Clinton praises McCain’s experience

March 4, 2008

I can appreciate, when the pressure’s on in a competitive primary, there must be a temptation for a presidential candidate to say literally anything to stop a rival. But if for no other reason than the strength of the party, that temptation has to be kept in check.

I’m afraid Hillary Clinton may have forgotten this point yesterday, when she praised John McCain while attacking Barack Obama.

At times, it seemed Clinton was all but accusing Obama of being an empty suit. She warned voters not to be swayed by speeches that left them thinking, “That was beautiful, but what did it mean?”

Defending her provocative television ad suggesting he was not up to the challenge of answering the White House phone at 3 a.m. in a crisis, she told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002” — a reference to the address in which Obama, before being elected to the Senate, had publicly opposed the Iraq invasion that she and McCain had voted to authorize.

I noticed that different media outlets had reported her remarks in slightly different ways, so I thought it was at least possible Clinton had been misquoted. But then I saw that Aravosis had posted a YouTube clip.

It’s a tough primary fight. I get that. But while Republicans are coming together and preparing for the general election, we shouldn’t see leading Democratic candidates suggesting John McCain is preferable to the Democratic frontrunner. It’s divisive and unhelpful.

On MSNBC last night, Keith Olbermann read a report that got the quote slightly wrong, but got the gist of the story. From a Nexis transcript:

OLBERMANN: Let me throw something out, (INAUDIBLE) I’d just saw on the Net, that is a couple of days old from Fort Worth, Texas. It’s a CBS blog from a campaign when the eight million campaign stops. This is Senator Clinton saying, I only read it, I got to read about it in the computer, “I think you’d be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to stay’, she’s talking about the campaign against him, “He’s never been the president but will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

Is it unfair to say that she just ranked Obama third on this topic behind the Republican that she and the Democrats are supposed to be blood oath sworn to defeat?

MADDOW: That’s what you say when you want to be John McCain’s vice presidential choice, that’s not what you say when you’re trying to become the Democratic nominee for president.

OLBERMANN: Unbelievable.

There were points in the fall when Obama was accused — in some instances, fairly — of using conservative frames to make his case, which led some to suggest Obama was running against the party while seeking its nomination.

But as far as I can tell, he never argued publicly that a leading Republican candidate brought a better background to the table than a leading Democratic candidate.

Clinton’s comments were, to put it mildly, disappointing. At a certain point, which I believe we’re at right now, the Democratic Party’s general-election interests have to be taken into consideration by the candidates.

Her endorsement of McCain over Obama was the last straw for me. I’ll still vote for her if the Clintons manage to steal the nomination, but that’s all I’ll do. My only interest at that point would be avoiding a 9-0 lineup on the Court.

Clintons: go home. I’m sick of looking at you, hearing you. There’s no room for your kind of politics in the Demcoratic Party, at least I hope not.

  • no matter what hillary says, obama is the best qualified candidate. hillary just crossed the line, in my opinion. and i can’t write how i truly feel about her at this point, or cb would definitely censor me……. 🙂

  • She’s also started to call Obama “Mr. Feelgood”. Clinton is going negative, and I’m growing weary of it. I am a lifelong Democrat and a fairly significant contributor to this party monetarily. At this point, if she were to win the nomination, I’d probably just sit out the vote in November.

  • Oh that’s where I put my kitchen sink…

    To me, this is sounding a lot like Ann Coulter’s “I’ll vote for Hillary over McCain” spiel, and one thing a generally respected woman of Senator Clinton’s stature doesn’t ever want to do is sound like Ann Coulter.

  • I decided to watch the clip before passing judgment.

    After watching it, I would agree that this is pretty bad. It was my hope that the nomination process would allow the candidates to compete without tearing each other down. But with tactics like this, she is driving a wedge between herself and the voters she will need to win come the Fall.

    The more I see stuff like this, the more I can envision the possibility the Democrats can lose in the Fall.

  • Between behavior like this, and the news that the U.S. House Democrats are trying to figure out how to capitulate on retroactive amnesty (shouldn’t that be unconstitutional on ex post facto grounds?) – it’s hard to resist the argument that we need a different political party that actually represents the Constitution and the American people. I’ll vote for whichever Democratic candidate gets the nomination, even if I believe it was stolen, because of the Supreme Court situation. And I’ll continue to support the ActBlue struggle to find and elect better Democrats, but…

  • Maybe Clinton will be McCain’s choice for VP after all (either her or Lieberman).

    “Tremendous” candidates, all.

  • Saying that the man has “a lifetime of experience” when he is 72 and has been in politics forever is hardly praise. It is a simple fact.

    Clinton is running against Obama right now, not McCain. She isn’t seriously trying to recruit Republican votes by “praising” their candidate. She is pointing out that even her Republican opponent has more experience than Obama does and that even if you doubt Clinton’s experience, McCain’s experience will be there for Obama to run against in the Fall. Obama has very little experience, especially on the national scene.

    This quibble of the Obama folks is just the latest attempted smear from Obamaland. Those who today say they’ve sworn off Clinton because she was so mean to Obama weren’t going to vote for her anyway. You are the ones sounding a bit desperate in my opinion.

  • Isn’t the experience of being a community organizer, a state representative, and a professor of constitutional law just as relevant as doing corporate law in Little Rock, serving on Wal-Mart’s board of directors, and being First Lady of the United States for eight years?

    Hillary’s resume isn’t really that great when you look at it more carefully. I think that her “lifetime of experience” claim only says that she is older than Obama. Her whole “experience” frame has always seemed phony to me. She’s talented and she would make a good president, but she has no real experience advantages over Obama.

    McCain’s military experience consists of being a jet jockey and a POW. How relevant is that, really, honestly? He’s been a senator for a long time. That’s his experience. Period. To say that his resume is superior to Obama’s is nonsense.

    I hope that this race ends tonight. Hillary can still be an effective junior senator from New York if she doesn’t drag herself much further into the mud..

  • The Clintons have always put their self-interests ahead of the party so this is nothing new. If the race goes on past Wedmesday, I’d like Obama hit Clinton hard on her tax returns which are a legitimate concern of mine.

    The Dems have given Clinton a pass on the recent stories about her husband’s involvement with a Canadian financier and a Central Asian dictator. Nor has Clinton been pressed about the extent of Bill’s business dealings in the Middle East.

    Generally speaking, I think the factory workers in Ohio would have been a less inclined to identify with Clinton if they how rich she has become as a result of the presidency.

    LOL – I’d be happy to see Obama request assurances from Hillary that Bill has not had extramarital sex since the Lewinsky affair.

  • New term: Hillbilly Troll : bushwacking blogger pretending to be a Clinton supporter.

    Example: Since academics usually support conclusions with facts and logic, she must be a Hillbilly troll.

  • Some things are beyond the pale in a Democratic primary… I’m not as ecumenical as some Democrats when it comes to this type of behavior. If you take advantage of a Democratic opponent who shows good manners and tries to fight about policy rather than character, you’ve lost my vote in the general election until such time as you demonstrate that you’re once again committed to being a decent human being.

  • …the experience of being a community organizer, a state representative, and a professor of constitutional law…

    As “a professor of constitutional law,” it’s too bad that Obama couldn’t chime in on the point raised by Stephen @ #6 about “retroactive telecom immunity” being an ex post facto law prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

    But I guess he can’t be bothered with petty stuff like the Constitution.

  • Hillary Clinton’s experience also includes discrediting a 12 year old rape vitim in 1975. The court records and the police interviews showed clearly that Clinton’s claims against the child were inaccurate.

    Hillary Clinton’s client received 1 year in county jail and 4 years probation.

    If the media where so biased against Clinton, why haven’t we heard more about this? Why haven’t we heard more about the lawsuit that Peter Paul has against Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton for campaign fraud from her 2000 senate election.

    Go to google and type in “Hillary Clinton 1975 rape case” and “Peter Paul lawsuit against the Clintons” and see what you find.

  • This is not the direction I had hoped Senator Clinton’s campaign would turn. She has gone negative and hard: with the 3 am ad, her rhetoric on experience, and her campaign’s attack on Senator Obama’s speeches. Her negative attacks have worked: she has managed to blunt Senator Obama’s momentum and has managed to hold onto her (now much smaller) leads.

    These are attacks that Senator Obama’s campaign will have to surmount if he is to survive–not the primary, but the general election. As things stand now, Senator Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

    There are a lot of Democrats who remember the 90s vividly and who feel, deep in their hearts, that no amount of ‘bipartisanship’ or reaching out across the aisle will stop the vast right-wing smear machine. We saw the smear machine in action again with the swift-boating of John Kerry (and the outright mockery of the US Armed Forces by Republican delegates wearing purple heart bandaids at the 2004 convention). For these Democrats, the war in Iraq is secondary to having a nominee who will scrap and scrape against the right wing smear machine.

    I think Senator Obama’s challenge, going forward, is to convince these Democrats that he can, in fact, talk softly and carry a big stick.

  • I’m excited to go vote for Obama today. Ohio SoS Jennifer Brunner is predicting an all-time record 50% turnout today – and that’s with no contest on the GOP side…

  • Read it and weep in Obamaland. Thank God the American people are coming to their senses before it’s too late. “If the polls are any indication, Hillary Clinton should have a strong day on March 4, 2008 and have enough of an incentive to take this race to Pennsylvania — extending the race to April 22nd at a minimum. So let’s run down the numbers in the most critical of states that vote in our nation’s Second Super Tuesday”…………………………

    http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

  • My disgust with that woman now exceeds anything I’d post on CBs site.

    Do you mean Mary or Hillary?

  • @15, Senator Obama did in fact vote against the Senate version that passed. He has repeatedly stated that he opposes the immunity provision.

  • “It’s divisive and unhelpful.”

    Unless you know that you cannot win. Then you can just destroy Obama so that McCrap will win & Hillary can run again in 2012!

    Screw the country…
    Screw the party…
    Anything for Billary…

  • The question that I would like answered:

    The Clintons left the White House slightly over 7 years ago, claiming that they were broke & $10 Million in debt. Hillary’s Senate filings indicate a net worth of $35 Million. Bill’s net worth is not available, but has to be greater.

    HOW DID HILLARY GAIN $35 MILLION IN SEVEN YEARS ON A SENATOR’S SALARY???

    Do you think that this would not be an issue running against a rethug? Do you think that the answer(s) will not kill any election chances?

  • I’d suggest she just shot herself in the foot with undecided voters. There were a lot of ways you could take some of her previous comments, and it was usually possible she meant no harm – was just trying to be funny, likable, folksy, whatever. This one seems unambiguous; extremely contemptuous, negative, bitter and – huge understatement – unhelpful.

    Maybe she’s seen some different polls than her star-crazed supporters, and knows this is the end of the line for the Second Clinton Ascendancy. I devoutly hope it is, and anyone still loopy enough to vote for her must be living in a Hillary echo chamber. Mean-spirited, at best. Oh, and about that, “whatever happens, we’re going to be just fine”, Hillary? Forget that.

  • “Obamaland”!?! Why quibble why not say what you really believe that those of us wanting a new direction in politics who support Obama are Obamofascists. C’mon what are you waiting for cross all the way over into the Rove zone ,red seems to fit you well.

  • @sdh #22

    That’s nice. Since he’s “a professor of constitutional law” don’t you think it might be appropriate for him (especially in his position on the national stage) to contribute to the debate about the constitutionality of such legislation?

    Or are we peasants just supposed to accept the edict handed down by King George and his court of jesters in Congress without question? What about the ex post facto law provision in the Constitution? Ex post facto is from the Latin, “after the fact.” I don’t need to be “a professor of constitutional law” to ascertain that ex post facto might apply to “retroactive telecom immunity.” But that’s the point. There is limited debate on the subject.

    Where does this “retroactive immunity” bullshit end? In another post, I wondered when the enablers in Congress might pass retroactive BushCo immunity.

    This “retroactive immunity” stuff is fun. Give it a try. You can retroactively immunize any criminal behavior that ya like.

  • Clinton lost my vote in the primary years ago, and (because I have the political luxury of living in the very blue state of NY) she has just lost my vote in the general election if she becomes the nominee. She increasingly has confirmed the worst suspicions so many of us, Americans in general in addition to progressive Democrats: that she believes in herself and little else. And it is clear that she does not want to see any other Democrat (except Bill) in the White House.
    We all should contact our own state’s superdelegates who are either undecided or are Clinton supporters and call upon them to denounce Clinton for her comments and support Obama.

  • Hillary is going to regret making “experience” the centerpiece of her campaign should she win the nomination. McCain will be much more able to question the depth of her “experience” since that’s her primary reason for running.
    Obama’s running on change, not “experience,” so it’s actually Hillary who will be more vulnerable to charges of inexperience because she’s spent the last year arguing that experience is everything.
    And yeah, giving McCain a nice little campaign clip to use against Obama (Look, even Hillary says McCain’s more qualified!) is pretty shameless, but totally unsurprising. Sigh.
    Here’s to a crappy day today!

  • There was a time not long ago when some imagined the “dream ticket” of Clinton/Obama. But over the past few weeks she has said such derogatory things about him that it’s impossible to see that happening now. Instead, if by some miracle she gets the nomination, she will pick governor/senator/congressman who? And then we will all greet president McCain next January.

  • Oh yeah, where are those tax returns? Obama needs to hit her on this again, and again, and again. It is outrageous that she is making her own party nominate her BEFORE we get to see them. This from the “trust me, I’m fully vetted” candidate. This issue has legs and needs to be explored in depth before it’s too late. I can’t believe she’s gotten away with it this long. Must be the stupid Obama-worshipping media.

  • You know, I was an Edwards backer for a long while. I passionately believe that John Edwards would be a tremendous president, that he has the best policy papers and the best potential to enact real progressive change. But you know what? Not everyone agreed with me, and Edwards didn’t get the support he needed. The media was certainly out to get him and he was overshadowed by two candidates with more compelling personal narratives. I hated to see it happen, but it did.

    Now, unlike Mary, I’ve accepted that democracy doesn’t mean that everyone will agree with me. Moreover, unlike Mary, I understand that whoever gets the Democratic Party’s nomination will be the best hope for the causes that the party stands for, the causes that attracted me to Edwards in the first place. Edwards and Obama and Clinton — and the rest of the candidates, too — all agree on certain fundamental principles and all embrace certain programmatic changes for this nation. Any of them, if elected, would put into practice a real movement for progressive change. I’m committed to supporting whoever the nominee is, no matter what.

    Mary, however, has announced that if her preferred candidate doesn’t win the nomination, she’s going to sit out the general election. The issues, the programs, the proposals don’t matter to her at all it seems. The only thing that matters is the object of her adoration.

    Sorry, but you’re not a Democrat, Mary. If you were a Democrat, you’d do whatever it took in the general election to advance the policies that we agree on and rally behind the standard-bearer that we as a diverse and broad party have rallied around.

    Instead, you’re a Clinton cultist. If your chosen candidate doesn’t get anointed, you’ll insult the other voters, mock their intelligence, smear their character, and generally act like a spoiled three-year-old throwing a pathetic little tantrum.

    You keep telling the Obama backers to grow up. That’s rich. Cultist, heal thyself.

  • Hillary just crossed the line to the dark side. If she wins the nomination, I refuse to hold my nose and vote for her. I will vote for every other Dem on the ballot, but I will leave her line blank. I feel that strongly.

  • like i said before, a mccain/clinton ticket can tout their experience against obama in the generals and they can go on being best buds…

  • A lot of the voters that the Dems are counting on for November were turned on by Obama and they’ll flip off if he’s not the candidate and that’s because Hillary has taken this course of action.

    There was a point in the last debate as I was reading Josh Marshall’s live blogging of it when Russert was pushing Obama with the stupid Farracon endorsement and Clinton interrupted. Josh wrote, “I thought she was going to do something classy, but i was wrong.” I also thought she was going to take Obama’s side against Russert’s idiotic attack, but she didn’t. She piped up like a good little schoolgirl that SHE denounced some of her backers even though she thought it might cost her. I’ve been waiting for her to be classy, and she just has never come through.

  • Hilary and the DLC have seen the writing on the wall.
    This move was aimed at a 2012 match up of McCain versus Clinton when the Democrats will accept her as “The candidate we should have run in 2008”.

    An Obama victory will damage the moneyed interests in the Democratic party more than McCain. The DLC can stand 4 more years out of power. What they can’t stand is being castrated by their own party by electing someone not wholly owned by their patrons.

  • She is pointing out that even her Republican opponent has more experience than Obama does… -Mary

    Really, now you’re just getting silly. Well, actually, you’ve been silly for quite a while, but this in particular takes the proverbial cake.

    Hillary’s argument is that experience is more valuable than judgment. Why should people vote for her over McCain then? (Of course, after your repeated incorrect use of ‘the democrat party’ yesterday, I highly suspect McCain is your real horse in this race and you just love Hillary as an opponent.)

    Experience without wisdom is worthless, and every day she speaks she illustrates that she doesn’t have the wisdom to lead.

    Wisdom and judgment are more valuable that being the President of the Young Republicans at Wellesley College, and Obama has more wisdom and judgment in his little finger than Hillary has in her whole body.

    Clinton is making me literally nauseated at this point, but at least the dunderhead commenters that support her give me a good laugh to balance it out.

  • My friends, Hillary has been telling you for months that experience is the most important quality a leader can possess. Well, my friends, that is true, and, my friends, I’ve been around since dinosaurs ruled the land. My friends, I walked this earth with Jesus, oh yeah, we were best buddies. He used to say to me, “Johnny, killing Arabs is a blast, my friend.”

    So I plan to walk with my friends on the path that Jesus laid before me killing Arabs, my friends. My friends. My friends. My friends.

    Oh, an Mary, thanks for the vote! Go experience!

  • Well, guys, look on the bright side. Rev Mike can say to the Republican base, which “hates” Hillary, “look, Hillary’s endorsing(!) McCain!”

    Maybe knock a few more votes his way.

  • And regardless of who get the nomination, that Clinton video snippet is guaranteed to be used against the nominee in the general election. No doubt about it.

  • No matter what happens today or in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton absolutely, positively cannot get to the convention with the most elected delegates. It’s simple arithmetic. As a result, the super delegates will affirm the the voters’ decisions and Obama will definitely be our Democratic nominee.

    Hillary’s efforts to continue her campaign and tear down our nominee arises entirely out of her egoism (i.e. excessive preoccupation with one’s own well-being and interests). She’s lost my respect and admiration forever.

  • some imagined the “dream ticket” of Clinton/Obama

    That was never a dream ticket for anyone except the Clintonites: they wanted the energy and organization of the Obama supporters without having to actually do any of the work to build a real organization. It’s not like associating with the Clintons ever did much for other politicians’ careers– even Gore probably would have been better off becoming governor of Tennessee in ’94 & running for the WH in 2000, instead of being twisted into unflattering knots defending Bill– and their nonpolitical associates suffered even more with jail and legal expenses. I will say they’ve created nice careers for spin doctors and other assorted hacks, though… the only thing they’re willing to invest in is a defense team, not others’ futures.

    No, Obama knows perfectly well that being her VP would have been a third-wheel assignment at best (Bill would probably even take all the good funerals), and more likely a slow political death.

  • I will put forth my lifetime of experience.
    -Hillary Clinton

    WHAT EXPERIENCE?!?!?!?!

    Sorry to yell, but what the holy hell has she ever done that makes her more qualified to be Commander In Chief than Obama?

    Hell, what makes her more qualified than me to be C-I-C? I’ve worked with the military every day for five years now, so I know more than she does about what these families go through. Per her logic, I’m also qualified.

    Seriously. She keeps going on and on about experience, yet has never offered a shred of proof of what, precisely, that evidence is. So what the hell is it?

    And sorry, but sharing a bed with the Commander in Chief during the 90s doesn’t count.

    Side note: You know, I will still vote for Clinton if she gets the nod. But it will be yet ANOTHER example of me voting against someone, rather than for someone. And I’m really, really getting sick and damn tired of having to do that.

  • Doubtful at 40 hits the nail on the head.

    Hillary’s argument is that experience is more valuable than judgment. Why should people vote for her over McCain then?

    By Hillary’s own calculus, she loses the experience contest to McCain by a mile. McCain served in the military, HRC didn’t. McCain has many more years than HRC in elective office, and many more years of foreign policy credentials. McCain can make a much more compelling case for leadership qualities because he commanded men in the military, and he can actually point to tough decisions he had to make, and tough spots he’s been in.

    So paradoxically, the very experience dichotomy she sets up between herself and Barack Obama would sink her in a matchup with McCain. I’m sure the McCain campaign is gleefully collecting clips of the experience arguments from her own lips to throw in her face should she win the nomination. She would be hoist by her own petard.

  • Hey, let me try this…

    “Senator Obama has spent 20 years in community organizing and elected office fighting to reform a corrupt system. Senator McCain has taken some courageous and politically risky stands to reform a corrupt system. Senator Clinton has taken money and assiduously cultivated the support of the system’s most corrupt elements–but she’s given speeches about reform and change.”

    To the Clintons: GO. AWAY.

  • There’s more evidence that the Republicans want to run against Hillary. First, the Republican governor of Florida has offered to pay for another Florida primary so that she’d have another chance to catch up in the delegate count. In addition, Rush Limbaugh is on the radio urging Ohio Republicans and Texas Republicans to go to the polls to vote for her (her victory would be great for Limbaugh’s ratings too).

    I hate to say it, but If she gets the nomination…she’ll lose in November. There’s too many independents and Republicans that hate her, and if this blog is any indication, she won’t get much support from the left either.

  • JKap/Stephen: Retroactive telecom immunity is wrong on many levels, but almost certainly not because it would qualify as an ex-post facto law. Generally the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional only ex-post facto laws that retrospectively punish, criminalize, or increase the severity or likelihood of criminal punishment. Immunity is generally not a problem.

  • RE: CJ at 50:

    At the risk of sounding uninformed about my own state’s rules, I thought Ohio is a closed primary. I was asked Democrat or Republican ballot, then asked if that was my true/declared party affiliation. Ohioan, if you’re still here, can you help me out?

  • @MLE #51

    Cool. We can have retroactive BushCo immunity. We can let Fredo off the hook retroactively for lying to Congress, etc. The possibilities are endless!

    However, I would add that your comment is in no way sufficient public debate on such a serious matter and what I can only think of as a Pandora’s box about to be opened with this “retroactive immunity” bullshit that the Democrats in Congress are endorsing.

    I also think that it’s humorous that when I called Senators Obama and Durbin’s offices to express my contempt on this matter, I was told by Dick Durbin’s staff that he opposes the legislation because it is an ex post facto law. Perhaps they were just blowing smoke up my ass.

    Hey, I know who might be able to settle this: “a professor of constitutional law.” Nah, not important enough for Obama to trouble with.

    No, the Constitution is shredded with hardly a whimper from the anointed candidates. Pathetic.

  • I think her bit about McCain say all you need to say about experience. It don’t mean jack.

    What she and McCain have yet to realize is that we are sick of experienced politicians, they are the ones who have taken us to where we are. People want a new perspective, someone who hasn’t been jaded by the system and all of its influence.

    After Bush we all need a fresh of breathe of fresh air and that is what he is offering and all the non-sense coming from the Hillary camp is only proving this with each mis-step they take.

    Today is my day to vote and I have been undecided until last week. It’s not what they offer that convinced me, it’s what they don’t offer. And I for one do not want Hillary’s business as usual in Washington politics. I am tired of people bringing each other down, I want them to lift each other up and Obama is offering that. Regardless if he actually gets anything done, his perspective is worth trying, he can not do any worse if he tried.

    And thanks Hillary for giving McCain an awesome sound bite about experience in November.

  • RE: KMB at 52:

    I stand corrected. Limbaugh is specifically encouraging Texas Republicans to vote for Hillary. I assume that means that Ohio Republicans don’t have the opportunity. Sorry for the confusion.

    The point stands…they prefer to run against her.

  • NOW I’ve got it!

    Ms. Triangulation strikes again.

    The Democrats nominate Obama, the Republicans go with McCain.

    What a perfect time for the IDEAL Ticket:

    *C*L*I*N*T*O*N*-
    Lieberman
    2008!

    (Hold on a minute, my snark button is stuck. Okay, there it goes.)

    Seriously, this has gone beyond the pale. There is no way to excuse this, or her statement that she will continue the fight ‘beyond the primaries.’ I was originally in the ‘I simply can’t vote for Hillary’ camp. But then I got ‘realistic’ and was arguing that we had two good candidates, that I thought Obama would be better, but that at least Hilary wasn’t McCain. But after this, I will leave the line blank or write in someone like Obama.

    I devoutedly hope that not only will this backfire on her and cost her many of the Superdelegates she thinks she has, but that — if the video is used against Obama in the General Election — it will also result in some punishment drected at her in the next Congress. Certainly the idea that she would be a good ‘majority leader’ is now dead.

  • I can’t believe no one has mentioned the T word yet – triangulation. This is the most blatant example of playing both sides against the center I’ve seen on the campaign trail for self-serving purposes and counter to the purposes of the party she is trying to represent. Yes it is a cunning move on her part to try to use McCain as a wedge against her primary opponent, but it is also further cementing support for Obama from those trying to be neutral to each candidate and supportive of the Democratic party. This clip should cause a bump in donations to Barack’s campaign.

    Experience only matters if it teaches a person to do the right thing in the future. Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez have tremendous experience leading nations, but I don’t trust their judgement worth a damn and sure as hell wouldn’t want them to be president of this nation. I’ll take wisdom over time spent just sitting in an important seat any day.

  • CJ – no problem – like I said, just checking…

    BTW – voted in Cuyahoga County w/new optical scan paper ballots put in place after problematic vote tallying in November. Seemed to work okay.

  • I hope someone picks this up from TPM Election Central, but she has now attempted to use the Rezko ‘scandal’ against Obama.

    “To make his case, Hillary spokesperson Phil Singer pointed to this little detail in the Chicago Sun Times today:

    “Tony Rezko’s wife, family members and friends crowded behind him onto a courtroom bench. Spectators spilled into an overflow courtroom. Among them was a staffer from U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, taking detailed notes.”

    Singer noted that Obama has a staffer on hand at Rezko’s trial, accused Obama of failing to answer questions about his relationship with Rezko, and concluded that the story “should set off alarm bells in newsrooms across America.”

    I’m now not sure I was kidding about the 3rd Party above. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

  • Said the Jedi to the other Jedi: “Siths come in pairs; a master, and an apprentice.”

    Said the other Jedi to the first: “But which is the master, and which is the apprentice?”

    A Democrat embracing and complimenting a Republican, at the expense of another Democrat. For some strange reason, that sounds very familiar to me. Echoes of “1994” and “triangulation” keep popping up.

    Curiouser and curiouser, methinks….

  • If Hillary puts a thug in the WH she should be hounded from public life with vocal disruptions of every public appearance she makes. Of course, I will hold my nose and vote for her if I have to and would be more than pleased if she turned out to be more than a corporate apologist. Being a social liberal won’t cut it; it’s lack of money and opportunity that are going to wreck the lower half of our society.

  • Further proof that the Clintons are and always have been traitors. They are self-involved fuckwits who were always out for themselves and the devil take the hindmost. She is the lowest scum to ever run for the Presidency – even lower than that lying sack of shit she married.

    And the news is that 25% of the Hillarybots – the old, uneducated, white racist morons (the people who before they were old were still uneducated white racist morons, who I have opposed all my life) – say they’ll vote for McCain if The Empress isn’t the candidate (as opposed to only 10% of Obama supporters – myself I wouldn’t vote for her under any circumstances, but I’d never vote for him).

  • Her comment is taken out of context:

    The context is, Obama says he has the wherewithal to stand up and make the right choice – and he states this because he stood up against the Iraq war.

    But when it comes down to looking at votes, Obama hasn’t stood up. He hasn’t voted differently (more absently) than Clinton. He didn’t have to vote on the Iraq resolution, and he hasn’t had to deal with foreign leaders or military policy so far in his career as a legislator.

    If people want to say Obama’s chances are better against McCain… And they have, repeatedly…

  • What she and McCain have yet to realize is that we are sick of experienced politicians,

    Like George W Bush, yep yep.

    Fairweather friends, these guys will bite you in the end. They don’t care what the issues are.

  • WTF?

    ‘mary’ in this thread doesn’t say she’ll vote or not for the Democratic nominee.

    But there are several here saying they won’t vote if it’s Clinton. And in the same post as one of those, saying more Clinton supporters won’t vote for Obama in the general election.

    Talk about slimy, the Obama supporters can’t bother to deal with points on equal terms.

    ‘constitutional scholar’ vs ‘just a lawyer’
    ‘community activist’ vs ‘just a wife’
    ‘state legislator’ vs ‘just First Lady’
    ‘Senator for two less years’ vs ‘Senator for two more years’
    ‘four good bills passed’ vs ‘twenty’
    ‘didn’t vote on any military force’ vs ‘actually showed up to vote’

    They’re both just as entrenched and toys of the ‘Democratic Elite’ if you believe in such. The only difference in this thread is how misogynist and blame-happy the Obama supporters are. Stop making your candidate look so horrible, please.

  • Last thought:

    Why is pointing out that McCain has years more service under his belt than either of the Democratic candidates different than one of the Democratic nominees saying he wanted to emulate Ronald Reagan?

  • Crissa, he never said he wanted to emulate Regan, he pointed out that Repugs, represented by the Regan years, were able to sell their ideas to the public. No matter how you construe it, Obama never gave aid and comfort to the enemy, as Clinton did with yesterday’s comments. What she said is that, if she is not the nominee, you are better off voting for McCain. As a lifelong Democrat, I am disgusted. Until today, I truthfully maintained that I could cheerfully vote for either Clinton or Obama. Not now. If she is the nominee, I don’t think I can vote for her.

  • ‘mary’ in this thread doesn’t say she’ll vote or not for the Democratic nominee.

    You obviously don’t read the comments regularly, as she has made this claim in virtually every other thread. Here’s one from the “Clinton and Obama and the media … oh my” thread

    You assume that the base will follow Obama wherever he goes, but I believe the support for Clinton is showing that substantial numbers of base voters do not wish to do that. I will NEVER vote for Obama, nor will I vote for McCain. I will either sit this one out or vote for Nader.

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14766.html

    Nice to see one indignant clueless person sticking up for another, though.

  • After much thought and some time to cool down, I’ve decided that I will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. Pragmatism wins out over passion, in my case.

  • I think she’s furious at Obama for threatening what she sees as her birthright. I still believe, as I believed when there were many more candidates, that any Democrat is better than any Republican, so I’ll vote for the Democratic nominee in November. But if Clinton is that nominee, I will vote for her VERY RELUCTANTLY!

    And I’m old enough to remember who had “Experience Counts” as a campaign slogan. Hint: if he had won that year, we might have had Watergate eight years early.

    • Comments are closed.