Clinton unloads over Obama mailings — but is she vulnerable?

Hillary Clinton, hoping to utilize an untapped area of attack, unloaded on Barack Obama today. The subject: a couple of direct-mail pieces.

In one of her sharpest attacks of the 2008 race, Clinton blasted two mailings Obama’s campaign has put out criticizing Clinton’s views on health care and trade, accusing him of “using tactics that are straight out of Karl Rove’s playbook.” […]

“I have to express my deep disappointment that he is continuing to send false and discredited mailings,” Clinton said at a press conference after a speech here, holding the mailings in her hand as she railed against them. “He says one things in his speeches and then he turns around does this. It is not the new politics the speeches are about. It is not hopeful. It is destructive.”

She added: “Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That’s not what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio — let’s have a debate about your tactics.”

“Enough about the speeches, and the big rallies, and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove’s playbook,” she said angrily. “This is wrong and every Democrat should be outraged.”

Given the degree of outrage, one might assume these are new Obama mailings, but they’re actually old ones, which the Clinton campaign hopes to exploit now for new mileage.

The merit of the charges is a little more complex than the campaigns would probably prefer.

One mailing says that Clinton’s health care plan would force people to purchase insurance, even if they can’t afford it, which the former first lady likened to the ads by insurance companies that attacked the universal health care plan she crafted in the 1990s. Another mailer quotes a newspaper article saying Clinton considered the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement a “boon” to the economy, which Clinton says she did not say and which the N.Y. newspaper in question has since clarified was its word, not hers.

Substantively, Clinton is right. The healthcare piece from the Obama campaign is wrong, and I denounced it several weeks ago, when it first started hitting mailboxes. The NAFTA ad isn’t as problematic, but it does misquote Clinton, which is clearly wrong.

The reason I think today’s Clinton response may be excessive, though, in addition to the delayed outrage, is that both campaigns have been playing fast and loose when it comes to their mailings.

Throughout January, for example, Clinton sent a conservative mailing on taxes that could have just as easily been written by the Republican National Committee or Grover Norquist. Clinton used anti-tax rhetoric that Democrats usually reject as nonsense, not embrace as fodder for attacks against other Democrats.

Shortly thereafter, the Clinton campaign relied on a very sketchy mailing in New Hampshire that falsely questioned Obama’s support for reproductive rights. And shortly after that, the Clinton campaign sent a misleading mailer about the manufactured controversy about Obama’s “present” votes.

They’re the kind of mailings that step all over Clinton’s message today. If we’re being fair and even-handed, both campaigns have been guilty of the same mistake — misleading mailings that rely on conservative frames to make bogus charges. It’s unfortunate, but on the political richter scale, the mail pieces are annoying, but ultimately forgettable.

It’s what makes today’s complaining seem a little over the top. “Karl Rove’s playbook”? “Shame on you”? Had the Clinton campaign not ceded the moral high ground earlier, the outrage might be a little more compelling.

“The NAFTA ad isn’t as problematic, but it does misquote Clinton, which is clearly wrong.”

That is 100% false. Look closely at the mailer. The attribution to Newsweek is right there on the second page. And it never states those words came out of Clinton’s mouth. Rather, following Newsweek, it attributes that attitude and view to her but never directly attributes the quote to her.

Here’s the mailer:

http://blog.cleveland.com/openers/2008/02/1obma.pdf

  • While all your points about her mailings are accurate and I wish they’d be reported more prominently in the MSM, I think the real thing that’s gonna crap on her message is the delayed-timing aspect of it. When Obama can go up to the podium, shrug his shoulders and point out the mailers have been around for weeks and it defies credulity that she’s just seeing them for the first time now, she comes off as totally disingenuous. The artifice of the campaign becomes apparent.

    A good campaign is one where the artifice isn’t just invisible; it’s where you forget there’s any artifice at all. That’s what Obama excels at and it’s a major weakness of Hillary’s. She just re-enforces that fact with her “manufactured” outrage, because it so obviously is manufactured.

    She keeps giving Obama openings to call her dishonest or accusing her of practicing stale/old politics without being considered “going negative”. This is just another example of her being badly out-played by him. He comes off as statesman-like and his assessment, which is actually a pretty devastating attack on her character and honesty, comes off as an honest and having an almost-disinterested take to it.

  • http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/14/did-hillary-clinton-reall_n_86674.html:

    More recently, at the Las Vegas Democratic Debate on November 15, 2007, she offered the following, more concise declaration: “NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would.”

    Not a boon.
    Not a failure.
    Some place between the hypotenuse and the right angle opposite it…

    Shall we just cut to the quick and say: She’s mid-triangle on Nafta?
    You know… that vast region of indifference where her support of Bush’s Iraq war exists…
    And here enabling of Bush in Iran exists…
    And where her missed vote on telecom immunity exists…

    It’s that vast nebulous region of wishy-washy-Washingtoness…
    Which Her Highness seems to gravitate to with ease and graceless grace:
    In other words: she’s in the Clinton zone.

    [Run the theme music please:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y%5D

  • Clinton does her best impression of the pot, especially with the Rovian accusation.

    This level of outrage just makes her look desperate, mostly because she is.

  • If this rant doesn’t become her “Dean scream” moment, I don’t know what’s wrong with voters in this country.

    Regardless of whether she used the word “boon” or something else, there is ample documented evidence of her support for NAFTA – she even referred to it as a “success” in one of her books. As well, “mandated” healthcare means people must participate (no choice), and she’s on record as saying that those who don’t will have their wages garnished. There’s nothing false about those ads.

    Here is the link to both Hillary’s meltdown and Obama’s response.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4334645

    She must have received some very bad news from her internal polling this morning to provoke her into launching this foolish gambit. She must be tanking in OH and TX big time.

    In addition, does she think voters in OH are stupid? That state has lost over 200K jobs to NAFTA and you can bet they know her husband passed that legislation into law and that she supported it. What is she doing?

  • In addition, does she think voters in OH are stupid?

    Well, almost half of them did vote for Dubya in 2004…

  • This shouldn’t be a problem for Clinton. Surely, in seven years in the Senate, she has made speeches or introduced bills offering corrective measures to NAFTA. Wouldn’t it be easier to just list them one by one instead of comparing Obama to Rove, or shouting like we’re all foreigners?

  • Hillary Clinton is going where a Democrat shouldn’t be going. On his official Clinton Campaign blog, Howard Wolfson linked to Politico’s stupid story about Obama’s supposed tie to Bill Ayers.

    Clinton spokesman Phil Singer sent an e-mail to the media asking what the Republicans will think of the NY Sun’s article about Obama and Ayers. This prompted ABC News to do a story about the Clintons’ ties to terrorists, “Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores Her Own Radical Ties”.

    I feel like slapping that woman silly. This is just another of many instances of the Clintons putting their own interests ahead of the party.

  • Those flyers have been around here (Ohio) for weeks now. The only reason she’s complaining is that they ARE having an effect.

    Here in Ohio, a lot of people still remember that NAFTA was on life support—until Billy J stepped up and made it his mission to get the thing through. Check the record, people—Dems had the opportunity to kill this rabid thing. There were enough Dems in the Senate alone to kill it, had they stood their original ground.

    Now, let’s bring Hillary into the picture, shall we?

    Does she claim to not have been in Brownsville, Texas in November of ’96?

    What about Davos in ’98—when she was thanking multinational corporations for helping to support NAFTA? Yep—she actually went to Switzerland to thank ’em.

    Hillary is a corporate stooge from the get-go—and now she’s upset because Ohioans know it. Like I said the other night:

    Ohio will never surrender to Fortress Hillary….

  • Those flyers have been around here (Ohio) for weeks now. The only reason she’s complaining is that they ARE having an effect.

    Here in Ohio, a lot of people still remember that NAFTA was on life support—until Billy J stepped up and made it his mission to get the thing through. Check the record, people—Dems had the opportunity to kill this rabid thing. There were enough Dems in the Senate alone to kill it, had they stood their original ground.

    Now, let’s bring Hillary into the picture, shall we?

    Does she claim to not have been in Brownsville, Texas in November of ’96?

    What about Davos in ’98—when she was thanking multinational corporations for helping to support NAFTA? Yep—she actually went to Switzerland to thank ’em.

    Hillary is a corporate stooge from the get-go—and now she’s upset because Ohioans know it. Like I said the other night:

    Ohio will never surrender to Fortress Clinton….

  • Sue: Thanks for the link.
    Incredible response on Barack’s part. He is getting sharper and sharper.
    Like a razor times 10.
    This kid will positively filet, debone, and parboil McCain.
    I can’t hardly wait…

  • I agree with #1- The mailing did not misquote Hillary. Also- mandating that people buy health insurance does exactly that- forces you to buy it even if you can’t afford it. The mailings are fine.

    But what is really going on here is obvious. Lots of people gave Hillary Clinton’s campaign lots of money. For their sake, she can’t act like she’s just giving up, hence a big blustey last gasp. She’s going through the motions so her donors can’t accuse her of leaving something untried. She has to do this and she’s getting it out of the way now, so she’ll be free to drop out March 5.

  • She must have received some very bad news from her internal polling this morning […] — sue, @5

    Not internal… Check this out:
    http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/

    Obama is up on her in *both* Texas and Ohio, though still by fairly low margins (as of yesterday). Of the four March 4th primaries (the other two states being Vermont and Rhode Island) she’s projected to win only in RI, and that by small-ish (though more than margin of error) percentage.

  • Whoa.

    But who is “Decision Analyst Inc”? I’m not a poll junkie but still, I don’t think I’ve heard of them. Are they reputable? What’s their track record??

  • Not only is Clinton’s outrage not “compelling”, as CB put it, it’s not even real. Hillary Clinton has a private face and a public face, and her public face is about as authentic as a talking doll. She feigns sadness, warmth, anger and empathy, on cue, as needed. Unfortunately for her, she’s as transparent as toilet water.

    We have two Democratic candidates left…one’s an adult and the other isn’t. I’m hoping that the good people of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island are able to distinguish between the two.

  • Obama had better be practicing his response for the next debate, but not to the point of appearing slick. Sooner or later, hemming and hawing is going to cost him. In the general, if not now.

  • Steve T, @ 14

    Never heard of them myself 🙂 They may not be the most reliable, since they’re an online pollster (according to their own self-promotional stuff). And nothing much to be found on them in Wiki, either:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_Analyst_%28company%29

    But I expect that a lot of polls are likely to be coming out after the weekend and they all are likely to show similar trends — upwards mobility for Obama.

  • Michael, @16

    In general, he won’t be hobbled (or not as much) by having to pull his punches, because in general, he’ll be fighting someone from the opposing party. In primaries, it’s different. As long as there’s any possibility that Hillary might still get the nomination, he cannot trash her and undermine her chances for general. I think the same is true of Hillary. I know many of you can’t stand her and I have strong reservations about her (and her campaign) myself, but I don’t think she’s really throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. I think she’s throwing as much as — she hopes — will slow him down enough for her to catch up but not so much that he’d have no chance in general if he’s the nominee. IOW, I don’t think this particular devil is quite as black as she’s being painted as.

  • One last thing and I will get out of your hair…

    First: This is the most remarkable moment in the campaign so far…
    If she wasn’t done before, she is done now. What you are seeing is nothing less than a full blown meltdown. She is as far from being presidential as you can get. Shrill is the operative word here…

    Second: Bill Clinton blew his “reputation” going after Barack. And now Hillary Clinton has blown out a parietal lobe…

    Would someone please get out a broom and a dustpan and sweep the mess out of the way?
    Or does Chelsea have to go out drooling too?

  • Thanks for the analysis, Ernest. I was gawking at the Obama “leads” in Texas/Ohio and wanted to read up on Decision Analyst. I see that my suspicions were warranted.

  • OK it’s a self-selected online poll, apparently. Shouldn’t be given a whole lot of deference. Not that it contradicts the trends, but it seems there’s a reason it’s such an outlier.

  • Callimaco @1, thanks for the link to the actual mailer. Um, there’s nothing untrue in it. But maybe Sen Obama is being Rovian, in that he’s attacking her strength as a triangulater.

    Tom Cleaver has been suggesting that Sen Obama is inside Sen Clinton’s OODA loop; today’s rant seems to have proven Mr. Cleaver correct. But it makes me wonder how far she will go…

    The thing is that NAFTA is a lot like the AUMF in Iraq vote. She appears to have changed her mind (or wants us to believe that she has), but won’t come out and say that she was wrong/made a mistake. Some people swear up and down that she was always against NAFTA, but to believe that we not only have to simply trust her, but we have to assume that the times she spoke highly of it she was lying. Which Hillary Clinton am i supposed to believe?

    She’s lucky that she’s not campaigning against me, because i would have brought up NAFTA a lot: every time there was an immigration question in a debate, for example. Of course she’d probably just blame it on H.W. Bush, like she did in the Time interview.

    http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1584649,00.html

    Still, i don’t like the mailers…on general principle.

  • None of you getting the point (maybe Hillary should have been more direct and said “He’s the same as me”) — yes, she’s done the same stuff, but it’s Obama’s camp that claims he’s pristine and walks on water. She’s trying to get people to see that he’s a politician too (an eloquent one, but a politician nonetheless). I think he’s going to win, and I’ll vote for him in November, but I really think we’re caught in a wave that might crest over the summer.

  • Alex

    No, I think we all understand the point, just also that it’s a pretty poorly executed and pretty lame strategy. “He’s just as bad as me!” isn’t a very persuasive argument to vote for Hillary, and the idea that Obama can practice old school Chicago politics and get away with it without being tagged as a negative politician is a point in his favor

    Fruther, it’s pretty obvious that he’s not “just like Hillary”, and the equivalence is pretty facile. The NAFTA mailer is for all intents and purposes accurate, and the health insurance mailer is far closer to accurate than either of her abortion mailers or her social security mailers, which were all plain terrible.

    Further, it’s clear that Obama has some pretty obvious political talents that Hillary does not, both in his ability to motivate people and in his ability to lift people up, not to mention that he’s actually been quite good at giving people reasons to vote for him, rather than arguing for why his opponent is unacceptable (Hillary on Obama: naive, irresponsible, inexperienced, not vetted, etc etc etc)

    And of course they have vastly different approaches and philosophies both to electoral politics and governance. The idea that because Obama is willing to send out a negative mailer somehow makes him and Hillary the same is laughable in its superficiality.

  • but they’re actually old ones, which the Clinton campaign hopes to exploit now for new mileage.
    No, Steve, she says she got them from someone in the Ohio crowd — i.e., the Obama campaign is still sending them out. They may be the same old mailings as you denounced before, but you should then denounce them again, not find ways to titrate them off against some actual old mailing you remember the Clinton campaign sending out.

    People want these primaries to be over (me too), and figure Obama’s it (me too), so Hillary’s doing a “meltdown” (not me). That was — and is — a bad mailing, you said so simply once, you should have simply said so again.

  • Michael —

    We can argue about the equivalence, but it’s clear he’s gotten a free ride by the press (and they hate Hillary (Chris Matthews, etc.), and I wonder whether that will continue in the

    You can’t have it both ways. The entire Obama mantra has been that he doesn’t get into the gutter. It’s just like McCain and the lobbyist flap. You come down much harder when you play the holier than thou campaign.

    Yes, on governance, they do have a different philosophy — I worry that he’s maybe got a little bit of Joementum in him — compromise and bipartisanship for the sake of being bipartisan. You and I know that’s why Edwards hasn’t endorsed Obama. We’ll see after he’s (hopefully) President. I, for one, want to ram our majority-supported progressive agenda down the throat of Mitch McConnell et al. Compromise is off the table when we have a 50+ seat majority in the House and 58+ seats in the Senate and a Dem president.

    I also think it’s crap about the “electoral politics” point. First of all, Obama is I’m sure happy that 2 of HRC’s stronger states (both because they came early and because of demographics) are off the board. She started (through no fault of hers or the people of FL or MI (it was the state Dems and DNC, playing a game of chicken)) down. So, he can afford to play holier than thou. He would be making a big deal about it if it were SC or GA, right now. Also, are you (and Obama) willing to say that if HRC were to pull out an upset in TX, OH, PA and RI and win PR in June, and have a 5 seat pledged delegate lead, and he’s pulled ahead in the superdelegate race (which he’s closing in on, given his momentum and perceived better coattails, etc.), he would bow out of the race? Please.

    And, yes, he’s got some oratorical skills, but I must say that I find him less than impressive (but yes, I will vote for him, and I don’t think that’s the be all and end all, although Obama’s supporters seem to think that it is…) when he has to think on his feet/isn’t reading a speech.

    Whatever — he’s going to win, I will vote for him — I just don’t find him as compelling as others do.

  • Sorry — I didn’t complete my first paragraph — I wonder whether it will continue in the general election when the press decides to get “fair” and do all the things it should have done during the primaries, and rips him to shreds.

  • Hillary may not want to own NAFTA but she does. Also, she sounded like one of my teachers, ssshhhing me, and if this rant has any appeal, it is to white women of a certain age. The rest of us are appalled.

  • Obama is going to lose in November. He has no DEPTH. I don’t know who gives him so much money – which he uses for SMEAR camaign, because he has no intention of discussing about REAL issues. Everytime, he says the ISSUES are in his website. Not all have internet access to read his website details. Can’t he just talk about what he stands for? Everytime in the debate he stutters on issue questions, he gets unmindful as if looking for a teleprompter. I think – he will be an excellent PREACHER, but an ineeficient President (only if he gets elected at all).

  • Maybe Obama and Huck can get a job at the same church to preach to their minions.

    The real news starts Monday when “Tony” Resko goes on trial. I hope ots on court TV. I can’t wait for opening statement should get interesting.

    Nader announces tomorrow that he’ll be running and thats another bad sign for democrats.

  • I can’t wait for this primary to be over, and find it cruelly ironic to be relying on Texas and Ohio to end what is becoming an embarrassment.

  • Uh, Jkan, he talks about issues. He doesn’t belabor them, because people don’t really want to hear it. But if you want to hear a lot of specifics, just go watch his Houston post-WI speech. He gets wonky to a fault.

    Does his Houston speech prove that he’ll be a great president? Of course not!! The only way to prove you’d be a great president is to — uh — actually BE a great president. But since we don’t have a proven great president on the ballot, we need to look for other clues. And I think that his years of organizing at the local level, his ability in IL to get important legislation passed that was opposed by all the relevant, powerful interests (the interrogation taping rule) and his ability to generate true excitement and bring new voters into the process bode well. Not to mention, assuming he wins, delivering a sound thumpin’ to the supposedly “inevitable” Clinton machine suggests some real talent as well. Of course, we can only see.

  • “Nader announces tomorrow that he’ll be running and thats another bad sign for democrats.”

    Nader is far less than irrelevant this year. He got a lot of young, disaffected lefties excited in ’00 when they thought Gore was too Clintonian. This year they’ll have Obama to be excited about. Nader should consider this election to be a smashing success if he breaks 1%. Too bad, he really seems committed to destroying the last of his wonderful (but ancient) legacy.

  • Nader? The people who remember who he is generally hate him.

    I need to make the point that the blogosphere is very very white, something Gilliard would occasionally point out. I think therefore that it underestimates the surge of African American voting that will take place.

  • I’m a second-wave feminist, white woman of a certain age, and I am appalled by the Hillary “scolding.” Maybe it will appeal to some of the sisterhood, but for myself, wow is it time for a generational shift!

  • In the video, Hillary makes the point that these flyers are being handed out to people still even though she’s discredited them several times in the past. She has a valid point. Why is the Obama campaign still using these false brouchures/mailers?

    I was also very disappointed to see Clinton described as emotional by ABC and the editorializing of her speech from news organizations across the board. It is clear the media hates Clinton and has no ability to judge her fairly. She was not emotional and if Obama gave this speech or McCain gave this speech they would have been portrayed as strongly calling the other candidate on shady tactics.

  • Keep using the mailers. Force Clinton to open her yap and scold her opponent on the national stage of the Ohio debate—and then smack her silly with the “you were for it before you were against it” line. Expose the fact that she went to Switzerland to thank European corporate interests for supporting NAFTA—and then make her defend why she went to Europe, to thank European business interests, for a North American treaty that’s on the books as not even being an actual treaty.

    That must be part of the “35 years’ experience” she’s been selling everyone for the past year.

    She cannot have it both ways. She cannot be both “pro” and “con.” She tried in Texas—and they booed her for it. I predict a similar result here in Ohio—especially on March 4.

  • Alex said, “I wonder whether it will continue in the general election when the press decides to get “fair” and do all the things it should have done during the primaries, and rips [Obama] to shreds.

    Frank Rich: “If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard…”

  • Just me (38): “I was also very disappointed to see Clinton described as emotional by ABC.

    I agree. Emotion is not the issue. She reminds me of Kerry and Gore, in that whenever a consultant tells them “America wants”, they simply take on a new persona.

  • While I don’t think it at all unreasonable to discuss NAFTA and its history (and future), it might have been nice if the brouhaha precipitated some discussion of the current Doha round WTO negotiations. What are the candidates positions on these goings on (now that Iowa and Wisconsin et alii are out of the way, we might have some reasoned discussion about how our and the EU’s insistence on exporting heavily subsidized agricultural products to third world farmer who, in desperation to compete, get into debt buying Monsanto and DuPont products)?

    It might go some way toward divining the future stances of the candidates if this were examined further; it certainly would go further than the discussion of what Hon. Sen. Clinton’s position on NAFTA as First Lady was twenty years ago.

  • in the stages of a dying campaign, the clintons are now past denial and squarely in the rage/anger stage.

    the bargaining, depression and acceptance stages are yet to come…

  • So her argument is that what the mailer said was correct but Obama was under some kind of obligation to elaborate in a way that puts Clinton in a better light? Isn’t that what response ads (or mailers in this case) are for? The outrage over this makes me seriously question her judgment. She really wants me to believe this mailer is more outrageous than a dozen or more gambits her campaign has tried in the last 10 days?

  • I’m with beep52 @33: embarrassment is a good word for it.

    Excellent point, jhm @43. I’ve noticed that neither of the candidates is really talking about the important issues that face us here and now; instead they like to focus on policy plans that will have to change significantly in order to become law, etc.

    I would imagine that both feel “developing” the third world is turning those countries into exporters of consumer goods for the developed world…or, as jhm notes, getting third world agricultural trapped in the Monsanto loop. We’ve been “developing” the third world since the days of Cold War proxyism ended; yet many of those nations are now worse off than they were 15 years ago.

    There are methods whereby these countries could feed themselves and their neighbors in an inexpensive, localized fashion. They are almost never adopted. And the reason behind this behavior is the agribusinesses (who are the real beneficiaries of the subsidy scheme). We all know how bad Halliburton is, but Monsanto is much worse. They’re hell bent on world domination. And if the terminator gene breaks loose as fast as the Bt gene did, the world is in deep, deep trouble.

    My advice, as a horticultural worker, is to spend less time worrying about presidential politics and more time planning a kitchen garden for this year. Many farmers are worried about massive crop failures (because of bee populations) as early as this summer. I am not exaggerating when i say that our food supply is reaching a tipping point. I’d be happy to offer advice on how to get out of the loop: reply to samizdat at mail2hermes dot com.

  • “I wish they’d be reported more prominently in the MSM” – Michael (#2)

    I got up at six this morning (late for me) and turned on NPR. I couldn’t believe the way they talked about this flap. Not one fact. Not one sentence about Clinton’s actual charges or what Obama’s fliers actually said. They did play the “shame on you” sound bite in which Hillary sounds as though someone just kicked her in the shin (instead of it being an act in response to a flier which she must have seen weeks ago, i.e., a well-rehearsed act). The “news” story was entirely about the emotional level of whatever the dispute was.

    After my wife and I let the dog and cats out, picking up the Sunday paper, and all of us coming back inside I turned to TCR and, surprise surprise, learned more in thirty seconds than I had from NPR in their lead (or lede) report. Needless to say, I immediately switched my radio to CBC FM (Vancouver) where the music is as delightful as the announcer’s wit.

  • As a white woman a few years younger than Clinton, I was frankly disgusted by her recent remarks and pseudo “outrage” at an old mailer distributed in Ohio. I have spent my entire career as an engineer working with mostly men. I have learned from them over the years that what they dislike, suspect, resent and dread about women who would be leaders, whether a corporate director or president of the USA, is the emotional roller coaster.

    Hillary Clinton publicly displays the emotional stability of Britney Spears. One moment she is tearful in NH, then defiant in CA, bails quickly from SC and WI when she fears a huge loss, then is wistful and “honored” to be sitting with Obama in a debate just last Thursday. Forty-eight hours later, she is angry, scolding and lecturing him like some old hag to kids who played on her lawn.

    This constant emotional zig-zag in attitude reflects an obvious confusion about who she is or thinks she needs to be. At her age and so-called experience, she should be far more secure, grounded, consistent, stable, professional and certainly eliminate her erratic outbursts. Contrasted against Obama who is always cool, calm and controlled, she has poorly represented professional women in politics like Pelosi, Sebelius or Fiennstein.

    For the good of the party and the country, she should exit this race immediately. Far from projecting a presidential demeanor, she has confirmed the worst fears of many men (and women) concerning potential female leadership. Hillary Clinton is an embarrassment to the image and reputation of real professional women in leadership positions everywhere.

  • When she angrily calls him on the tenor of his campaign, she has the problem that people have not seen all that much negativity out of Obama, but plenty out of her. The most prominent attacks in the public mind are hers. This, and the attack that follows it, featured this morning on Meet the Press, reinforce her image as a stridently negative candidate.

    The trouble is, Obama is likeable on the merits, and he’s done very little in the open to disillusion people about that. Hillary has taken an image with negatives, and unfortunately behaved in a way that seems to justify those negatives. She’s done best with people when she undermines those expectations, but unfortunately her rather Rovian consultants have decided to have her go negative everytime.

    Now, whatever you say about the sexism of punishing women for being negative, it’s a foolish strategy to apply to a kind of movement where it’s what the people want. What Clinton should have done is not only jump on the bandwagon, but take the reins of the horses pulling it. Obama has been taking advantage of the leftward, populist, progressive movement of Americans in the wake of years of Republican domination, a public shift which has many people rather disappointed with establishment Democrats and their unwillingness to confront the other side and back them down. Hillary’s campaign has been clumsily trying to sell people on experience, when the average American’s experience of her kind of experience has been negative. What Americans want is change, and on that count, Hillary has failed to convince people that she would be an unequivocal agent of that change.

  • I am getting “sick” reading all these comments that NEVER present solutions for this country. You know? We are in serius bad economic almost recesion, our heath care is in crisis, our country budget crazy, about debt is trillions of dollars and people putting fire over the candidates “words”!
    What is really what the american people are looking in the next President? Is it a great speaker?, Honor military man or experience and capacity to move the country in better way?
    This is a very special moment for America, we could decide right or put in the down! I am scare about how crazy is people, what passion about some candidates, but what about America as a great country?
    I see not future looking what happen in this moment and if not solutions to all our problems starting this 2008, we’ll going to see Americans as legal or illegal immigrants around the world!

  • So Enough of the Speeches,
    Enough of the Big Rallies,
    Enough of the winning the Primaries and Caucusses,
    Enough of the Endorsements,
    Enough of the Record Cash Being Raised,
    Its time you explain yourself Mr. Barack Obama!

    Hillary please,that was so unpresidential!You lost the respect of the world for good there.

    Insanity you can Xerox!!

  • I’m surprised I haven’t seen anyone mention this, but Obama’s clearly mastered the Ronald Reagan “There you go again” technique, even if he doesn’t use the exact words. And I’ll emphasize, that’s a good thing!

  • #50 samantha: “Hillary Clinton publicly displays the emotional stability of Britney Spears. One moment she is tearful in NH, then defiant in CA, bails quickly from SC and WI when she fears a huge loss, then is wistful and “honored” to be sitting with Obama in a debate just last Thursday. Forty-eight hours later, she is angry, scolding and lecturing him like some old hag to kids who played on her lawn.”

    that just about sums it up — great post.

    btw, on MTP this morning, russert played clips of hillary lifting lines from her husband’s speeches of years past and edwards as well (no less). now THAT’S embarrassing.

  • More whining and crying from poor little Hillary. She’s just been SO abused. If you can’t take the heat about your past acts, you shouldn’t run for office. Buh-Bye, Cry Baby.

  • As a strong supporter of Hillary Clinton I will admit that she has lost and should pull out of the race now. The ignorant youth has voted, some being Independent and Republican, but yet choosing the Democratic nominee. The results are not a true reflection of the will of the Democratic Party and members like myself. We have witnessed a Republican tactic to knock Hillary out of the race, let Obama think he has such broad appeal, then knock him out in the general election. This is brilliant and the Democrats who want change over experience are like lambs being led to slaughter. Pat Buchanan said that the Republicans are “waiting in the weeds” getting ready to destroy Obama. Well, they’re coming out of the weeds as soon as liberals don’t have Hillary to kick around anymore. Another ominious sign for Obama is Nader’s announcement that he’s getting into the race, which could easily tip the race to McCain. Everything is working for McCain and he has luck on his side. Look at how he won the Republican nomination. Look at how the New York Times hit job backfired and helped McCain. He is a good man and deserves to win because between he and Obama it’s not even close.

  • This looks like using someone else’s words to me.. If he claims others words as his own, why not distort the facts in other area?

    Feb, Sen. Obama said: “In Youngstown, Ohio, I
    talked to workers who have seen their plants shipped
    overseas due to consequences of poor deals like
    NAFTA . They have literally seen equipment unbolted from
    the floors of factories and shipped to China.” [CNN
    Univision Debate, 2/21/08]

    John Kerry in 2004: “What does it mean in America
    today when Dave McCune, a steel worker I met in
    Canton, Ohio, saw his job sent overseas and the
    equipment in his factory literally unbolted, crated
    up, and shipped thousands of miles away along with
    that job?” [Kerry Remarks, Democratic Convention,
    7/29/04

  • To what lengths would an empassioned Bill and Hillary go to retain the delusional myth of the continuation of a well deserved “Clinton legacy?” Do angry public verbal floggings make up the entirety of their arsenal of just retribution? Should we underestimate the long reaching of their fingers into the depths of retribution’s lair?

  • Andy:

    Should we underestimate the long reaching of their fingers into the depths of retribution’s lair?

    No. I’ve been saying this for weeks: The Clinton machine is a monster snake: thick and long.
    Never underestimate it.
    Never turn your back on it.

    The good news is that the Barack campaign understands this. They seem to be very poised and pointed. If they win… the democratic party is in good hands.

  • Well it does seem a little late to be making a big deal out of this. It makes it look like thats all she has left. Besides they did use a decent picture of Hill.

  • Comments are closed.