it.

  • Dawn in #1:

    You nailed the biggest concern. Obama has shown more judgment and temperament for the job than either Hillary or McCain.

    The prospect of McCain’s temper controlling his reactions at critical times scares me. And Hillary has shown that she will use any means, including jeopardizing the democratic party for her own aims. Not who we want in charge. I’ll be sorely challenged to vote for her if it comes to that, it would truly be because of the aftermath of Bush, and the fear of 4 more republican years.

  • Take a hard look at Hillary’s foreign policy experience. What it boils down to is that in 1995, she gave a speech. Sound familiar?

  • Found this on LastChanceDemocracyCafe:

    Hillary’s kiss to McCain may become her own kiss of death

    You have to give the Clinton campaign a lot of credit — in a Gordon Gekko sort of way. It really has been masterful how they’ve backed Barack Obama into a corner. “Poor Barack,” you can almost hear them chuckle among themselves, borrowing from Karl Malden’s words in the old commercials for American Express travelers checks, “What will he do? What will he do?”

    There’s no denying it, Clinton’s “kitchen sink” negative campaigning has put Obama into a world class crack: if he just turns the other cheek and allows Clinton to bludgeon him Democrats will think he’s a wimp. But if he goes too far negative himself he loses the crown of being the champion of a new kind of politics. Meanwhile, John McCain, with no remaining nomination concerns of his own, is free to throw his own fireballs Obama’s way.

    What’s a Barack to do?

    Well, here’s my thought: how about taking Hillary Clinton at her word in her expressions of love for John McCain? How about seeing just how well that’s going to play with Democrats when she’s forced to confront those words?

    Clinton’s first big kiss to McCain came on March 3 when she infamously said:

    “I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.”

    With a big go screw yourselves to the many Democrats who had been expressing concerns that such adulation of McCain might hurt the party in November, Hillary followed up two days later by singing him the exact same love song during a CNN interview. Using essentially the same words as before, Hillary once again portrayed McCain as the great oracle, with Obama the childlike upstart.

    But Clinton was only getting started in her McCain love: very soon, she planted her third — and by far biggest — kiss yet directly on John McCain’s political lips:

    I think that since we now know Sen. McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

    “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said.

    Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold.”

    I’ve been out of the dating scene for a long time, but I’ve heard tell that the new cultural norm is that the third date is when a couple today often decide it’s time to take the relationship to a new level. Surely, in the case of Hillary Clinton’s political love affair with John McCain, with her three separate kisses to him recounted above, that moment is at hand. And who better to play the role of the minister officially declaring the happy couple to be political husband and wife than Barack Obama?

    Far from the disaster many Obama supporters seem to think this is, it’s actually manna from heaven to Obama — a first class ticket out of the box he’s been put in by other attacks less likely to backfire with Democrats. It provides the perfect way for him to fire back without appearing to crawl in the mud. The Obama campaign purportedly is unhappy because they wanted to be running against John McCain by this time, instead of allowing him to get a head start while the Democrats continue to bash each other’s brains out. Then why not run against him now anyway, while bringing Hillary along for the ride?

    If Hillary wants to heap praise onto McCain, then let her live or die in the Democratic nomination contest on McCain’s record.

    Instead of getting angry at Hillary’s quasi-endorsement of McCain, Obama’s campaign should be thanking their lucky stars. My guess is that six months from now this will be remembered as one of the biggest political blunders in recent memory.

    In fact, Obama’s campaign should stop worrying about the possibility that McCain may run ads featuring Hillary’s comments in the fall, and start running those same ads themselves now. Ask the Democratic electorate if they agree with her that John McCain has the kind of wisdom and experience we need. Ask if they agree that having supported the war in Iraq and advocating other similar unnecessary wars is the passing answer on the Commander in Chief test.

    Let’s find out whether Democrats agree with Hillary that McCain’s advocacy of staying in Iraq 100 years is the sort of experienced leadership the doctor ordered.

    I’m guessing I know the answer. And it’s not the one the Clinton folks had in mind when they launched this stupid gambit.

    And, yes, there are a lot of other things Obama needs to start doing better, including finding a stronger way to speak to working class economic concerns. But calling Hillary Clinton out on McCain would be a hell of a good place to start.

  • Dream ticket? Michael Goodwin in the Daily News calls this chutzpah.
    It’s chutzpah, pure chutzpah, to put political manipulations ahead of the interests of the people by Clintons!!!
    Dream ticket/team? As a Obama supporter, I say Hell NO!!
    what a shame, Clintons…..
    Obama 08

    The Sunday Times: Clinton attacks on Obama may boost McCain
    “Some cynics believe she is willing to undermine Obama sufficiently for him to lose to McCain in November, freeing her to take another shot at office in 2012. ”

    Clintons don’t care about people, Dem party and Supreme Court!!!
    What a snake!!! Shame on Clintons!!!

    A great article ,The Atlantic, “good bye to all that: Why Obama matters” – We may in fact have finally found that bridge to the 21st century that Bill Clinton told us about. Its name is Obama.

    Obama 08

  • I’m proud to have voted for Bill Clinton both times, but I have lost some respect for him for the first time since the Monica Lewinsky incident.

    I was actually thinking about voting for Nader again, but I don’t want to squander away my vote and allow Senator McWar the presidency. I think Obama stands a slightly better chance of taking out John Raising McCain come November, so that’s who I’m pulling for.

  • This independent voter thinks Obama would make a far better CiC than Hillary. She has demonstrated bad judgement not once but twice. The Iraq vote and the distinction of being the only Democratic presidential candidate to support the reckless amendment that declares the Iranian guard as a terrorist organization.
    Can’t trust her judgement. In my book she failed to answer the 3:00 AM and the 3:00 PM calls.

  • McCain said it the best: With him, you get one commander in chief (re: question about choosing a VP with specific reference to Bush’s choice of Cheney for VP). With Barack, we’d also get one commander in chief. With Hillary… ready or not … here’s Billy!

    Hillary simply cannot overcome the negatives or the dynasty issue. Already vetted? Just wait.

  • What I want to know is, why doesn’t Obama hammer back? Why does he not come up with a counter narrative. -Helena Montana

    He knows he’s already won, and kicking someone when they are down is unbecoming of him.

    …if he was to be VP for 8 years, then he could beat the rap of being inexperienced… -Greg.

    Sigh. I actually copied this into a text file because of how often it was coming up. Here goes:

    The Vice Presidency is not a stepping stone to the Presidency. The qualifications for Vice President are the same as President since at any moment, even 3 AM on day one, the Vice President could be required to assume the Presidency.

    If she thinks he is qualified for Vice President, than she thinks he’s qualified for President. Her cries of inexperience ring hollow in this light.

  • The scorched earth policy of the Clinton campaign leaves a lot of malicious politics out there for the general election campaign. While Bill may dismiss it, there are a lot of folks who will latch onto the CiC statements, especially when they are in every 527 ad airing in September.

  • to: John J

    Ohio??
    Ohio voted for Bush twice!!! don’t count on Ohio….

    Obama wins 29 states, clinton 14 states.
    50 states, each state has 2 senators, it does not matter size of state,small, med or Lg state.

  • Obama should say, “I’m a little worried about Hillary’s commitment to the Democratic Party. I ask her right now if she will vote for me in November or for John McCain?”

    or

    “John McCain and Clinton have already shown that they’ve learned the wrong lessons from their so-called experience. They’ve both demonstrated their lack of the judgment for the CiC.”

  • What Obama did say:

    “I don’t know how somebody who is in second place is offering the vice presidency to someone who is first place,” Obama said…

    “If I’m not ready, how is it you think I would be such a great vice president?” he said, as the crowd laughed and cheered loudly.

  • How is this different than the usual plan for Obama? This is how transparent this guy is… the plan has always been to talk in circles returning frequently to talking points, stay away from specifics, and always return to the speech made in 2002 as proof that he has the judgment needed to lead the world.. it’s really too bad it has taken this long for the media to begin scrutinizing him, he might not have made it this far otherwise.

    Hahaha, oh man Greg, you are out there. I’m going to ignore the fact that you’re ignoring the furious talking in circles coming from the Clinton camp, and instead focus on this speech you love to lampoon so much.

    You keep talking about his speech as though he points to it at every opportunity, which he does not. But you fail to realize (or choose to ignore) that even though, yes it was just a speech, he was right. It doesn’t matter how the opinion came out – speech, op ed, whatever, he was right when EVERYONE else was wrong.

    Hillary Clinton failed, repeatedly, on the question of the Iraq War. Just because she was in the Senate at the time, while Obama was not, doesn’t mean that his correct position on the invasion is somehow worthless, while Clinton’s incredibly wrong position doesn’t matter. We’ll never know what Obama would have done had he been in the Senate at the time. But If anything, Clinton’s poor judgment is far more troubling than Obama’s sound judgment is encouraging, because she was in a position to help or harm, and she threw reason out the window and went with the flow.

    You (and all of the other Clinton apologists) go on and on about “just a speech” like Obama is touting the event rather than the content. He’s not. He’s referencing the incredibly sound judgment he demonstrated when most others, including Senator Clinton, went weak in the knees and handed George Bush the country on a silver platter.

    You’ll go on and on about how it was just a speech and nobody cares. But you know what people do care about? Hillary Clinton lacking the judgment to oppose a war a lot of us, including Barack Obama, knew was a terrible idea from the start. Where was her judgment? How come, with her oft-repeated “35 years of experience” was she unable to see what a terrible mistake she was making?

    Your posts here would be a lot easier to take seriously if you didn’t try to belittle Obama for being right at every opportunity. Hillary Clinton continues to prove that her judgment is about as questionable as her experience. I’ll take sound judgment over supposed experience any day of the week.

    If your obvious disdain for Obama wasn’t greater than your support for Clinton, you’d probably be rational enough to understand the point of Obama’s 2002 speech, and references to it. Sadly however, this is obviously not the case.

    Nobody here is arguing that Barack Obama is perfect (except for you when you try to put words in people’s mouths) but we are arguing that Hillary Clinton has demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, a lack of judgment. But you’d rather gloss over that deficiency and lampoon Obama for making a speech, which is somehow wimpy and lame and not worthy of being considered.

  • What we are now witnessing in the Clinton campaign is a morphing of Clinton into Bush. Bush would stop at nothing to get elected and neither will she. I trully think that the longer she shows this ugly side of her character to the voters, the more unpopular she will become. I will not be a winning stategy for her. We Americans has had 7 years of such tactics and we are sick and tired of it. Obama is right! It is time to turn the page and say adios tho the Clintons. She is totally lacking in dignity and class. What a terrible disappointment she has been!

  • Unfortunately, Bill Clinton is correct: this is just politics. John Kerry was Swiftboated, and if Obama doesn’t fix the 3am crisis soon, all of the delegate counting won’t matter. He may win the nomination, but not the general. He’ll loose the independents. This is just politics, and he needs to get after it.

  • “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002.”

    Hillary Clinton could have made her point a different way, without being so disrespectful to Obama. The fact is that ALL of these candidates have a lifetime of experience. What concerns voters is what kind of experience they’ve amassed and what they’ve learnt from their experence. Clinton seems to’ve learnt how to lie (somewhat badly, in my opinion) and play dirty. On the other hand, Obama’s experience as a community organizer seems to be serving him well during his campaign for President.

    Clinton’s offer of the vice president spot to Obama comes before she’s cinched the lead and after she just went on record praising McCain and claiming (falsely) that the one and only thing Obama has going for him is a speech from nearly six years ago. She doesn’t seem to’ve been thinking ahead when she made this comment– she didn’t leave herself any leeway for compromise with Obama. If she can’t maintain harmony in her own campaign, and she can’t even maintain diplomacy with fellow americans IN HER OWN PARTY, how is she realistically going to claim authority in matters such as, oh, brokering peace in the Middle East?!?!

  • Maybe someone should ask the Clinton campaign to please release Hillary’s Commander-in-Chief test scores along with her tax records.

  • I don’t understand the uproar over Hillary’s contention that she is better prepared to be Commander in Chief than Obama, which she may or may not be. Obama argues that his judgement is better than hers, that he is better qualified to be President than her, and that he is more ethical than she is, which he may or may not be. Isn’t that what goes on in these contests? People seem to be reacting as if these few comments of hers are extraordinary. They are nothing compared to the way Bill Bradley savaged Al Gore (and likely did contribute to his defeat by Bush given the closeness of that election) or that Kerry and Edwards beat up Dean (driving out the only true opponent of the Iraq war in the mix at that time). Should Hillary get the nomination, which is unlikely, she may have to contend with Obama’s portrayal of her as the cause, rather than a victim, of partisan strife. What is more likely should Obama be the nominee is that he will be the victim of the vast right wing slime machine not of Hillary’s silly Commander in Chief comparisons. As Democrats, that is what we should be dreading and getting geared up for whether the nominee is Obama or Clinton.

  • Robert B. Reich points out some interesting history in his blog at The Guardian today:

    If HRC has experience in anything, it’s in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship of Arkansas in 1980, it was HRC who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor’s mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was HRC who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to “triangulate” by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the “chief strategist” of HRC’s campaign.

    Ah yes, she certainly is “experienced” and now that “experience” is out there for everyone to see.

    What an excellent McCain VP candidate she would be.

  • Oh, and just to underscore the substance of the speech Obama gave in 2002, here are a few excerpts:

    Barack Obama:
    What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

    Hillary Clinton had no problem greenlighting the plans of Perle and Wolfowitz.

    Barack Obama:
    What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

    Hillary Clinton claims to care tremendously about the poor and the uninsured.

    Barack Obama:
    I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

    I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

    But Hillary Clinton is in favor of both smart wars and dumb wars (or else can’t tell the difference).

    If a 41-year-old rookie could tick off so many of the exact reasons this war would end up proving so disastrous, how much did Clinton’s lifetime of experience help her?

    At least McCain is owning his decision– he is prepared to occupy Iraq for 1,000 years, national deficit be damned!

    But you won’t see Barack falling all over himself to congratulate McCain on his consistency, and align himself with McCain in the style of Hillary Clinton.

  • You guys are all doing a good job of eviscerating Greg on his “facts”, but to me he does represent a kind of individual I’ve been personally at war with for 40 years, as do his “heroes”, the Clintons. Guys like Greg and politicians like the Clintons (Bill might be the only Democratic President to be elected and re-elected since FDR, but he only looked “good” in comparison with the previous 25 years of Presidents at the time he ran – that he was re-elected shows what a political drought we have been in). So yes, I get “testy” around this kind of idiot.

  • #42 joevt: I have no problem with HRC going toe to toe with Obama on their qualifications as Commander in Chief: I do care that she implicitly (and explicitly) ranks his qualifications as less than John McCain’s. That would be John McCain’s job to do, not hers it’s nasty. If she looses, she has made it more difficult for Obama. It’s an example of how to wreck the Democratic Party. It shows me that she’s willing to put herself above everyone else.

  • Some people may say that Obama had a similar gaffe, when he said that Reagan had ideas, and that republicans were the party of ideas…. Obama had to explain that his statement was misconstrued and quoted out of context. It was clear that Obama at no time said that the Republicans were the party of good ideas. The case was settled, except for some die hard ‘wingers’ on both sides of the isle.

    Now Hillary has her gaffe, with saying that McCain has more experience than Obama. I would like to hear her response and reasoning behind that statement.

    My first impression is along the lines of Dan’s explanation in post # 46 Unless I hear a convincing explanation why Hillary would use a republican talking point during a democratic primary, she certainly lost some esteem in my opinion.

  • I’ve never voted for a Clinton, and i’m not going to start now…actually, i thought about it for a long while in the booth in ’92, but didn’t succumb to the pressure. I wouldn’t kick myself if i had voted Clinton then, but this behavior of Sen Clinton is too much. I have standards. I won’t vote for McCain either, but if he wins by one vote and i have to blame myself then i’ll say, “better the devil that you know.”

    And if this does end up a Clinton/McCain general election, i’ll be having a yard sign made that says, “Don’t Blame Me! I’m Voting for Kodos.” (See The Simpsons 1996 “Tree House of Horrors; final segment.)

  • I am a 61 year old “yellow dog democrat” that has voted in every election I could and NEVER for a republican. I will not this election either. But I will NEVER vote for a Clinton again.

    The Clinton antics are positively Rovian. Sadly this campaign thus far has shown Hillary to be every bit as arrogant, dishonest and morally bankrupt as any Republican every was. I will not allow myself to be bullied into supporting the moral equivalent of George Bush.

    Hillary, go home.

  • I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, but couldn’t bring myself to do so in 1996. Actually, I’ve always liked the guy, and I think he was a good president. But jeez, I did get tired of those scandals. Every week, a new outrage!

    I will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the Democratic nomination. I’ve always been a loyal Democrat, and always supported whoever got the Presidential nomination. But asking me to vote for Hillary Clinton is too much.

  • Hillary’s lifetime experience definitely includes being wife of Bill Clinton who was well known for his domain expertise in intern al and external affairs. For that matter see what happened to India with lifetime experience of playing Hockey – it did not even get a ticket to Beijing olympics. Its time to see the Change and the message is clear. Hillary must read Oscar Wilde Quote which says experince is another name we give for past mistakes. Americans must be looking for a President to have a date with history of the future and not one who will do time pass to turn back the pages of history of lifetime experience to look for precedences to offer the same bad old decision.

  • I do understand the sentiment from the last few posters, who can’t seem themselves voting for ‘a’ Clinton again, even though they’ve always voted a Democratic ticket.

    Let’s hope it doesn’t come to that, and that eventually Obama will solidify his lead and get the nomination.

    Please, in the event Hillary manages to get the nomination, do reconsider voting for her. Although I’m not a supporter of her at this moment, I would rather vote for her than have a Republican win the presidency. Why? the SCOTUS nominations are far too important to let another republican be in charge of.

    That is what I will be thinking about when it comes to choosing between Hillary, McCain, and Nader. I know that Hillary would be the best chance of making sure we don’t revert back to the dark ages, when it comes to the SCOTUS. Even if you don’t realize it, they have far more influence on your daily life than you think.

  • Since when does being married to a doctor make you a doctor? Or being married to a pilot, make you a pilot? No matter how many times you were in the cockpit or present in the doctors office, you still can’t fly a plane,, or prescribe medicine. Hillary’s years as a first lady do not count as experience years. As much as Laura Bush does not have 8 years of experience being commander in chief. When I fill out my resume for a job, can I add what my spouse did? Ridiculous argument. I’ve slept with the same woman for 10 years (my wife) and she is a lawyer….can I defend you in your tax evasion case…….pun indented

  • Oh please, ya’ll are taking every sentence they say WAY too seriously. Tit for tat, he said, she said, it’s all childish and ridiculous and they are both probably laughing at all of us idiots on these blogs slamming the other one’s candidate. I’ve grown to love them both I do believe. People just love to hate Hillary Clinton for everything she does, she can’t win for losing no matter what, but some how always winds up victorious. I love that. That’s a brilliant woman I don’t care what any of you think. The Clintons have had their problems, obviously, but they have done much good for America as well. I’m a die hard Clintonite and don’t plan to fall off the bandwagon anytime soon. They are a fascinating crew for sure. I plan to vote for whichever democrat gets nominated and I’m enjoying the show in the mean time. If ya’ll would stop taking this stuff so seriously you might enjoy it more. It’s all really quite funny. And everyone should check out the latest Clinton-Obama Saturday Night Live skit as well, as that had me cracking up laughing a few minutes ago. Let’s see if Obama has a good sense of humor or not eh?

  • Obama is the first Presidential Candidate, that I have seen in my lifetime (of 34 years), who actually does what he says (he’s been fiscally responsible, had a great organization, and always tried to disengage from dirty politics). I think, what bothers Hillary Clinton and her supporters most is simply: He has class.

  • We will Organize the Grass Roots against Clinton.

    Clinton may have almost half of the Democrats in her corner now. What she fails to understand is that her disgusting ‘Rovian’ campaign style has assured that she will have half of those democrats voting against her in the General Election… should she slither her way into the nomination. If you doubt this… understand full well that this is not politics as usual anymore. This will be assured destruction for Mrs. Clinton – and she and her supporters will be the pariahs of the Democratic Party… what’s left of it.
    Mark my words.

  • If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, perhaps we should investigate starting a new political party. If Clinton wins the nomination, the message is “Lying,cheating, and slandering wins”. Clinton winning the nomination will also indicate the laughable disorganization of the Democratic party. I have always been a strong Democrat, but I’m not a robot. I won’t vote for someone I think is ruthless and unethical “for the good of the party”.

  • Hillary is effectively taking her ball and going home, whether she knows it or not. In Texas she was touting how she had campaigned for McGovern, but she’s adopting exactly Hubert Humphrey’s divisive tactics which handed Nixon a landslide reelection.

    Hillary is a traitor to her party. It is unclear why she still has any superdelegates.

  • Hill is the Tonya Harding of Election ’08. Like an Olympian she has been training for this moment for decades and she’ll knee cap any fool who gets in her way.

  • If hillary is so experienced, let us see her first lady schedule. Let us see which foreign relationships she mended. She was simply a first Lady. The Ireland Minister states it best.Hillary was a “cheerleader”. She was not instrumental in solving any foreign issues, as a matter of fact , she hindered the solutions, by openly endorsing rival sides as she did in Ireland.
    Which experience?In the 60 years that she has lived, she has done far less than Obama has done in his 46 years.Her 31 years of experience, that she proudly talks about is her 31 years of marriage to Bill.It’s his not hers.
    Again I implore, show us your schedule as a first lady so that we can see your experience of answering the phone when it rang in the white House. As far as i am aware when that phone had rung, Hillary was the last to know. Ask Bill !

  • I WANT TO FIX HILLARY CLINTON FOR STAYING WITH BILL WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM OVER:
    1. HIS ANTIMASTURBATION
    2. HIS CHEATING ADULTERY
    ALSO IM AGAINST HER NOT LISTENING TO ME ABOUT VOTING AGAINST THE ANTI POKER BILL (PHONE CALLS, LETTERS) AND RECEIVING FUNDING FROM HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY OVERCHARGING AND AGE DISCRIMINATING. I ALSO BELIEVE LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN THAT BILL CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AFTER ILLEGALLY CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.

  • Oh GOD.. Im physically ill.. I think Im gonna barf.. I knew clinton would do it sooner or later….. her lies are WAY to much for me to take…. gotta run…. you all have fun….

  • Comments are closed.