Clinton praises McCain again, says he’s crossed ‘Commander in Chief threshold’

March 7, 2008

One of the benefits of having a prolonged Democratic primary race, after Republicans have already winnowed their field to John McCain, is that it’s a two-against-one dynamic — the GOP can’t direct all of its ire at one Dem, and there are two Dems to go after McCain at the same time.

Of course, that only works when Dems realize this isn’t a time to praise McCain.

At a press conference on Monday in Ohio, Clinton was defending her “3 a.m.” ad, and told reporters, “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.”

The pro-McCain comments were quickly and widely panned — so Clinton repeated them. James Fallows reported on Wednesday, “In a live CNN interview just now, Sen. Clinton repeated, twice, the ‘Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience, I have a lifetime of experience, Sen. Obama has one speech in 2002’ line. By what logic, exactly, does a member of the Democratic party include the ‘Sen. McCain has a lifetime of experience’ part of that sentence?”

That, too, was widely panned, leading Clinton to ratchet up the pro-McCain rhetoric a little more.

“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.”

The only other member of the congressional Democratic caucus who praises McCain this much is Joe Lieberman.

Christopher Orr’s comment from the other day continues to ring true: “There are certain lines that you do not cross in a primary campaign. And one of those is suggesting that your primary opponent, the likely nominee, is so unfit that that the Republican nominee might be preferable to him. This is spoiler territory, and Clinton should be ashamed.”

The dynamics have changed, and Obama’s hold on the frontrunner label is more tenuous, but the point remains the same — a leading Democratic candidate shouldn’t keep praising the leading Republican candidate in order to attack a fellow Dem.

This is not only divisive; it helps the other team. If Clinton wants to argue that she’s better qualified on national security issues, great, make the case. But this is the worst possible way of making the argument.

Greg Sargent added:

[P]umping up McCain to this extent risks provoking a backlash from rank-and-file Dems. The question I have is whether Obama will be able to capitalize on this, perhaps by using it to further his efforts to tie Hillary to McCain and to present himself as the only real candidate capable of drawing a clear contrast with him.

It seems like a fairly obvious avenue for criticism. We’ll see if Obama takes it.

One other thought: this should effectively end the talk about Obama and Clinton sharing a ticket. If she’s this concerned about his abilities and qualifications, a) Obama doesn’t want her as a partner in the White House; and b) Clinton wouldn’t want him one heartbeat from the presidency.

I’m almost sorry that Obama operative apologized for calling Clinton a “monster”.

  • Whoever is the nominee will have to run against McCain’s experience. It is obvious that McCain has sufficient experience to run for president. Talking about McCain’s experience isn’t saying anything that voters cannot see for themselves, whether they are for McCain or not. Making the comparison helps Clinton and it hurts Obama without doing anything for McCain except state the obvious.

    When you say “widely panned” you are of course referring to Obama supporters. The whole world does not consist of Obama supporters. Clinton benefits from the attention drawn to this issue and making it controversial by “panning” the remark gets her more free air time to get her message across. It also makes Obama look whiney, as does referring to her as a “monster.” Obama needs to make a substantive rebuttal, one that emphasizes his experience and qualifications to be president — oh, wait, he doesn’t have any.

    No one knew who Obama was before that speech. That is going to keep hurting him all the way through to November. It is right for Clinton to emphasize that point. Everyone has known who McCain is forever — she gives him nothing by stating that he is experienced.

  • So does this mean we get to see Hillary go on a rampage through the streets of Denver King Kong-style at the Democratic Convention this year?

    It’s getting hard to see this as anything but Hillary accepting that Obama’s going to beat her, then deciding to sabotage him against McCain so she can run in 2012. Un-fucking-believable.

  • Nothing like telling independent voters to run to McCain should you (improbably) win the nomination, and telling all the young first-time voters to just stay home because it’s a couple of old hawkish farts running against each other in the general election.

  • The Clinton campaign policy is now perfectly clear: It is a scorched Earth strategy. If Hillary cannot have the nomination, she will deliberately damage Obama for the general election. Of this, there can now be little doubt.

    The question, then, is whether or not we as a party are willing to repudiate this approach quickly and decisively? As we stare at the biggest electoral opportunity we’ve faced in decades, are we going to be content to crawl in the dirt to eke out a marginal victory? Let’s recall that the Clinton administration was not exactly a great time for the Democratic Party. We lost the majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in forty years.

    Hillary Clinton’s biggest supporter in Texas was… Rush Limbaugh. What does that say? Isn’t it obvious that the Republicans best hope for November is to have Hillary Clinton on the ticket? We can do so much better. This election can be a real game changer. Let us as a party show the character and resolve we need to take advantage of this opportunity.

  • It gets harder to respect Sen. Clinton’s campaign every day. She’s had WEEKS since Super Tuesday to re-tool a message of why voters should support her, and seems to have failed utterly. All she seems to offer is reasons NOT to vote for her opponent.

    That’s dangerous territory in a general election.

    Clinton’s going to lose this nomination contest – the question is whether she has any dignity, and future in national politics, when she does.

    Senator Clinton, do yourself a favor and either (a) show a little class, or (b) switch to the Republican Party where you seem to belong.

  • Why anyone would care what Rushbo thinks of Dem candidates is beyond my comprehension. And to take that into consideration when casting your vote–duh!

  • McCain and Clinton – dumb and dumber. When is Obama going to hammer home the message that the dynamic duo blew the biggest decision in their careers? Why isn’t he talking about the trillion dollar tragic waste called the Iraq War?

    I’ve always had reservations about Clinton. I hated what the right wing and the press did to the Clintons in the ’90s but on the other hand, I was relieved when Bill left office. I am one of the senator’s constituents who thought she did a lousy job. Her war vote and no-show bankruptcy vote did it for me.

    Now I am so fed up with Clinton’s crap, I am writing about the baggage the Clintons come with. Yesterday, I did a Kos diary about Bill Clinton’s New Square Four pardon which I thought was every bit as scandalous as the Marc Rich pardon.

    I swear, if Clinton gets the nomination and there is an October surprise, I will spend the rest of my life trying to make her’s miserable.

  • And of course, if Clinton wants to make this a match up based on experience and security, she loses- categorically. Because the case for her ‘experience’ is borderline fraudulent, and her contribution to the national defense invisible in the campaign context when compared to the themes that McCain can present. She’s becoming ridiculous, and threatens to endanger the historical Dem covenant with African Americans and progressives in order to further her ambition.

  • mary @ 2, you, like so many others, are sadly equating longevity with experience. Not only that, you’re belittling actual experience at acheiving support across divisive lines in comparison to being not dying yet. Being a POW survivor (far more apt a description than “war hero”) and being one of the shortest-fused, war-hawkish senators in recent history does not, to my feeble brain, mean McCain’s “experience” makes him a more worthy candidate tha Obama. And Clinton’s making this argument in favor of McCain over Obama is, frankly, disgusting. It reaffirms the “Clintons will say or do anything to win” narrative I’ve wasted so much time defending them against with my right-leaning friends. She’s sold out her party to benefit herself personally. And it’s disgusting.

  • National security is going to be a campaign issue? Does that mean a mature discussion on the risks that face us and how we should deal with them or does it mean another campaign season of fear-mongering? This is something I would certainly expect from the GOP but not the Democrats. Apparently I was wrong…..

  • Don’t complain about Clinton, she is a fighter and she loves this country, and she refuses to allow someone with no credentials steal the nomination just to lose to an experienced fighter in the fall.

    Like Mary said, pointing out that McCain is experienced and a decorated war hero is only stating the obvious, and for those of us who are NOT devoted followers of Obama, who actually care if somebody elected to the highest office has any experience, it makes sense to bring up this question of electability.

    We are now waiting to hear from Obama why he thinks he has the experience needed to win the general election. I predict he will start by avoiding the topic altogether, then start talking in circles returning to his talking points, maybe start trying to pick apart NAFTA again, but most certainly he will fall back on his 2002 speech to show judgment… pathetic.

  • The more I hear from Sen. Clinton, the more depressed I get. Her strategy seems to be tear down her party while building up the other party’s nominee. She is worse than Leiberman. At this point I have serious doubts as to the sincerity of her platform. Does she really intend to withdraw our troops from Iraq or is her true intent to keep them there for 100 years?
    Until Monday I was very happy with both Democratic candidates. Now, if Hilary is the nominee, I will vote for her while holding my nose. My vote for her will be a vote against McCain but I will be wondering if there is really any difference between them.

  • Hillary Clinton has convinced me–John “Kuato” McCain has the perfect lifetime of experience to be the Philanderer-In-Chief.

    I’m voting McCain.

  • At least Joe Lieberman actually believes what he’s saying (which is why he shouldn’t have won re-election, but that’s another fight). At least McCain still has a trace of “straight talk” that his boosters can tag him with. Hillary says what she says for pure political gain.

  • “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

    Somehow people are still buying the idea that Kyle Petty’s wife, having ridden in the passenger seat of their family car for years while he drove, is now ready to drive at the Daytona 500.

    And even with the corporate-controlled media’s man-crush on ‘Ace’ McCain, his real military record will eventually come out. The only question is, what would be the most advantageous time?
    http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan08/mccain_military_record.htm
    http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=119707

  • By the way, you may all like to know that nationally according to CNN, Democrats prefer Clinton 48 to 44%, so you can take your statistics and polls and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

    Republicans should NOT determine who the Democratic nominee should be, and if you are not outraged at how much influence they have had in OUR nomination process, you are too blind to see.

    Oh, and while I’m on a rant, I’m sick and tired of being told my vote doesn’t count because the republican leaders in Florida moved our primary, and having the Obamamaniacs tell me that is how it should be, because this helps their candidate. Hypocrits! You attack Clinton for her tactics, but you fail to see how divisive your own candidate is in his willingness to disenfranchise nearly 2 million people who voted in Florida alone!

  • It always amazes me when Clinton bashers come on blogs like this and spew hatred when their candidate is supposed to be the one that is above all this

  • Being a POW survivor (far more apt a description than “war hero”)

    Every time you want to deride or even just discount McCain’s military service please remember the purple heart band aids the Republicans handed out at their Presidential Convention. Let’s not stoop or even bend toward their level.

  • L Boom said:

    “It’s getting hard to see this as anything but Hillary accepting that Obama’s going to beat her, then deciding to sabotage him against McCain so she can run in 2012. Un-fucking-believable.”

    I had this “light-bulb” realization lastnight, and it literally made me sick. If Hillary keeps this up, she will no doubt cause severe damage to the party, as well as the Clinton legacy. I hope Dem leaders begin to call her out for this.

  • Well of course it ended the conversation. That would mean 3 Presidents! With Senator Clinton sharing the presidency with Bill there’d be no room for a veep who competes. Barack as veep means he’d be another Al Gored. Besides, all this means to me is that Senator Clinton is still freaking calling the tune. She pulls these stupid stunts and when the responses come in, she uses it against us.

    Don’t fall for it.

    It does confirm my notion that Senator Clinton has a touch of Stockholm Syndrome. She’s been battling Republicans for so long now, she’s become one.

    By the way, “Mary”, when I watched Barack speak in 04 I saw this one pan up to the darkened perches above where Hillary and Chelsea sat sipping their whites, and as the crowd cheered, Yo Mamma rolled her eyes and threw her head back like she was possessed. That was the moment for me. I knew he was a contender. I do suspect however the bad blood goes back even further than this.

    One 4 “Mary”

  • Wingnut newsflash: Hillary endorses McCain! Hillary sez McCain is more qualified to be prez than her! Hillary – McCain lite! Vote for McCain, the real deal!

    Where is the Dem version of Ronald Reagan? Instead, we have Hillary’s version of the 11th commandment: F**k over any Democrat that gets in your way!

  • Political Wire has an article about scheduling a revote in MI. State party is talking about having a caucus in MI

  • MsMudd,

    Are you referring to the “Driving Miss Daisy” unity ticket? Ain’t never gonna happen, no way.

  • It’s obvious that the only reason Hillary’s saying this nonsense is that she’s hiding the fact that she too has no experience being C-in-C and his hoping to ride on Old Man McCain’s military credentials. But this is all meaningless jibberish. If she were to somehow make it to the general election, she’s not going to concede that McCain’s experience trumps her own. Rather, she’s going to start insisting that experience isn’t important.

    As usual, Hillary’s statements are meant with a “That was then, this is now” disclaimer attached.

  • T_in_Texas said:
    I had this “light-bulb” realization lastnight, and it literally made me sick. If Hillary keeps this up, she will no doubt cause severe damage to the party, as well as the Clinton legacy. I hope Dem leaders begin to call her out for this.

    The Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 IS the Clinton legacy. If she keeps this crap up, Clinton will only add to that legacy.

  • Don’t complain about Clinton, she is a fighter and she loves this country, and she refuses to allow someone with no credentials steal the nomination just to lose to an experienced fighter in the fall.

    What a revealing look into the mind of a Clinton cultist.

    You think Obama is “stealing” the nomination from her? Because he’s won more votes, more states, more endorsements? In the English language, we call that “winning.”

    Only someone who thinks Hillary was owed this nomination as a birthright and thinks democracy doesn’t matter would call it “stealing.”

  • I’ll bet HRC is just thrilled about the possibility of cauces in MI. USA Survey shows that Obama would win the state against McCain but not HRC. Of course, now that the Republican race is over, she can get the pro-McCain crossovers. And isn’t that the strategy? I’d bet there are a lot of super-delegates rolling their eyes right about now.

    And Greg (20). It was the Republican administration, including Kathrine Harris that gave Bush the election in 2000. They tried to manipulate the Dem primaries this year by pushing through the date change earlier this year. And now McCain endorser wants to stick his head in it again. No offense, but there is a reason Carl Hiaasen is so successful. I suspect it has more to do with observation than creativity.

  • This goes beyong scorched earth, because she’s not going to survive politically if she keeps this up. It’s like I’ve said before:

    Clinton has decided to make herself into the political equivalent of a suicide bomber. Give her what she demands or she’ll blow herself up and take you down with her.

    And I do not think she has any illusions about running in 2012, she’s reached her expiration date and this is it. It’s do or die, and I think she’s at a point where she would rather see a Republican elected than the guy she’s getting beat by. It’s really sad, and I wish someone close would tell her that there’s no shame in being beaten by Obama unless she takes the path she’s on.

  • That America is split nearly 50/50 over two excellent Democratic candidates is not because HRC is a monster.

  • What a revealing look into the mind of a Clinton cultist.

    You think Obama is “stealing” the nomination from her? Because he’s won more votes, more states, more endorsements? In the English language, we call that “winning.”

    Only someone who thinks Hillary was owed this nomination as a birthright and thinks democracy doesn’t matter would call it “stealing.”

    This is what I find more than a little depressing. I’m firmly in the Obama camp because I think he’s an excellent political with some good ideas who stands a great chance of winning. This is, I suspect, the reason that most people support Obama rather than any kind of hero-worship.

    The same is true with the Clinton camp; I think there are quite a few people who just think she’s the best person for the job. Great.

    The hard-core Hillary-ites strike me as royalists, though. There’s just this sense that she is owed the Presidency and anyone standing in her way is trying to steal it. Well, made explicit in what you quote, of course. Not something I ever really expected to see on this side of the aisle, the idea that one nominee could be ahead in delegates, ahead in the popular votes, and ahead in superdelegates, yet somehow still be accused of “stealing” the election.

    Hillary’s scorched earth policies only confirm this to be her own opinion, as well.

  • By the way, you may all like to know that nationally according to CNN, Democrats prefer Clinton 48 to 44%, so you can take your statistics and polls and shove them where the sun don’t shine.

    Here are the last six polls of Democratic preference, according to Pollster.com

    Gallup: Obama 48, Clinton 43
    Times/Bloomberg: Obama 48, Clinton 42
    AP/IPSOS: Obama 46, Clinton 43
    USAToday/Gallup: Obama 51, Clinton 39
    Pew: Obama 49, Clinton 40
    CBS: Obama 54, Clinton 38

    When you get done talking out of where the sun don’t shine, you can stick all six of them up there.

  • TR, Obama isn’t stealing the election, the republicans are. They are voting overwhelmingly for him in open primaries and caucuses, this effectively means that the republicans are trying to steal the election from the candidate that more actual democrats voted for this primary season.

    I’ve been hearing Republicans talk about how much easier Obama would be to beat in the fall, they’ve even begun to do so on MSNBC (Pat Buchanen said so last night), and MSNBC is so overwhelmingly Pro-Obama it’s sickening.

  • TR, Obama isn’t stealing the election, the republicans are. They are voting overwhelmingly for him in open primaries and caucuses, this effectively means that the republicans are trying to steal the election from the candidate that more actual democrats voted for this primary season.

    Ah, the favorite conspiracy theory of the Clinton cultists.

    Any proof to back this up? That they’re crossing over and voting for Obama just to ruin it?

    Yes, we have statements from conservative pundits telling their minions to cross over and vote for a Democrat — but it’s Rush telling the Dittoheads to vote for Hillary. Any evidence of a similar effort to shore up Obama? Buchanan is clueless with no followers in the base.

    The polls show that 3 in 10 conservatives would cross over to vote for Obama in a general contest with McCain. Are they lying to the pollsters too? The general election surveys show that in virtually every case, Obama is a stronger candidate against McCain than Clinton. Why would they try to get a harder opponent in the general election?

  • Greg (39): I’ve been hearing Republicans talk about how much easier Obama would be to beat in the fall, they’ve even begun to do so on MSNBC (Pat Buchanen said so last night), and MSNBC is so overwhelmingly Pro-Obama it’s sickening.

    Oh, please don’t throw me in the briar patch. That’s what Pat Buchanan is saying.

    Danp (34) I’ll bet HRC is just thrilled about the possibility of cauces in MI.

    Just found my own answer. No. No. No. No. No!!!!!

  • Gallup Poll daily has HRC ahead 48 to 44 as of March 5, but that’s pretty much a tie due to the 3% margin of error.

    http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm

    Note that Clinton is picking up some momentum. If you love Obama, stop being everything and worse that you accuse Hillary of being.

    Either dem will beat McSame.

  • Thank you Nell for proving that I am not a raving lunatic, I know what I saw and there is the proof..

  • Some reporter needs to ask her directly “In light of your recent statements about McCain, if you were to lose the nomination would you prefer McCain to be president over Obama?”

    I’ve been trying my hardest to stay positive about Hillary in the event that she wins the nomination. I wanted to be able to vote for her. I think she just crossed a line that makes it impossible. This is the most craven politician I have seen in my lifetime. She would sell out the Democratic party and her country to get another shot at power in four years. Dispicable!

  • TR, those polls are not Democrats only, you missed my point.

    Gallup: “Barack Obama has a 48% to 43% lead over Hillary Clinton in Gallup Poll Daily tracking of national Democratic preferences.”

    LAT/Bloomberg: “The Illinois senator now leads Clinton, 48% to 42%, among Democratic primary voters nationally — a far cry from his double-digit deficits throughout 2007 and the first weeks of 2008.”

    USAT: “Asked of Democrats and independents who lean to the Democratic Party Which of these candidates would you be most likely to support for the Democratic nomination for president in 2008, or would you support someone else?”

    Pew: “ASK OF DEMOCRATS AND DEMOCRATIC LEANING RVs”

    CBS: “Many more Democratic primary voters think Obama, not Clinton, is best
    able to beat Senator John McCain, the likely Republican nominee. ”

    Oh, and since you mentioned CNN, I just checked their website for their latest poll.

    “Likely Democratic primary voters’ choice for nominee:
    “Obama 50%
    “Clinton 40%
    “Unsure 10%”

    http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/

    Is there some sort of prize for whoever can wrest the title of Least Informed and Most Deranged Clinton Cultist away from the reigning champ, Mary?

  • TR @ 42

    we have statements from conservative pundits telling their minions to cross over and vote for a Democrat — but it’s Rush telling the Dittoheads to vote for Hillary

    Yes, but Republicans still voted in favor of Obama 52% in Texas despite Rush’s rants, and actual dems voted for HRC 54%.

    This is why it is so important for Florida’s vote to count, WE had a closed primary and she beat his ass by 17%..

  • First good poll the Hillary boosters have had in a while, and they’re playing it up like it’s the last poll ever to be recorded or like the numbers will never change ever again. Give me a break.

    If any campaign’s been about killing momentum, it’s been Hillary’s. Don’t go on pretending that momentum just suddenly exists now that the momentum argument has suddenly swung in your favor, please. It’s disingenuous, typical political-speak.

    Is there a primary campaign argument that Hillary and her devoted charges HAVEN’T flip-flopped on in this election?

  • Note that Clinton is picking up some momentum. If you love Obama, stop being everything and worse that you accuse Hillary of being.

    Either dem will beat McSame.

    This is actually what irritates me the most about how Hillary’s running her campaign. As things stand, either candidate should be able to beat the crap out of McCain.

    The problem is that only one candidate is attacking the other in such a way that they lower the other’s chances in the GE. Obama’s attacks on Clinton aren’t anyting that will stick in the general, but Hillary’s implicitly arguing that McCain is more qualified for the Presidency than Obama is something that can and will be used directly against Obama.

    Obviously, the Republicans are going to throw much worse at Obama in the GE but it’s the Republicans doing it, and attacks from within the party stick much better than attacks from without.

  • Obviously, the Republicans are going to throw much worse at Obama in the GE but it’s the Republicans doing it, and attacks from within the party stick much better than attacks from without.

    So true. Kerry had Zell Miller, but while Hillary is nowhere near that bad, it’s just enough for her quotes to be attached onto any McCain campaign commercial, newsletter and flyer.

  • I would like to focus on a narrow issue that reflects how this comment will affect independent voters. It is character, not substance because it is the lack of character these comments reflect that I believe independent voters will focus on here.

    I voted for Perot in 92, Gore for President and Clinton for Senator in NY in 2000. For a while, I have been an ardent fan of Ron Paul. So, I represent the truly independent voter in the middle. I have been what used to be called a “Rockefeller Republican”: socially, liberal and fiscally conservative. At Robert Rubin’s direction, Bill Clinton ran a Rockefeller Republican government after 1994. Michael Bloomberg has a Rockefeller Republican administration.

    I and all of my friends have become disgusted with the Republican party because of George W. Bush, his fiscal profligacy and the War in Iraq. If Ron Paul were a viable candidate, we would vote for him.

    However, every progressive Republican I know has switched sides to the Democrats because of Barack Obama. Initially, I was prepared to vote for any credible Democrat who could reverse the Bush policies of the last 7 years. However, when Hillary started to denigrate Obama and praise McCain in the same breath, that all changed. And this is the problem.

    I voted for Senator Clinton in 2000 for the Senate. I will never vote for her again — not now, not ever. It was this video clip which turned me — and, I suspect, many like me — from potential crossover democratic voters into no shows in Nov or McCain voters. Hillary Clinton, with one comment, repeated several times, has shown that she will do anything to be elected including tearing down her own party and its chances for the nomination. I cannot in good conscience vote for someone like that.

    It’s an issue of character. She has demonstrated she has none. She has turned me away from her if she gets nominated. The damage of Hillary’s comment have absolutely nothing to do with content and everything to do with character. This is Hillary’s Achilles Heel with Independents and Moderate Republicans.

    This is how independent voters will vote in November and why she could cost the democrats the election and our country a chance for change.

  • The Clintons net worth are estimated at $34million +. The McCains $24 million +
    Obama $456,000 – $1.1 million

    That should leave little doubt on which of them are best experienced to be “Decider in Chief ” corporate whore.

  • HRC comments about McLame are an endoresment for Shrub. He has experience too, so that should make him a good commander in chief?

    C’mon Hillary, are you really this desparate?

  • The CIC argument is so senseless. What threshold had Bill crossed in 1992 that qualified him for the job? Saying that McCain has some special qualification to lead the military belies the truth of his volatile temper and questionable judgment.

    The people that you choose to advise you are the sign of the proper temperament to lead. McCain fails in that regard (as does his best buddy Bush). Hillary is questionable in her choice of advisers as demonstrated by Penn and others.

  • If the Democratic Clinton supporters defending this behavior ever derided Lieberman or Zell for their behavior they’re hypocrites. If they didn’t they’re in the wrong party.

  • The Clinton supporters who pretend that you’re not allowed to be angry with Clinton because Obama is nice are as stupid as republicans who say that democrats have to tolerate the intolerant or they’re hypocrites.

  • Obama’s response could be something simple and devastating: “Senator Clinton’s touting of her foreign policy experience is on a par with Senator McCain’s claim of ‘straight talk’: when you look closer, there’s nothing there to back it up. Senator Clinton’s mythical ‘commander-in-chief’ threshhold looks like nothing more than the willingness to deceive the American people, and I believe America has had about seven years too many of that deceit from our commander-in-chief.”

    If she wants to give Republicans a big sloppy wet Lieberman kiss, throw her the anchor.

  • Heres a little tibbit about about pledged delegates that some here and other blogs don’t seem to understand:

    http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2008/03/dirty-delegate-truths.html

    As far as actual vote counts Obama leads by 600,000 of over 25m votes cast not counting FL and MI.

    For those that for whatever reason do not think the Sen Clinton will not come out and support Sen Obama for the GE there is something wrong with your reasoning. Sen Clinton raised $35m for democratic candidates through her HillPac 2006 election cycle.

    All this meme about her hurting Sen Obama in the general is just media driven. After all she is still in a campaign for the democratic nomination.

    When the dust clears whoever the nominee is the other will be behind them 100%.

    That being said I hope that Sen Clinton and Obama can sit down and have a heart to heart and resolve to each being the others running mate in the fall.

    Barack brings alot to the table in young and new voters and Hillary will bring the older voters. One without the other we can not win.

  • Hillary needs to channel her inner Marc Antony and let the world know she comes not to praise McCain but to bury him.

    Some enterprising reporter needs to ask her who she would vote for if it comes down to McCain and Obama. If she picks McCain to bolster her own experience rhetoric then she is officially a LieberDem and doesn’t deserve to be in the party.

    The whole issue with the Clinton triangulation talk was that they were in it more for themselves than for any cause greater than them. Hillary praising McCain only feeds that argument. People are voting for her in hope that she will do something for them. Her odd campaign strategy makes it look like she’s in it for herself.

  • If she wants to give Republicans a big sloppy wet Lieberman kiss, throw her the anchor.

    Agreed. The Obama camp should cut those statements into an ad and run it all over Pennsylvania.

  • Wow… just plain wow… Clinton continues to divide and destroy the democratic party with every slash and burn comment she makes against Obama, and this time she has the gall to praise McCain?? C’mon people, how can anyone actually want this person in the Whitehouse? If this is what it takes to win the nomination, you can bet it will be another bitter four years for the democrats…

  • What a comment! Hillary is being very disrespectful to Obama and to the Democratic party. She has gone too far, and what’s so amazing is that nobody is questioning her dirty and deceitful tactics.
    It is time for Hillary to provide a time line of the 35 years of experience, especially on foreign affairs and crisis on behalf of the United States. Was she just giving speeches in the 80 or so countries she visited or was she providing solutions? I had never heard of Hillary Clinton until she became first lady. It’s amazing that she demands proof from Obama but never give any proof of these 35 years of service on behalf of this country. I didn’t know that being first lady included making decisions on foreign affairs. However, we all know that during her 6 years as Senator she voted to invade Iraq. Why isn’t the media questioning these claims. It’s time for a reality check and a time line on these 35 years of events.

    By the way, why isn’t the media reporting the “Canadian Memo” story on how the Clintons were behind the whole thing to assure a win for Hillary in Ohio? Bill and Hill will do ANYTHING to get what they want. I still can’t believe that Hillary had the nerve to bring up Rezko when she has White Water and so many shady contributors as to date. Where’s the tax return? Where is the media? Are they now pro Hillary?

  • Greg at 14 argues: “Don’t complain about Clinton, she is a fighter and she loves this country, and she refuses to allow someone with no credentials steal the nomination just to lose to an experienced fighter in the fall.”

    I am beginning to doubt that the Clintons “love their country” as much as they love themselves. Many people on many blogs have expressed outrage at the selling out of the party by these Clintonian tactics – and posit that this is a strategy to set up Ms. Clinton for 2012 – if that is so, they aren’t only selling out their party, but their country.

    We are not in a race with Eisenhower Publicans, Goldwater Publicans, or even Reagan Publicans – we are fighting a group that has cheated itself into powerful position and used that position to disembowel the U.S. Constitution to assure that they can make that position permanent. Any prominent member of the Democratic Party who creates a situation in which this group gets 4 more years deserves to be seen as a person who does not have the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the temptations of the power she is trying to grasp.

  • Barack brings alot to the table in young and new voters and Hillary will bring the older voters. One without the other we can not win.

    I don’t agree with this at all. First off, McCain isn’t going to win. Either of these two candidates will mop him up. I mean, as far as I know, the only real challenge he’s ever had was when he got trounced by the Bush Machine in 2000. And by having to publicly embrace the most unpopular president in modern history, he doesn’t stand a chance.

    Secondly, older Dem voters will vote for whoever the Dem is. They pick Hillary because they know her better and are not as likely to research this stuff as well as younger folks (personal opinion, I know, but that’s what I think is happening). But younger voters won’t vote unless they really like the candidate. That’s why they haven’t really come out as much until this year. They like Obama, as do I. I’ve supported every Dem candidate since I became a Democrat in 1994. But Obama is the first one that I’ve truly wanted as president. I went to my first political rally this year to see him, and actually went door-to-door for him last week here in Texas to get people to vote in the primary for him. He inspires me and I like him alot. My kids do too.

    This just isn’t the same dynamic with older voters. Older voters know how important it is to vote and they’re not going to stay home just because it’s a different candidate. I definitely don’t see the same thing with younger voters. Hillary just isn’t a good substitute for Barack. Even if they don’t hate Hillary, younger voters are less likely to turn out for her. Younger people don’t do things out of obligation, as older people do. They do things because they want to do it. And they won’t vote unless they like what they’re voting for.

  • daryljfontaine said:


    Obama’s response could be something simple and devastating: “Senator Clinton’s touting of her foreign policy experience is on a par with Senator McCain’s claim of ’straight talk’: when you look closer, there’s nothing there to back it up. Senator Clinton’s mythical ‘commander-in-chief’ threshhold looks like nothing more than the willingness to deceive the American people, and I believe America has had about seven years too many of that deceit from our commander-in-chief.”
    If she wants to give Republicans a big sloppy wet Lieberman kiss, throw her the anchor.

    Too good.
    Like RacerX metaphors @ 35: She is a suicide bomber.
    My hope: It’s time for the Obama camp to jerk her firing pin.

  • How any of you Clinton supporters can argue that saying a Republican would be a better president than your Democratic primary opponent is beyond me. The goal (ostensibly) of all Democrats is to get a Democrat in the White House, even if it is not the one you support at the moment. Hillary is now a party of one. There’s her, the Republican candidate and the Democratic candidate. Scorched-earth tactics like these are making it increasingly difficult for me to vote for her should she become the nominee (how she’ll manage that, I don’t know). And besides that, her argument about how great McCain is is starting to convince me I’d rather he be in charge.

  • Mary, Greg, Comeback Bill, please. Heed Clinton’s advice and get real.

    Let’s remember that Mary yesterday thought it improper for Obama to ask Clinton to release her tax returns because they aren’t even due until April 15th!

    And Greg’s desperation speaks for itself as he clings to the myth of inexperience.

    And Comeback Bill’s off-topic spat about how we aren’t supposed to complain about Hillary because Obama is supposed to be above it is laughably absurd.

    TR, Obama isn’t stealing the election, the republicans are. -Greg

    This again? Oh, please.

    Only one of the goon squad’s leaders has called for crossovers to fix the election, and he called for them to vote for Clinton. And even then the effect was insignificant.

    It is naive to persist in this line of argument.

    Yes, but Republicans still voted in favor of Obama 52% in Texas despite Rush’s rants, and actual dems voted for HRC 54%. -Greg

    You don’t think Rush’s crossover goons could’ve identified as Democrats in the exit polls just to create additional confusion? No, they’d never think of that.

    This is why it is so important for Florida’s vote to count, WE had a closed primary and she beat his ass by 17%. -Greg

    Well, no offense to some of the other Florida commenters, but if Florida is dominated by people like you, then no wonder she won. She always does well with the uneducated.

    Let’s see what happens with a re-vote after some campaigning.

    The Clinton supporters who pretend that you’re not allowed to be angry with Clinton because Obama is nice are as stupid as republicans who say that democrats have to tolerate the intolerant or they’re hypocrites. -Jay

    Repeated in whole because of its profound truth. Slow clap. Well said.

  • Greg Sargent added:
    [P]umping up McCain to this extent risks provoking a backlash from rank-and-file Dems. The question I have is whether Obama will be able to capitalize on this,

    He better be able to capitalize on it. She has given him two slam-dunk commercials where he can use her own past words against her. The first is from 2000 when her campaign was pushing hard for Lazio to release his tax returns. The second is from her husband’s first Presidential campaign, where he was essentially the Obama-style candidate and her opinion on the necessity of experience in Washington being a threshold to qualify for the job was pretty much the opposite of what it is now.

  • The “threshold” that has been crossed here is the one where solidarity in the party begins to break apart as predicted.

    I have to say (again) up front, that I have *never* been anything resembling “anti-Clinton”. I would have given anything at anytime during the last 7 years to have Bill Clinton back in the White House.

    I have also stated that, although I supported Edwards, then Obama, that I would not hesitate to vote for Hillary Clinton should she get the nomination.

    However, I think the Clinton campaign have crossed the line with me and I must say that I’m thoroughly disgusted with her to the point where I just want reach into my monitor to slap her phony, smirking face.

    I’ve been thinking lately at just how important an issue the war in Iraq is; how we’ve exhausted so much blood and treasure for folly and how that has impacted our economy (the issue everyone is so preoccupied with). This is the biggest mistake our nation has ever made and she was an unrepentant participant.

    Now, she’s essentially throwing Obama, even the Democratic Party itself, under the bus to achieve her goal. I now feel as though the “Corporatocracy” is more in control of this process than we could ever know. After all, every shrewd businessman knows never to put all his eggs into one basket. I now feel Hillary Clinton is their egg in the Democratic basket. It might not be as desirable as McCain, but it will for the most part, keep us on our current course. It might even achieve the ultimate objective: destroy American progressivism from within.

    I thought the 2008 Presidential election was going to be the easiest in my life. It will be the most difficult as I might have to simply throw my vote to Nader.

  • For those that for whatever reason do not think the Sen Clinton will not come out and support Sen Obama for the GE there is something wrong with your reasoning. Sen Clinton raised $35m for democratic candidates through her HillPac 2006 election cycle.

    Which is proof that she — like all politicians in the years before a race — was trying to earn some political favors and win over the allegiance of her colleagues before this campaign. It’s no indication of what she’d do for Obama if he were the nominee at all.

    Her backstabbing comments tend to suggest she’d not do much for him.

  • Now that she has begun composing campaign material for John McCain, Hillary Clinton can take her “life experience” and put it where the sun don’t shine. For a highly intelligent woman she showed that she can be unbelievably stupid as well. She has just dropped below the threshold of acceptability for me. Her unbelievable lack of judgment in allying herself with John McCain has cost her my support. As far as I am concerned she has now entered the genre of broadus dumbus.

  • hillary is doing the equivalent of what in the corporate world of takeovers is known as a “suicide pill”.

  • 2.On March 7th, 2008 at 8:46 am, Mary said:
    Whoever is the nominee will have to run against McCain’s experience. It is obvious that McCain has sufficient experience to run for president. Talking about McCain’s experience isn’t saying anything that voters cannot see for themselves, whether they are for McCain or not. Making the comparison helps Clinton and it hurts Obama without doing anything for McCain except state the obvious.

    Poor misguided Mary, always missing the point. Clinton only has “experience” on her side when compared to Obama. There are 100+ Senators and Congressmen in Washington who crush her in that category, and one of them is McCain. If she wants to make that argument the basis for the Presidency then she is going to lose badly. If experience was what mattered we could have nominated Robert Byrd. It’s not just that her argument denigrates a possible Democratic Presidential candidate, it’s that her argument starts working against her immediately should she actually get the nomination. She is fighting strictly for right now, burning every bridge she can to keep her enemy from using them, and that doesn’t help the party at all.

  • Clinton only has “experience” on her side when compared to Obama

    Does she? He’s held elected office longer than she has, and I don’t see anyone touting Laura Bush’s credentials as president. I’m not sure when being First Lady was considered presidential experience, but I suspect it only started quite recently.

  • I’m just amazed at how clueless my fellow Dems are about what Hillary Clinton is all about. Sen. Clinton is all about one thing and one thing only: Hillary Clinton holding power. And if she does NOT get the nomination, you can be 100% certain that she will be rooting with every fiber in her amoral being for Obama to lose to Sen. McCain. She knows she has more of a prayer of getting in by challenging the old man in four years.

    Be prepared for her to say LOTS of kind and supportive things about McCain if Obama is going up against him in the general. In fact, she will only stop short of an all-out endorsement of McCain because the GOP would be able to play it back at her in 2012. I repeat – and I so dearly hope people will start to see this – HRC is all about HRC, and only HRC. Obama’s not the saint people want to pretend we all think he is, but he’s got at least equal parts ambition and desire to do well for his country.

    [By the way, this text edit box is the most molasses-slow thing I have encountered in all my years posting on blogs. Is your server not only counting characters but also doing high-end artificial intelligence analysis on what we are writing? I have given up typing in your textbox and am writing separately in an editor, to be pasted in (then I can go elsewhere for 15 minutes while it catches up – yikes!).]

  • Would saying that Hillary is “pimpin’ for the GOP” be considered a legitimate expression of this?

    Methinks the answer is yes….

  • Will some media person please ask Clinton why she was willing to consider Obama on a ticket recently if she has such a problem with his experience?

    Erratic, unpredictable, sloppy thinking and flip-floppy behavior on important issues is not what one wants in a future commander-in-chief!!

  • “There are certain lines that you do not cross in a primary campaign. And one of those is suggesting that your primary opponent, the likely nominee, is so unfit that that the Republican nominee might be preferable to him. This is spoiler territory, and Clinton should be ashamed.”

    Once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl.

  • In response to post 79 from Mark:

    You are 100% on target about Hillary Clinton and Obama. Lots of voters who vote Republican or stay at home (i.e. moderate Republicans, Independents, and young people) are coming out ONLY because they trust Obama or trust Ron Paul, for that matter. I include myself in this group. I will not ever vote for a politician whose personal ambition is to gain power for power’s sake and is willing to sacrifice ideals, morality and convictions for that power.

    Your contention that she is angling for 2012 seems to have a ring of truth and it is this that disgusts me. I guarantee you that many voters who would have voted for the democrats will evaporate including myself if this amoral politician is nominated.

  • Hey, seeing as how Hillary has much more experience as First Lady than as Senator (especially if you include her time as a governor’s wife) do you think she might really be gunning to be Obama’s First Lady? Perhaps she’s just running against Michelle and forgot to mention it. More likely she’s running against Mrs. McCain.

  • This is about what you should expect from someone who only won in Texas by 500,000 Republicans voting for her to set her up for the target she is.

    I generally say this only about Republicans, but since she is a Republican…

    Where are you, Lee Harvey Oswald, when we really need you?

  • i don’t see her looking to 2012 — i think she sees this as her chance to match up with the old man NOW (there’s speculation that mccain would be a one term president regardless) — which is why i suggest that she’s employing a ‘poison pill’ strategy to make it seem she’s the only one with enough experience to run against mccain. and frankly, it just might work for her.

  • Greg (#20) says: Republicans should NOT determine who the Democratic nominee should be, and if you are not outraged at how much influence they have had in OUR nomination process, you are too blind to see.

    Given it was 500,000 Republicans in Texas who gave your candidate her fleeting “victory” you might want to re-think what you said.

    You might try getting a few facts (I know, facts are things Hillarybots don’t like, but try it anyway) here:

    http://www.quorumreport.com

  • TR said:
    Mark 79 — So glad to know it’s not just my computer.

    My old puter in the garage behaves like that.
    The newer one in the house has no trouble with the type-as-you-go edit box.
    All are wireless, so I suspect it is an available RAM problem. Which is to say: I think the editor is javascipted, and the code is executing within the browser.

    To wit: If you turn off your net connection the editor still works.

  • Does she?

    I don’t think so, that’s why I put it in quotes: to indicate that I was referring to experience strictly the way she defines it for her benefit. I don’t see where being a First Lady who didn’t even have security clearance should count at all. If Bill Clinton was discussing issues of national security with Hillary, he damn well should have gotten her the clearance to know that sort of thing.

  • In response to entheo’s post 87,

    The poison pill strategy leaves Clinton with multiple routes to power though.

    1. She is looking to take the nomination in 2008 not only based on the big states and experience but also by forcing Obama into gaffes that will throw Super Delegates her way. She might see eking out a compromise pre-convention where Obama takes the VP spot on a joint ticket. I see this as her primary strategy.

    2. She also can benefit by torpedoing Obama in 08 so she can reprise in 2012. This is not as desirable because she will be running for re-election for the senate in 2012. But it is a decent backup for her.

    3. She can shore up a ticket in 2008 as a VP with experience (this is a scenario I don’t beieve she is angling for or is probable)

    When it is all said and done, I have come to see her as very tactically motivated, and this is only a good strategy for herself in the Democratic party. It is good for no one else except the Republicans.

    Ultimately, I suspect she is galled that Barack Obama did not “wait his turn.” She is 60 and has been angling for the White House for some time. Obama is only 46. I imagine she had felt him out in 2005, 2006 about the ’08 nomination and decided he probably wouldn’t run because of inexperience on the national stage. That gave her a green light and a free pass.

    I further suspect she is quite bitter he did NOT “wait his turn.” She may have some deep-seated hostility toward Obama for denying her what could be her only shot at the White House. If Obama were to win the White House in 2008. She could not win the presidency in 2012. So 2016 would be her only chance. She knows that she would be 69 in Nov. 2016 and her goose would be cooked. This could be it for her. Think about that. She certainly has.

  • Ok, that’s it. I’m a lifelong Democrat, but if Hillary becomes the nominee, I’m voting McCain.

    I’d rather have 4 more years of Republicans destroying their party than a Clinton destroying hers. With behavior like this we are in for another takeover of power by Republicans like they did under Bill. I’d rather vote for the long run. It might be the best time to let Republicans take the helm again since whoever wins is inheriting such a horrible situation from Bush.

    I have the choice of another Bush in McCain and another Rove in Hillary. My choice is now clear for the long term health of the democratic party, given she wins the nomination.


  • Comeback Bill: It always amazes me when Clinton bashers come on blogs like this and spew hatred when their candidate is supposed to be the one that is above all this

    Aside from the fact that I’m amazed at the idea that anyone here is “bashing” Clinton (can we not disagree with a person’s tactics/behavior without the perception that we are somehow being unfair to be so audacious as to question her?), I find it ironic that, in the same breath, you basically admit the other candidate is the one who is “above all this”.

    The latter has had many an opportunity to turn this stuff around on Clinton but he doesn’t because he knows there are sufficient numbers of progressives out there who do fancy ourselves “above all this”, and who do feel this is damaging our chances at a time when repairing our Republic has never been more critical.

  • 91. Edward…

    what may have become bitterness must have started as surprise. i mean really, who’d a thunk that obama would have found the legs to go 15 rounds and possibly even carry a decision (no KOs here). the clintons may well have started thinking that the loyal opposition would have all had their fun by now, and the crown princess would be on her way, but these are indeed strange and wonderful times.

  • 94. entheo

    I bet the Clntons were surprised. In fact, they were so caught off guard that the anti-Obama gaffes from Bill in South Carolina and now Hillary are direct testaments. I think they expose their true feelings just as Michelle Obama’s comments have exposed hers.

    They just weren’t prepared for this and so they went negative — not only because it works, but also because emotionally they probably felt like a cornered animal. Just think about it: you saw yourself getting a free pass and then this guy comes out of nowhere. He doesn’t even have a full senate term. Surprised. You betcha.

  • Comeback Bill: It always amazes me when Clinton bashers come on blogs like this and spew hatred when their candidate is supposed to be the one that is above all this

    Why would you be surprised?

    I like Obama precisely because he doesn’t pull this bullshit.

    I don’t like Hillary now precisely because she is pulling this bullshit.

    The two beliefs go hand in hand. I like A and, as a result, I do not like Not A.

    I’m sorry if that’s too complicated for you.

  • Like others, HRC’s conduct over the last month or so has me really confused. Does she believe that regardless of whatever tactics she uses against Obama that there won’t be any permanent damage? On Black talk radio, there are many, many loyal Dems who are reluctantly but definitely reassessing their fondness for the Clintons. Many blacks were disillusioned with Bill Clinton’s comments leading up to the SC primary. Bob Johnson’s comments have now completly ruined his reputation. And with respective to the latest attacks as well as her insistence on seating the MI & FL delegates, there are influential black radio talk hosts who are calling on a “blackout” from the Democratic party. They are actively pushing for do-overs in both states but insist that if delegates are seated based upon the January primaries, they will encourage Black Americans to abandon the Democratic party. Considering how loyal black voters have been over the past 70 years, I don’t think the party can afford for such a large voting bloc to bolt. Hillary is playing a dangerous game. She may think because she’s got Maggie Williams and Stephanie Tubbs Jones on her side that the rest of Black America will go along. I don’t think that’s the case. If she has any doubts, she should talk to Donna Brazile.

  • Above It All @ #97,

    This is what I fear the most: that this will wind up driving a wedge between White and Black the likes of which we’ve never seen. Remember how divisive it was when O.J. Simpson was seen as a victim by one America, a murderer by another America (and a rich man getting off scott free by those of us with an ounce of common sense, but I digress)?

    Imagine what it will be like when a man who is clearly qualified, has won the popular vote and has the most delegates, appears to have what many believe is his destiny suspiciously yanked out from under him. Black Americans need this victory and I cannot bear to see their hopes (and mine too) get dashed by someone who they believed was on their side.

    This is ugly, ugly, ugly.

  • She’s lost her natural mind. She’s basically endorsing John McCain for President. If she’s the nominee, he can use her own praise against her, if Obama wins, he can use her praise against him, and if they team up like she keeps hinting, He can use her praise against her, and her claims of Obama’s inexperience against both of them. Who taught this woman how to run for office? She’s shooting the party in the foot. I know I’m begining to rant but this is like if Mike Huckabee praising John Edwards against McCain. It’s not a win if you sink the party to do it.

  • if they team up like she keeps hinting

    Uzoma – She wasn’t hinting about that. She was belittling him, by acting as if he’s only good enough to be VP. I’m not sure why anyone imagines that the Vice Presidency is a consolation prize, but if someone’s not good enough to be president, they shouldn’t be good enough for VP either.

    But I totally agree with what you said. Her emphasis on experience is yet another part of her rhetoric that will only last until she makes it to the general election. That’s yet another difference between them: Obama praises McCain’s half-century of service, before mentioning how he was wrong about everything; and it’s part of his message of change. When Clinton praises McCain, she’s doing so as she mentions how important experience is; something McCain has and Hillary doesn’t. One of these arguments just isn’t like the other.

  • Here is the problem and it’s pretty simple. Hillary is in trouble… So she is playing the role
    that she is on top. Again another change in her strategy. Fool the people… and the people
    will be fools.

    First to all of the Obama supporters… He will be alright.. This man is been steady as jet in smooth air….
    His plans to ask questions about Hillary that need to be answered by Hillary will be very effective.
    Not Ken Starrish as she is trying to preemptively frame it. She will be called to the carpet.

    You all do realize that Barack could have called her out at any of the debates…. But he did not sling mud.
    The public that supports him understands that. The Media understood that before they got called out
    for giving him soft treatment…

    The most striking this about this campaign has been how Hillary supporters have reacted toward
    other like minded people… It’s as if we are not on the same team. Do you guys really dis like
    Obama that much?

    Sure you like your team better but our guy is not some nutt job that wants to destroy your way of life
    or your country. But I guess he is standing in your way… and how fickled people get when they want
    something and some one else has what they want!

    Chris Rock said it best… Women will see a Girl with a great guy and they don’t say hey I want a
    guy just like him… No they say I want him… I want your man!! LOL!! (it was a great joke from never scared)

    Barack has that thing Hillary wants.. He has the lead… he has more states, he has a better campaign
    he has a great record.. and he will have a chance to get the highest office in the land.

    She and her people will napalm the kids for it! HRC people just going pit pull attacking anything that
    is not Pro-Hillary… yet Hillary is praising a guy that will win just because if she is on the other side.

    You guys keep it up and you will get Johnny M. (R) in the Whitehouse. (I’m not saying your support for HRC is Wrong
    You like Who you Like) Just tone that BS down!

    No one is saying that you can’t ask hard questions and want clear answers… But be fair when that
    same thing comes back your way… Obama at least answers the questions being asked of him.

    Hillary just side steps and changes the topic all the time… I have yet to see her answer why she
    is better then Obama on this issue… all she is saying that she and John McCain have Mojo!! WTF!!!

    I don’t want Just Mojo… I want someone that will give me something of substance so I can
    decided what’s best for me when I pull that voting switch for the person I like….

    Hillary, John, Barack, G W , Bill Abe… and anyone else that has run for this office don’t know sh!t
    about how do handle national security issues… It’s just that simple.

    Hillary did not read the document regarding the war.. why? Why did she vote for something that
    she did not even read the details about what she was voting for… Is that what Commanders and Chiefs do?
    No.. but that’s what a slick politician will do. She just went with what was popular at the time…

    She did not want to be on the wrong side if the war was a cake walk Like the First Unlawful Gulf War.

    And the media… talk about a mind F#$k they get straight Bi-polar on Obama as if he did something
    bad to them. They want this thing to go on and on so there will be a big fight at the end…
    The report only half truths… or false info… Notice how they did not push the truth on the NAFTA thing.

    An Obama Aid calls Hillary a B!#tch!! No! She said that lady was a monster… but let the media tell it
    and you would think it was something awful! Right wing nuts call her worst names then that!

    It was a slow news day… so the media will play the role of instigator.. People we better wake up.
    The media is nothing but a place full of hacks and losers that use their position to sell books
    and spew opinion. The lack of real new on News networks is scary!

  • JTK,

    I’m not hearing the conflict so much in terms of Black/White division as much as disillusionment with the Party. There are older Black politicos (Congressional Black Caucus and their alumni) who are very invested in the Party and the party politics. You may notice that a number of those people, Maxine Watters, Andrew Young, Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Sheila Jackson Lee and even former Congressman Ron Dellums, back Hillary. Their complaint is that Barack is too young and he needs to wait his turn. Considering that many, if not most of them, were as young or younger than Barack is when they entered politics, I know that that is not the real reason they are not supporting him. Really what they are saying is that they have worked their political connections for years and they have ingratiated themselves to the Clintons.

    Barack doesn’t come out of the same political experience as the other Black politicos and therefore they don’t have any hold on him. He’s an unknown to them and they don’t want to lose any “privilege” they acquired through the years. Those of us at the tail end of the Baby Boomers, Gen X & Y, aren’t interested in the “old school” politics. We aren’t willing to sit by and patiently wait and let the Democratic party dole out it’s crumbs to us. We’ve seen how the party has taken us for granted and we’ll move in a different direction.

    I think what we’re really seeing is a generational split (if not based upon age but also “old school” vs. “new school” politics). Of course, that’s just a personal opinion but I’ve not heard anthing related to a Black/White split even though there is a potential “blackout” on its way.

  • My prediction (as some others have) – young people will not vote for Hillary and without them, she loses in the GE.

  • How pathetic. C’mon Clinton supporters, do you REALLY want to support a candidate that is telling the American public “If I don’t get the nomination, you should vote for the GOP ticket”?

    I’ve lost all respect for her, I didn’t start out having it “in for her”, I was actually very open-minded about listening to what she & the other nominees had to say.

    Considering Obama has a 50/50 chance of winning the nomination, it is unforgivable that she is willing to sell out the democratic party’s chances of winning in November just because she can’t get her way.

    When she says this election “Is all about you”, is she picturing herself standing in front of a mirror. Grow up Hillary! You can’t always get what you want and this election is about the DEMOCRATS TAKING BACK THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!

  • The liberal Blogs have done more Hillary bashing than the right has ever done.
    I doubt I vote for these people who so freely attacked a fellow democrat. Like Pirahnas devouring their own.

  • So Hillary now proclaims that she has passed some self-defined ‘commander-in-chief’ test, mostly apparently because of her time in the White House.

    Laura Bush will end up having the same amount of time in the White House. Has she passed the C-in-C test as well?

  • 86. Tom Cleaver said:

    This is about what you should expect from someone who only won in Texas by 500,000 Republicans voting for her to set her up for the target she is.

    I generally say this only about Republicans, but since she is a Republican…

    Where are you, Lee Harvey Oswald, when we really need you?

    Advocating assassination? Are you fucking crazy? Sure, disagree with her politics, sure, disagree with her on principles, but to want her dead? You’re disgusting.

    I hope as much as anybody that Obama wins the nomination and the Presidency, but never in my life would I wish that upon somebody, no matter how deeply I may disagree with them.

    The sentiment that you wish a person dead because of divergence on political issues is the indication of a demented and broken mind, and you don’t deserve to be consulted on any issue, political or not, ever again.

  • first
    john mc cain graduated second to last in his class.
    inlisted and fought an illegal war where he dropped ordinance on civilian targets.
    war hero?! no

    and now the Hillary supporters(and I’m not a big Obama faneither)are using the same filthy Rove tricks that they’ve complained of for the last eight years because… well this time it’s a democrat!!!!.
    Face it guys. The reprobates are going to win again.
    Time to start a new party based on what the Dems use to stand for.

  • Obama is stealing the nomination by capitalizing on undemocratic caucuses. Both superdelegates and caucuses should be gotten rid of. Also, Republicans and Independents should not be allowed to determine who the Democratic nominee is. Ultimately, Obqama is the divisive one: by taking advantage of undemocratic caucuses, and ignoring the will of core Democrats. Let’s not forget that Clinton leads him almost 2 to 1 among self-identified Democrats.

  • Hey Jack – what are you talking about. Obama has more votes that Hillary — talk about the will of the people! She is the one trying to steal the election! Get real. Billary will do anything to get back in power — even if it means waiting till 2012 to run again! Wake up America. If McClinton is our future it will be more of the same — a future I can do without. I have been a loyal Democrat my entire life, but this is too much! I would not vote for Hillary Clinton — not now, not ever, not after her act the past few weeks.

  • “Self-Identified Democrats” won’t be the people who will put our next president into office. You’ll need independents and cross-over republicans to push that candidate into the position…

    My wife, who has voted Republican all of her adult life until 2006, and voted for George W. Bush twice, has donated multiple times to Senator Obama’s campaign, and actually signed us up to canvass for Obama in Ohio. After seeing the incompetence of the current Bush administration and her party, she’s ready to switch. However she has such a visceral dislike of HRC that she will not vote for her under any circumstances…

    I for one would vote for HRC should she be the Democratic nominee for president… but I’ll be far more happy if Obama were the nominee.

  • ‘Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will ‘BRING TO THE WHITE HOUSE’??? What a complete sell-out!! Clinton proves that she is willing to destroy the democratic party to break Obama. Maybe she is running for McCain’s VP.

  • Look into Burson-Marsteller. CEO is Mark Penn who is Clinton’s big advisor.
    Reporting to Penn is Charlie Black, lobbiest for United Technology and head of the lobbying division of B-M. Black is McCain’s big advisor. United Technology is trying to buy Diebold, even if the takeover is hostile. Now doesn’t that make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

    McCain and Clinton are campaigning against Obama, often using about the same rhetoric. Sometimes it seems like Hillary is running for McCain’s V.P., just in case her Presidential candidacy doesn’t pan out! The whole thing stinks and supports the old argument that we have just one political party with two wings and just one powerful group of people decides who the two candidates will be and does everything possible to get rid of all others. Obama has somewhat blind-sided them with the unexpected amount of grassroots support he has gotten.

    My reaction to Hillary Clinton has been “familiarity breeds contempt”. Way way back I liked and admired her. Since becoming Senator and casting some of the votes she has…not so much. And now, given the way she’s campaigned, I have increasingly disliked her to the point where now I can’t stand her. I don’t think this is the way it’s supposed to work, Hillary!

  • Why doesn’t Hillary just be on the same ticket as McCain since she likes him so much. this is very depressing. Why is having integrity and honesty considered weak and resorting to these tactics considered strong, or being a fighter? I just dont understand why Hillary’s supporters would support this kind of behavior.

  • It’s pure triangulation. The Clintons are masters of this technique and have used it repeatedly. It’s a good part of the reason Repubs were able to take the Congress in the nineties. It sacrificies party unity for personal ambition and it’s sad to see them using it again after all these years. I wouldn’t support hillary for town dog-catcher at this point.

  • Early on I was delighted that whichever of the Democratic nominees got the nomination I’d be proud to vote for him/her.

    Hillary has lost my support; Obama still has my support.

    There are enormous issues that need addressing to begin putting America back on the right track and to regain the respect and confidence of the entire world. I applauded Hillary claiming to be a fighter and agreed she’d been through alot. Sorry to say, I didn’t think she meant ‘street fighter’, with all the perjoratives that term implies.

    One of my biggest objections to the recent Republican party positions has been that they put benefit to their Party ahead of benefit to the people of this country. It’s why I expect to see them take a bigger beating in 2008 than they did in 2006.

    Hillary has just signaled that she’d prefer to divide her Party rather than be denied the nomination. That’s not the depth of character I’d given her credit for, nor the integrity it will take to have any hope of bringing this great nation together.

    I and my extended family will be adamantly standing behind Senator Barack Obama.

  • I have always had a bad feeling about Hillary Clinton, without knowing why. Until January, I told myself I could put aside my bad feeling and vote for her if she won the Democratic nomination. She got off to a good start in the SC debate. I liked her suggestions for revitalizing the economy, and I thought, “I could actually vote for this woman!” Then within minutes, she started attacking Barack Obama. I was disgusted, voted for Obama in the primary, but I was still willing to give HRC a second chance. But now she’s lost me forever. It was bad enough she outright lied about Obama’s position on NAFTA, and ridiculed him for his message of hope and change. But once she pretty much endorsed McCain over Obama, she lost me forever! I detest her dirty tactics, her egotism, her willingness to destroy the Democratic Party if she does not win the nomination. I don’t care if she’s the last Democratic candidate left on the planet; I will never vote for her.

  • “Hillary has just signaled that she’d prefer to divide her Party rather than be denied the nomination. That’s not the depth of character I’d given her credit for, nor the integrity it will take to have any hope of bringing this great nation together.”

    I agree.

    Hillary lost this voter!

    She’s a traitor in my book.

    She can go join her buddy McCain, since they have so much in common.

  • Maybe she saying it because (Ican’t believe I’m agrreing with a Clinton) it’scorrect. Agree or disagree with Clinton or McCain, they are far more experienced than Obama. But McCain happens to be much more experienced that Clinton.

  • So Sen. Clinton is destroying the Party by suggesting that McCain has more experience than Obama.

    Last July, Obama called Clinton “Bush/Cheney lite”, which to a Democrat, translates as “utterly incompetent to hold office”.

    Remind me again, which candidate took the high road, and which took the low?

  • Like many of you, I had the light bulb moment a few days ago myself…HRC is actively trying to sink Obama’s chances against McCain in Nov 2008.

    1) She knows there’s no real chance that she can win the pledged delegates or popular vote. Even if it’s split, the super delegates are going to be a mess. She knows this…why bother with the convention.

    2) In late July/early August after beating up Obama as much as possible, she will give a seemingly magnanimous speech and bow out of the race. She’ll say it was what is best for the country. She gives lukewarm support to Obama publicly.

    3) On the private side, her folks actively campaign against Obama. Why you may ask? This is the smart bit…she doesn’t want to deal with the Iraq mess. Why would she? She knows the surge is seeing success, pragmatically, it would be disastrous for the Democrats to pull out in 2009 (I know, despite the rhetoric from HRC and Obama it’s just not the “reality on the ground”). They would be painted by the Republicans as the party of surrender. The troops and generals will all argue that they were seeing success but were sunk by the Democrats’ short-sighted political aims to pull out. She benefits from an Obama loss and a McCain win. McCain will continue the war. Unlike W, he’s got a brain and the Clintons trust him to get through the tough next few years in Iraq and with the economy. Plus, McCain will never get a Health Care Plan through in his term.

    4) So, 2012, HRC will campaign on “finally” ending the war. By then the chorus for Health Care Reform will finally be loud enough to change something and she will have lost nothing waiting four more years.

    McCain gets to deal with the unpopular war and a looming recession. HRC gets to take the moral high ground in 2008 and look to the Democrats and say, “Look what you’ve done in 2008 nominating this ‘untested’ Obama”. Health Care, global warming, and ending the Iraq war will still be on the table…she’d just need to dust off the old plays and get back on the field in 2012. Obama by then is toast and will play low key as Democrats will blame him for the “loss”. HRC stays in the Senate and blocks any Republican attempts at Health Care Reform because “it doesn’t go far enough”.

    It’s a brilliant plan that I hope fails miserably, but like the others…when you look at the sheer Machiavellian spirit behind it, who’s going to stop it?

  • I was going to vote for Hillary based off of what her husband’s presidency was like in the 90’s but she has not run a campaign as he did. I don’t remember his being this dirty. If it was someone please correct me.

    This chick is DIRTY, DIRTY, DIRTY, in the worst way!!! She is a sellout, and yeah I said it Hillary supporters!!! She is a piece of garbage!!!!

    Because she mathamatically can’t win the nomination she is going to try to detroy Obamas chances and destroy the democratic party all at one time.

    since she can’t win it she would rather praise a Republican than backing her Democratic rival? What a power hungry sorry piece of garbage.

    This race for Hillary is not about the country but about her own agenda. This about her ego thinking that because her last name is Clinton she gets a pass to the nomination. If she didn’t believe this she wouldn’t have said that the contest would be over February 5th. She is a pompous, egotistical maniac!!! Wake up America!!!!!! She has her own agenda. Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles can see that!!

    How does she expect to get anything done by creating division in The White House and in the nation? How does she think she’ll get elected without Obama’s supporters? I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS PSYCHO, POWER HUNGRY IDIOT or THAT OLD FART MCCAIN!!!!The man is so old he still owes Moses change. They are two Americans, but I certainly wouldn’t say they are anything close to great, as her husband Bill said they were.

    ICEWATA OBAMA ALL THE WAY!!!! The man is so cool he has icewater in his veins.

  • Up to this point, when Clinton went down this path, I was actually pretty excited about both candidates. I was an Obama supporter, but when my more aggressive friends started to trash Hillary, I always defended her. “Yes, I like Obama better too,” I’d say, “but Hillary is an excellent candidate also.”

    Sure, they were being aggressive against one another, both of them, but so what? This is not a contest for Boy Scout Troop Leader, it’s for the leader of the free world. The red phone ads? Unseemly, but not beyond the pale for me. The constant hammering on Clinton’s judgement? Unseemly, but not beyond the pale. In both cases, it was just what happens when two tough competitors go at each other. Even more, I felt like it was a fair difference for each to point out about the other. I DO think Hillary has more experience and demonstrates a better grasp of key details. And I DO think Obama consistently shows better judgement. Which was more important to me? Though I came down on Obama’s side, it wasn’t obvious to me and wasn’t an easy choice.

    So I was really reeling the day Hillary went from saying “Barack isn’t ready” to saying “Barack isn’t ready, but McCain is”. As a lifelong, loyal Minnesota DFLer it’s not something I ever imagined one of our leaders would do. I felt — and still feel — so incredibly betrayed. That’s not toughness, that’s extreme disloyalty to our party, and it blindsided me. You can say, “My Democratic opponent isn’t as good as me” all day long; that’s politics. But when you say “My Democratic opponent isn’t as good as the Republican one of us will run against”, you’re telling all of us that you are more important than our collective organization.

    Obama’s campaign, lately, has started to say, “Hillary isn’t trustworthy, she’ll say anything to get elected.” I can’t imagine him ever saying, “Hillary isn’t trustworthy, but John McCain is.” So far he hasn’t. (Note: don’t tell me that general “set-the-guy-up-before-I-pummel-him niceties like “McCain is an honorable guy with a distinguished record of service” count, because (1) Obama has a surrogate say these things about Hillary and (2) the surrogate doesn’t talk about McCain’s honor and trustworthiness in the same sentence as “You can’t trust Hillary”.)

    Anyway, I’m a Democrat before I’m a Hillary OR an Obama supporter. And therefore, I’m now in the unfortunate position of thinking that the only way to be a loyal Democrat is to do everything I can to make sure that Hillary Clinton faces the consequences of this kind of disloyalty to our party. It’s sad — but this now is a clear pattern of hers that we Dems can’t ignore. If, somehow, Hillary wins the nomination, count me among those DFLers who think the only way to be loyal to our organization is to promote an “Everyone But Hillary” approach to our votes in November.

  • @Jeffreydj — it’s not about high road or low road. Neither of them has taken the high road in a tough fight. It’s about party loyalty. Democrats can say “that other Democrat is less qualified than me” all day long. What they can’t say is “that other Democrat is less qualified than me AND this Republican.” Just can’t be done.

    • Comments are closed.