What ‘buddy system’?

January 10, 2008

Hillary Clinton chatted with CBS’ Katie Couric yesterday, and made a comment about what helped give her a boost in New Hampshire.

“This is the toughest job in the world. I was laughing because you know in that debate, obviously Sen. Edwards and Sen. Obama were kind of in the buddy system on the stage. And I was thinking whoever’s up against the Republican nominee in the election debates come the fall is not gonna have a buddy to fall back on. You know, you’re all by yourself. When you’re president, you’re there all by yourself.”

Andrew Sullivan, noting the “buddy system” comment, responded, “Notice another subtle use of the gender card. We really are headed back to the 1990s.”

With due respect to both, I think Clinton and Sullivan got this one wrong for different reasons.

First, I don’t think referring to the “buddy system” has anything to do with the “gender card.” Indeed, it strikes me as an entirely gender-neutral phrase. As my friend Melissa McEwan pointed out, “[T]he buddy system is used by the US Army, scuba divers, and firefighters, including, presumably, female soldiers, female scuba divers, and female firefighters. Ahem.”

Second, I think Clinton’s take was equally flawed.

I’ve heard quite a bit of late about how Barack Obama and John Edwards “teamed up” against Clinton at the debate. It was “two against one,” the conventional wisdom tells us. Clinton’s “buddy system” comment plays into that (it’s also a subtle shot at Obama and Edwards personally, suggesting that they, unlike her, can’t succeed without help).

But that’s not how I remember Saturday’s debate at all. I went back and read through the transcript this morning, trying to find what’s fed the perception that Obama and Edwards tag-teamed Clinton. There’s just not much there to support the argument.

Clinton went after Obama (on healthcare, lobbyists, experience, energy, and the Patriot Act). Edwards went after Clinton (he dismissed her as agent of the status quo). Clinton went after Edwards (she noted that his biggest Senate accomplishment didn’t actually pass). Edwards went after Obama (when he said, “You cannot nice these people to death. It doesn’t work,” there was no doubt who he meant.)

Obama, meanwhile, didn’t go after anybody. As the favorite, he didn’t feel the need to take the chance of going negative.

At one point, as has been well-documented by now, Edwards came to Obama’s defense when Clinton went on the attack. But that was part of Edwards’ week-long strategy — position himself and Obama as the agents of change, in the hopes of making it a two-person race. But that wasn’t because Edwards wanted to be Obama’s “buddy”; it was because Edwards wanted to be Obama’s rival.

I’m not sure how this meme got started, but I don’t think the debate went quite the same way the conventional wisdom suggests.

Perhaps a perception that Edwards was trying to get Clinton to be the first one voted off the island?

  • Excellent analysis, Steve. I agree. I don’t think they “teamed” up at all. Edwards saw Clinton for what she was—not a woman, but a third-place candidate that was ripe to be pushed offstage. He made his bid, and it didn’t work.

    Obama remained above it all for the most part.

    Clinton’s reaching here.

  • She is so disingenuous in her rhetoric. She takes vague, unfalsifiable potshots like this all the time.

    She is so hated. The polling is terrible on a national level for her compared to Obama

    She was wrong about the Iraq war. Obama was right.

    How can anyone vote for her over Obama? It’s not to say she’s a horrible politician. I’d definitely support her if she was the nominee. She’s been a very good senator in most ways (except when it comes to standing up to Bush).

    We have a better chance of winning and a more honest politician in Obama, who will defend tenants of liberalism on their face, while Hillary doesn’t have the courage or the eloquence to do so, and instead dances around or hides her liberal positions. It’s win-win for Obama – a better chance of winning and a better president if we win, too.

    Hillary supporters, what am I missing?

  • I think that the meme was started by Hillary and her campaign. It’s was good one for her. It served its purpose, and now it can pass away into the mists of memory. It will never matter whether it had any basis in reality.

  • Following up…Edwards tried, as the first commenter says, to vote Hillary off the island. IT didn;t work and she wrested control of the tribe away.

    Now the longer Edwards remain in the race pulling “change” votes from Obama, he helps Hillary. It failed his bid, and as long as he remains, it fails his cause.

  • When Clinton says “whoever’s up against the Republican nominee in the election debates come the fall is not gonna have a buddy to fall back on.” she’s right, and I would add the following:

    Duh!

    I think she’s found a card she (and only she) can play all she wants, the “I’m all by myself out here, fighting for America, feel sorry for me and give me a hug” card. Apparently it plays well with enough people that it can get you a huge bump every now and then. It’s not necessarily the gender card, but no man in this day and age would be able to play it, so for now it is the gender card.

  • Hill would have a much more favorable opinion of her in the public if she didn’t descend into lobbing such blatantly false accusations, though for this political generation that is how the game is played.

    But bummer about her being all alone if she were to become president. It’s not like she’d have the assistance of Bill, or the Veep, or advisors or a cabinet or a political party to help her out. … Just Hill against the world.

  • Now the longer Edwards remain in the race pulling “change” votes from Obama, he helps Hillary. It failed his bid, and as long as he remains, it fails his cause.

    What, exactly, do you think that Edwards’s cause is?

    My suspicion is that Edwards’s cause is to become the President of the United States.

    I really, really fail to see how he could hurt his cause more by staying in than if he dropped out.

    (Unless you really think that Edwards’s “cause” is “anyone but Hillary” as the nominee. Frankly, I don’t see it.)

  • Tamalak said: She was wrong about the Iraq war. Obama was right.

    Yes, and in the middle of her emotional moment, she asserted the exact opposite, saying “some of us are right and some of us are wrong”, thus revealing that she knows how weak she is on the subject of being “right or wrong” on that key issue.

    Why she never did a mea culpa like Edwards I will never understand.

  • Conventional wisdom about “change” votes, but Edwards and Clinton both pull from the “older” and “working class” demographics. Obama has the youth vote to himself.

  • Wow – what is the basis for declaring that Obama would be a better president? That he can give great speeches? And what are these liberal positions that Clinton has kept hidden?

    Obama was right on the war – was he right to keep funding it, too?

    And how is it that a woman who is so hated managed to get more votes in NH and Iowa than the Republican front-runners – two states where people could vote/caucus across party lines?

    It strikes me that much of what you say are little more than knee-jerk talking points – which you certainly are entitled to use as the basis for choosing a candidate, but at least be honest about it.

  • I guess being married to Bill for so long, she is just used to saying she will be there “all by herself”. But as always, I just don’t believe what she says. Bill helped to rescue her this week, in a really sardinic and patronizing attack on Obama, so you don’t think she’ll be running to him every two minutes as Pres?

  • Why she never did a mea culpa like Edwards I will never understand.

    Racer – One eye, or both, on the general, where (as a woman) she can’t afford any hint of weakness on security issues, unlike Edwards. Of course she has rather over-egged the pudding on this, but my feeling is a lot of her public position since 2000 has been carved out to appeal to moderate independants in the 2008 general election.

  • I remain upset about the fact that Clinton didn’t apologize about the blunder of her Iraq vote, but given that slight tearing became trumpeted as a sign of her weakness, what would the right wing machine do if she admitted she was wrong? Unlike Edwards and Obama, anything she has done in the past fifteen years has created a furor. I’d be overly cautious too.

    But the buddy system comment is off. Trying to vote her off the island is spot on. To win you either go after the leader or after your near competition. I do hope, though, that Obama will be able to say something strong about McCain. Being nice all the time doesn’t even win high school president level contests.

  • What, exactly, do you think that Edwards’s cause is?

    Obviously his primary “cause” is getting himself elected. But I think the larger cause he speaks of, “change vs. staus quo” is what I’m referring to.

    Once it is clear he cannot win, and losses in Nevada and his native South Carolina would make that a reality, the longer he stays in the race, the more it helps Hillary over Obama. I think his staying in the race to push his agenda and the discussion comes at too high a price in terms of delegates to Clinton.

    I hope he either wins before Feb 5 and become viable (unlikely) or drops out and throws his support to Obama.

  • When Edwards comes to Obama’s defense, that creates the perception that they are working together against Clinton. If not, there would be no reason for Edwards to defend Obama (who should be just as much his opponent as Clinton is). It is also possible, if not likely, that Clinton is referring to more than just the immediately preceding debate.

  • It seems like Hillary is calling out the “good ol’ boy” network, as Edwards was said to have been defending Obama in one of his answers, and in that context, the buddy system could be seen as a gender card. Either way, calling attention to that seems like a “pity me” plea from Hillary, which hardly seems like a play to her strength.

  • “…in the election debates come the fall is not gonna have a buddy to fall back on. You know, you’re all by yourself. When you’re president, you’re there all by yourself.”

    She must have forgotten about the infamous bulge on George Bush’s back during one of the Kerry-Bush debates. Bush had his buddy with him –> Bush’s brain, better known as turd blossom – Karl Rove. 🙂

    Besides, If Hillary thinks that she’ll be all alone as president, then I might have to change my point of view and start supporting Obama. She needs to learn to be a team player. We’ve all been making fun how Bush can’t do anything without asking Cheney, or Rove (before he left the sinking ship)

    Every President has dozens of advisors, regardless of party….Does Hillary imply that she’s gonna do a one-man-show, and not take advise from anybody?

    Bull Stop the whining already and talk about issues and what is important instead of attacking fellow democrats. Leave that to the Republicans, they don’t know any better.
    Actucally, I intend to vote for the candidate that does not go negative, because in my opinion, we have 3 qualified candidates, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.

    Then again, living in Oregon, it’s not as if my Primary vote will have any effect. LOL

  • Just because the term “buddy system” doesn’t always carry gender connotations doesn’t mean that it didn’t in this instance. It seems pretty clear to me that Clinton was not-very-subtly suggesting yet again that the two boys were ganging up to keep the girl out of their club, and the term “buddy” certainly can refer to male-male relationships (e.g., “buddy movies” of the sort frequently involving Owen Wilson). I tend to agree with Andrew on that point.

  • Anne,

    My post was mainly a request for Hillary supporters to tell me why THEY would vote for her. But:

    Wow – what is the basis for declaring that Obama would be a better president? That he can give great speeches?

    That is a fair enough question.

    #1 Yes, his rhetoric is fantastic. That is crucial in a president – it is not a superficial skill. Obama has the ability to show you on an intuitive sense how he thinks and reasons – how he arrived at a conclusion or a position of his. That way, even if you don’t agree with his position, you can at least understand it and how he got there, and perhaps in time arrive there yourself. His position won’t frighten or anger you as much because he is transparent about how he got there. That’s important both for conservative/independent votes in the general election, and for dealing with all kinds of political struggles after he’s president.

    Hillary’s rhetoric is average. If you already agree with her she sounds fine. If you don’t agree with her, she doesn’t connect at all, you just change the channel.

    #2 He was right about the Iraq war, one of the most crucial tests of political savvy/courage in recent history. There was tremendous political pressure in the build-up to the war by the Bushes. Those who were against it were traitors. And yet military experts all over the place warned about the foolishness of the invasion, particularly in the light-footed way Bush planned to make it. So on one hand you had clear evidence that this was a bad idea, and on the other hand you had huge pressure to go for it anyway. It’s the perfect test of character.

    Obama passed this test.

    Edwards failed, and owned up to it blatantly (“I was wrong”)

    Hillary failed, and can’t bring herself to face it.

    #3 He has a history of not telling audiences what they want to hear just to score political points. People come up to him with perfect pander-questions, and instead of making the false surface reassurances he’s supposed to, he gives them an honest answer (which sometimes satisfies, sometimes doesn’t) and goes into what he would try to do and why. It shows to me that he’s thought about and studied a tremendous variety of issues, and not just on how it affects the political landscape, but how to actually fix them.

    #4 He has a stunning history of using diplomacy to get what he wants. Check out this amazing story. It’s typical of his career:

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_01/012841.php

  • I hope he either wins before Feb 5 and become viable (unlikely) or drops out and throws his support to Obama.”

    If both Edwards and Obama are successfully positioning themselves as the candidate of change vs. the status quo, then as long as Edwards is still in the race, and not viable, he’s taking votes away from Obama. His contention that he’s in it til the convention is a scary prospect.

  • To add my two cents to this article, it’s interesting to see the break-down of those who supported each of the Democratic front-runners. Obama seems to be preferred by independents, and it’s interesting to see how women will continue to choose between him and Hillary. He enjoyed their support in Iowa, but they switched back to Hillary in New Hampshire. Check http://www.projectweightloss.com for an interesting and somewhat unusual survey of the characteristics of each of the Democratic candidates’ supporters.

  • Actually it makes sense for Edwards to stay in. He can use his delegates to force the platform the way he wants it and play kingmaker. His ideas are more leftist than Obama and Clinton, both of whom use strong appeaser rhetoric. I hope he stays in and keeps them moving left, not toward the “middle.”

  • Actually, i believe the media created the “team up” meme based on Edwards’ unilateral defense of Obama; HRC saw it could be useful and appropriated it to good effect. Edwards handed her the stick she was then able to use to bludgeon them both. Not a bad bit of political judo on her part, really. It also played into it when Edwards – despite being well behind Clinton in every upcoming state poll – suggested there should be a two-person debate between he and Obama. Obama’s team had to have cringed when they heard him say that on national television. That was sure to backfire.

  • Well, here it is, only the 10th of January, and I am already sick of the endless parsing of people’s words.

    It’s true that when it’s Dem candidate v. GOP candidate, there is no one else on the stage to come to the defense of either candidate – or am I missing something?

    And just because was have been treated to 7 years of a president who, despite labeling himself as “the decider,” takes no responsibility for anything, doesn’t mean that the president does not stand alone at the top of the chain, with the responsibility for every decision that is made, does it?

    Sullivan is wrong to say that Clinton’s comments play the gender card – that’s baloney.

    As I mentioned on another thread, if this constant reaching for gender as the reason for everything Clinton says or does continues, this could rapidly become an epic battle for women’s issues. Pundits tapping into the dormant anger of all the women who have fought to be taken seriously in the man’s world we still live in could prove to be a huge tactical mistake.

    And Hillary should tread lightly on this, too, and stay above it. We women know bias and misogyny and chauvinism when we hear it, and don’t need Clinton to point it out.

  • Tamalak wrote:
    “… on one hand you had clear evidence that this was a bad idea, and on the other hand you had huge pressure to go for it anyway. It’s the perfect test of character.

    Obama passed this test.

    Edwards failed, and owned up to it blatantly (”I was wrong”)

    Hillary failed, and can’t bring herself to face it.”

    Obama wasn’t in the Senate, so I really don’t credit him with this glorious test of character.

    Now if you were running Russ Feingold, then he’d deserve the credit.

    Hillary, you really need to get off this meme. The boys are picking on you because you are the front runner, remember.

  • what is the basis for declaring that Obama would be a better president?

    I’ll give this a go…

    First, I want to say I think both have the qualifications to be excellent Presidents. I do NOT think Hillary will be a crappy President. She clearly has an incredible grasp of the issues and mechanisms of governing.

    That said, here are the areas where I think Obama exceeds her:

    1. Judgement. Being right on the Iraq War is not something to be dismissed lightly. Hillary either got it wrong, or made a political calculation. Either way, failure to admit error as both Kerry, Edwards and others have done is to me a disqualifying offense. She blew it on the biggest vote of our time. Period. Obama didn’t have to cast that vote, but he made his view clear, and did it had to be in the context of an eventual run for President just like Hillary. This is not exclusive to Obama, Howard Dean has also been right all along on the War…

    2. Message. Also discounted by Hillary and her supporters, and wrongly in my estimation. In many ways the only real power the President wields is the bully pulpit, first, and the veto pen, last. Everything else is working the room and getting your message out and well-received.

    3. Cooperation. Hillary will need to work with Republicans from the most polarizing position possible—not her fault, but true nonetheless. She will have an impossible time advancing ANY agenda. I believe Obama will come into office with more of a coalition of support from the public, and be able to exert more power in office. Unlike Bush, he might actually possess a mandate. He, to me, stands a better chance of advancing a progressive agenda.

    4. Positions. Not all that different. As I just said, however, Obama will be better positioned to advance his.

    5. Coattails. First, in the election. Obama will motivate new voters and independants and possibly peel off Republicans, while retaining Democrats while Hillary will mobilize the opposition and likely drive down turnout among people looking to escape partisan bullshit. It hurts us downticket at a time when we need to increase Congressional leads, and in addition, I don’t relish the idea of a legion of 90s retreads swooping back into power in a Hillary Administration.

    That’s just a few, off the top of my head. Yes, some of those happen to be talking points, but they all are conclusions I was able to reach all by my lonesome, and I think they are accurate.

  • Lance,

    Point taken, it would have been better if he had actually gotten to vote 🙂

    But he was politically ambitious at the time, so opposing it publicly would pose the same long-term dangers to his career that actually voting against it would.

    But he had the foresight and the strength of his convictions to know that Iraq would NOT turn out as the warmongers promised.

  • And how is it that a woman who is so hated managed to get more votes in NH and Iowa than the Republican front-runners – two states where people could vote/caucus across party lines? -Anne

    You can’t vote across party lines in NH, if I understand correctly. It’s classified as a semi-open primary meaning registered Independents can vote in any parties primary, but those registered to any party are locked into.

    I believe it is one of the underlying causes in the differences between the polls and the NH results. The polls allowed registered Republicans to express intent to vote for a Democrat, which they were not able to do at the booth. (I don’t think this is the only factor in the disparity, just one of them.)

  • i’m loathe to see gender and race issues creeping in on the dem side. clinton knows the ’empathy bounce’ from women voters turned the tide in NH, and she’s going to keep playing the gender card. a black professor on Hardball yesterday implied NH voters said they’d vote for obama but didn’t because of racial bias, which might be true for some (small?) percentage, but his argument took the focus off of obama the candidate and put it on obama as a black candidate, which played like a ‘victim card’, which i think is distracting and off-putting, and not on obama’s message.

  • Obama wasn’t in the Senate, so I really don’t credit him with this glorious test of character.

    Lance, that’s crap. He was vocal and outspoken in his opposition. Just because he couldn’t cast a vote does not negate that. He repeatedly made the case against the war, and made it well. there is tons of video of this.

    Not having a vote on it insulated him from needing to take a stand on it. He didn’t sit on the sidelines. He made a judgement and spoke up loudly. Hillary made a calculation and tried to have it both ways. Voting to authorize the use of force but trusting that Bush wouldn’t.

    As I look back on that, when it was clear to me Bush planned to go ahead and invade, Clinton’s (and Kerry’s and Edwards’) getting it wrong is all the more glaring.

    Twenty-three Senators had the judgement to oppose that Resolution. Hillary was not exactly out on a limb. She cast that vote either because she came to an incorrect conclusion, OR because it served her agenda at the time. In either case, she failed.

  • Tamalak @ #3 you aren’t missing anything…

    Except a few other basic truths:

    The family, like the Bush family, is greedy.
    The Clinton’s have already had their 8 years in the sun. Let’s remember it shall we:
    Lots of hate, lots of distractions, immORALity, a booming dotcom economy that was headed for a cliff, and the mainstreaming of the phrase: gridlock. Do we really need to relive that? I think not.
    If she wins, the conversation in this country will go from “How do you beat the bitch?” to “How do we ruin every proposal the Bitch makes?” The only thing she will unify is the opposition against her. The 2010 midterms will see a republican resurgence.

    Any good news?
    Well… it will be some time before we have Chelsea Clinton and Pierce Bush shoved down our elective throats.

    This family’s greed will even end up splitting the Dem party in two. That’s where this thing is trending. You can see it happening now. She won New Hampshire by appealing to woman by boo-hooing. Her husband rankled folks by calling Obama’s pursuit a fairy tale. The Dems could always count on a huge black turnout for them. Forget that this year. By the time this is over it won’t be there for her. They will stay home. McCain vs The Blue-eyed Barbie doll who boo-hooed her way to victory? Hell no! Wouldn’t you stay home too if you saw a wildly more talented candidate lose to the privileged class again?

    And of course some of us won’t stay home…
    I am one who will vote straight republican for as long as Clinton is in power.

    I’ve had enough of the Clinton family, and the Bush family, to last me a lifetime.
    There are lots of independents out there who feel just like me…

  • Anybody noticed Obama crying that they wouldn’t vote for him because he’s black?

    Further proof that this time, the Clinton campaign song isn’t “Don’t Stop (Thinking About Tomorrow)”.

    It’s “Yesterday.”

    She’s sooooooooooo “Clinton.”

  • If both Edwards and Obama are successfully positioning themselves as the candidate of change vs. the status quo, then as long as Edwards is still in the race, and not viable, he’s taking votes away from Obama. His contention that he’s in it til the convention is a scary prospect.

    Agree 100%, stevious. Meanwhile Hillary piles up first (or second) place finishes and delegates. If Edwards throws support to Obama too late, Hillary might have an insurmountable lead. Tactically, I really think he needs to drop out before Feb 5.

  • First, I don’t think referring to the “buddy system” has anything to do with the “gender card.” Indeed, it strikes me as an entirely gender-neutral phrase.

    You’ll have to excuse Andrew Sullivan. He’s a foreigner. Our language is strange and confusing to him.

    “…whoever’s up against the Republican nominee in the election debates come the fall is not gonna have a buddy to fall back on.”

    Yes, but this wasn’t a one-on-one debate with a Republican, it was a wide-open forum. Why, I’d say that a candidate who doesn’t exploit tactical advantages in any situation might not have what it takes to be president!

  • Tamalak said: “But [Obama] had the foresight and the strength of his convictions to know that Iraq would NOT turn out as the warmongers promised.”

    So did Jim Webb (my new Senator 😉 ) but I rather imagine Webb’s writings in 2002 had far more of an impact than the comments of an Illinois state legislator.

    Again, run Feingold and I’ll be willing to buy your contention that his judgement was better than Hillary’s. Otherwise, no credit.

  • Can someone explain to me what exactly Obama was against when he had his famous speech against going to war in Iraq?

    In my opinion, if he was against the war because we couldn’t do it, then Obama was absolutely WRONG on that one, because our military did an excellent job in a very short time to get rid of Saddam. This was a purely military endeavor and it was 100% successful.

    However, if he was against the war because Obama felt that the Bush administration would bungle the aftermath due to their neo-con views of the world, then he was absolutely RIGHT on that one, because it was the Bush administration and their cronies who messed it up, NOT the military.

  • Tom Cleaver said: “Anybody noticed Obama crying that they wouldn’t vote for him because he’s black?”

    Having watched his concession speech, yes.

  • Bruino (#19) asked: ….Does Hillary imply that she’s gonna do a one-man-show, and not take advise from anybody?

    That’s what she did when she blew it on her first test as “co-President” when she screwed up health care and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It’s how she does everything else, so why does anyone think it will be different when she’s Co-President for the second time?

  • So, Lance, can you point out to those of us in the reality-based community exactly where in his speech he said anything like that? Because I have listened to that three times now and haven’t heard anything like that anywhere.

  • Tom, Lance is probably referring to the “nobody thought this day would come” type of stuff…

    Not quite the same thing as whining about it in process…

  • Bruno,

    Text of the 2002 speech and a brief (partial) clip here

    Money ‘graph:

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

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

    Sounds about right to me. On every possible front.

    —

    And here’s an interview from Nov 25, 2002 where he lays it all out. The costs, the occupation, the splintering of Iraq along ethnic lines, and the doctrine of preemption.

    Again. Superior judgement. He. Had. it. right.

  • ROTFLMAO #33 I would call that being willing to cut off your nose to spite your face….. Voting a straight Republican ticket, if Clinton is elected. Shameful to say the least, regardless whether you’re a democrat or an independent. You may call yourself an independent, but you’re obviously not: The defenition of a true indenpendent is thathe/she would vote for the BEST candidate, regardless of party.

    What you said sounds more like a disgruntled Republican who is ashamed to admit having voted for the Bush gang before, and now claims to be an independent. Once the name Clinton comes into the discussion, the good ‘ol Clinton Derangement Syndrome surfaces once again, and the urge to vote a straight Republican ticket regardless of how bad the candidate is, is all that matters. Absolutely no independent thought needed for that conclusion.

    I sure hope you don’t fit in that category, for your own sake.

    Besides, whether you agree or disagree with the fact that Hillary Clinton comes from a ‘privileged’ class. Are you saying that the privileged class could possibly not produce a ‘qualified’ candidate? You may not like where Hillary came from or what she stands for, but a qualified candidate she certainly is. I’d hope you’re not in the camp that believes, as a previous poster said; that John McCain has to be a ‘good person’ because he was shot down and tortured.

    Having said that, I have to agree with you on your following point: “If she wins, the conversation in this country will go from “How do you beat the bitch?” to “How do we ruin every proposal the Bitch makes?” The only thing she will unify is the opposition against her.”

    It is a very sad commentary on America as a country, that we still have so many bigots, racists, and small minded people with grudges living here. The 28%ers and dead-enders come to mind.

  • Mr. furious… thank you for the link and excerpt. Obama did make the right choice and was indeed prescient on the subject. He was actually better than Nostradamus in his prediction of what would happen.

  • So did Jim Webb (my new Senator 😉 ) but I rather imagine Webb’s writings in 2002 had far more of an impact than the comments of an Illinois state legislator. -Lance

    I didn’t see where people were arguing what impact a pre-war anti-war position had; I only saw people saying that Obama was against the war before the war, and made his position well known and you not ‘crediting’ him with that.

    I don’t see how the impact of their positions pre-war is relevant to the position held. Of course, I don’t see why you are so vehemently against accepting Obama’s position in the first place.

    The paraphrased facts are:

    Obama spoke against the war pre-war. He was not in the Senate and thus had no opportunity to vote against it. He was elected to the Senate and has approved several funding measure for the war.

    Hillary was in the Senate and voted to authorize the war and has since supported funding it. She has never apologize or accepted responsibility for her vote starting the war.

    Edwards was in the Senate and voted to authorize the war. Then he wasn’t in the Senate anymore and has said ‘my bad,’ in relation to his authorization vote.

  • Tamalak @ 29, Mr. Furious @ 32

    I wont go into this at the length I have previously on CBR, but the short version is that I agree with Lance —

    1) Obama said the right things about Iraq when he was not in the Senate, but if you look at every Iraq related vote while he and Clinton were both in the Senate and their actual votes are nearly identical (and of course Obama has voted “present” on some key votes last summer where Clinton was willing to take a stance)

    2) Edwards is the opposite: he started saying the right things about Iraq once he was no longer in the Senate.

    3) Even some of the most reliable, full-of-fight lefties like Tom Harkin have voted “wrong” on several Iraq issues (and other loaded Republican bills like protective flags and such).

    The only plausible conclusion from (1)-(3) is that there really is no comparison between what you say when you aren’t in the actual hot seat and how you act once you are. Shorter/simpler: talk is easy. voting is not.

    From the above, I do not see how one can draw any reliable conclusions about how people will really act in power based on out-of-power speeches. Indeed, the only hard facts of an “apples to apples” variety suggest that Obama and Clinton would be identical re: Iraq.

    (The obvious problem in the analysis for Clinton is Kyl-Lieberman. I grant you that. She lost me for several month on that one; she had a little help from Gen. Wes Clark getting me over it.)

  • doubtful – this is a little OT here, but since you mentioned Webb. . .

    I was undertaking the thought exercise the other day of who would be a good VP short list should Obama get the nomination. (I rule out both of his main opponents for reasons I wont go into, but of which I am pretty confident).

    Webb ended up really high on my list. He would bring a lot to the table; the downside is he is a bit of a loose cannon – he would be very hard to control in a national campaign (and in office).

    Some end-of-day open thread I’ll go into the rest of my short list. 🙂

  • zeit:

    “Present” votes are not what you think they are. They are mechanically the same as a “no” vote and sometimes strategically a good idea:

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13989.html

    And as for their positions on Iraq, it’s true that their voting behavior has been similar recently – Clinton is clearly opposed to the war now, even if she doesn’t clearly admit it. The only difference is that at the outset, she supported it, Obama opposed it. What you say about his hypothetical “in-power” behavior may be true, and it may be not. But we know with certainty that Hillary was wrong.

  • “Having said that, I have to agree with you on your following point: “If she wins, the conversation in this country will go from “How do you beat the bitch?” to “How do we ruin every proposal the Bitch makes?” The only thing she will unify is the opposition against her.””

    FWIW, I respectfully disagree. I have no favorite in this race (I have noted, ad nauseum, that I would vote for any of the Dem candidates including Gravel over any of the GOP candidates) but one area that I think Clinton has POTENTIAL to outperform Obama as president would be in the area of stiffening (and quickly) the spines of Congressional Dems. In addition, the “opposition” might unify against her, but the vast majority of that “opposition” will be in what is likely to be a shrinking minority party (which is a much different dynamic than her husband faced). Everything I have read has indicated that Clinton has been a pretty open and likable Senator within the party, and if Congressional Dems find their spines, and finally push their (which I would hope aligns mostly with the American people’s)agenda, I see lots getting done. Will their be some fights and disagreements? Definitely, but that is politics. But many progressive Democratic initiatives will become a reality.

  • Tamalak 51 – the defense of “present” votes is accurate as to his large number in the Illinois Senate; I see that case. No one has successfully made that argument as to his “present” (or, actually, in some cases abscense for big votes) in 2007 in the US Senate.

  • Hi Tom,

    You asked: “So, Lance, can you point out to those of us in the reality-based community exactly where in his speech he said anything like that? Because I have listened to that three times now and haven’t heard anything like that anywhere.”

    “We know the battle ahead will be long, but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way, nothing can withstand the power of millions of voices calling for change.

    We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant in the weeks to come. We’ve been asked to pause for a reality check. We’ve been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.

    But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. For when we have faced down impossible odds; when we’ve been told that we’re not ready, or that we shouldn’t try, or that we can’t, generations of Americans have responded with a simple creed that sums up the spirit of a people.”

    This is where I heard it. I don’t blame you for not hearing the same thing, because it certainly doesn’t come across in a transcript. So go ahead and call me a nasty little poopyhead for hearing a whine in Obama’s voice.

    Of course, the next day on Hardball his support Dr. Dyson was saying there was a Bradley effect in New Hampshire (you know, whites saying they’ll vote for a black man then switching?) even though Obama got about the same percentage of votes in the primary as he had support in the polls. So the whine is there.

  • zeitgeist said: “doubtful – this is a little OT here, but since you mentioned Webb. . .

    I was undertaking the thought exercise the other day of who would be a good VP short list should Obama get the nomination. (I rule out both of his main opponents for reasons I wont go into, but of which I am pretty confident).

    Webb ended up really high on my list. He would bring a lot to the table; the downside is he is a bit of a loose cannon – he would be very hard to control in a national campaign (and in office). “

    I brought Webb up and you keep your hands off my Senator!

  • Zeit-

    I will say that there is a difference once you come to the Senate and the Pandora’s Box is already open and spilled all over the Middle East with our troops in the middle of it. Expecting Obama to come in and “stop” the war as a freshman Senator is a bit of a reach. He opposed/supported key things along the way in each of those situations for the final bills to be where they were…insisting on better oversight, etc…

    But, no, I will concede that he did not do as well on those votes as he might have, based on my limited knowledge. But I think it’s more apples/oranges than apples/apples.

  • Sorry Lance. 🙂
    I did occur to me to at least wonder who could replace him in the Senate. . . (although you;re being kind of greedy – you’ll already have Mark Warner, who was my early choice for President until he withdrew.)

  • Lance,

    Nothing in the text you bolded suggests him whining about not getting votes because he is black, not a tiny bit. Even if there was a whine in his voice when he said it, that makes no difference. It wasn’t part of the subject of his statement at all.

    I agree Dr. Dyson was wrong (as you say, there was clearly no Bradley effect and that’s a relief) but Obama is not responsible for what his supporters say, so that’s a non sequitor.

  • I brought Webb up and you keep your hands off my Senator! -Lance

    Lance is correct, I was just quoting him. And no worries, Lance, this isn’t an airport bathroom! 🙂

    Some end-of-day open thread I’ll go into the rest of my short list. 🙂 -Z

    I’ve been wondering about VP potential, too. As close as the race is, I wonder if names will be floated soon in an effort to shift the advantage.

  • Tamalak, I’m going to perfectly willingly accept your assertion that there is NOTHING in the transcript that sounds like a whine.

    But if there was a whine in his voice, which even is subject to dispute, -I- think it makes a difference.

    He needed to rest up and get ready for the next contest. That was a horrible blow, having to concede to “You’re likeable enough” Clinton. And worse, to lose the meme that White Americans will vote for a African American candidate. Which is why I thought Dyson was STUPID for arguing that on Hardball. It’s not going to help in South Carolina when the African Americans look at their White neighbors and say to themselves “these people aren’t like the whites in Iowa and New Hampshire”.

    Please Obama, stop trying to BE the Change and tell us you How you are going to change America.

  • There was a moment in Saturday’s date that was entirely (or perhaps almost entirely) non-verbal. I can see it in my mind’s eye but can’t describe it well — Barack turned his body open towards Edwards and made some gesture (or perhaps there were words) of solidarity or thanks — and it was related to being opposed to Hillary. At that moment they did look like buddies united in a cause against her and since it was a friendly informal way guys relate to each other, it looked like two guys freezing out the woman, in a confidential manner.

    I read Bob Somerby so I know why the media hates Hillary but why do so many “ordinary” people share that hatred? It’s mystifying to me.

    Not that anybody’s reading this.

  • Mr. Furious:

    So, you’re giving Obama a pass on coming into the Senate and not being a force for change because he was one of the “new guys?”

    Hmmm. Interesting.

    So…tell me why I – or anyone else – should have a lot of confidence that he’s going to be a force for change now?

    This has been my concern from Day One with Obama – that in the arena in which he could have stood for change, he wasn’t all that impressive. And now he wants us to elevate him to an even higher office on a theme of working together for change.

    Color me skeptical.

  • zeitgeist said: “Sorry Lance.
    It did occur to me to at least wonder who could replace him in the Senate. . . (although you’re being kind of greedy – you’ll already have Mark Warner, who was my early choice for President until he withdrew.)”

    We WILL have Mark Warner in the Senate, just not yet. I’m pretty sure that Tim Kaine would put Jim Webb’s primary opponent in to replace him, a very progresive fellow whose name I can not recall (Harris something, something Harris).

    Thus my desire to keep Webb, who helps to make Virginia look good, and helps to balance the Progressive wing of the Dems with some Populism 😉

  • Bruno…

    Politics is a blood sport and I regard my vote as a weapon.

    I do not want to wake up for the next 8 years of my life hearing, seeing, and reading about the Clintons again. Or for that matter the Bush clan.

    I can’t listen to 5 seconds of Bush.
    I already can’t listen to 4 seconds of Hillary.

    Is this a nightmare or is it madness: Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush-Clinton-Clinton???
    WTF?
    Can’t we have a new flavor?
    Some new words?
    A new color?
    Don’t you people ever get tired of the same shit?

    Nope… I won’t have the Dems of the Reps shove this familial hegemony down my throat anymore.

    I am voting for change this year.
    And it will be straight ticket republican if the Dems shove Hillary at me….

  • At the risk of changing the subjet here, it was the second part of the Hilary quote that struck me. What she starts out saying is that when you are one-on-one with a Republican in the presidential debate, there won’t be a fellow Dem on stage to help you. You are on your own and have to be stong enough to handle it (presumably like she is and they are not). But in her last sentence, she implies that, as a Democratic President, you would also have to go it alone against Republican attacks. You think there is some residual bitterness there over her perception of how the Democrats failed to rally around Bill when he was in office and under attack? I wonder if this will color her approach to governing if she were to win the White House. Will she be overly cautious pushing her agenda because she will assume that she is “there all by (her)yourself”?

  • Amelia said: “Not that anybody’s reading this.”

    Come back and reread the thread Amelia and note that we do read your stuff.

    Normal Americans hate Clinton for two reasons:

    Some think she should have dumped Bill,

    Some buy the Republican’t lies about her, and the Republican’ts hate Bill and Hill because they made the Republican’ts look like fools by “solving” Welfare and bringing fiscal conservatism back, things Republican’ts talk about but don’t try to achieve.

    Damn, they are probably afraid Hillary will substantly reduce the number of Abortions in this country if elected.

  • Lance,

    My point about the whine is that, even if there was a whine in his voice (which, yes, does make a difference), it means he’s whining about cynics thinking he has no chance. That does not connect to race at all unless YOU make that connection. He is not and has not played the race card in any way. No matter what political race factors there are, Obama is above contempt in this regard.

    Please Obama, stop trying to BE the Change and tell us you How you are going to change America.

    In his concession/victory speeches? That is not traditionally when you get to wonking. Hillary’s concession in Iowa gave no specifics, either. Read Obama’s website. He is VERY clear on his positions and what he intends to do. And he will happily (even exhaustingly) explain it to anyone who asks.

    Anne,

    Your criticisms of Obama are clear. You asked us how Obama would be a superior president and we answered. Now it’s your turn, what are Hillary’s strengths compared to him?

  • heh. Tamalak, you walked right into one of the big complaints people have in these threads about the automatic assumption that it is a two-person race and that the Media makes Edwards invisible.

    Anne is a well-documented Edwards supporter. (Although, particularly given her gift for great comments, I would welcome her defense of Hillary. Maybe she’d even talk herself into changing candidates! 🙂 )

  • D’oh. My bad, Anne 🙂

    (Though if I may defend myself a little, it IS a two-person race at this point! Edwards has next to no chance)

  • The “buddy system” comment is part of Senator Clinton’s hypocritical strategy of portraying the other campaigns as negative and asking us to believe her campaign is not (even though we plainly see that she dishes plenty).

  • Lance,

    There are two more reasons that a lot of people don’t like her.

    1)She is unpleasant, not in a powerful woman way, but rather in the way that pretty much the whole Republican field is unpleasant. One can easily see her right in the middle of their current snipe fest firing away. Similarly, she is the type of person that you shouldn’t get too hopeful that we can actually accomplish change because the only politics she knows is slash and burn and backroom deals.

    2)She is a great heaping pile of conventional wisdom- the type of conventional wisdom that actually means inside the beltway myopia. Most of us are sick of the results that has produced. Most of us are sick of triangulation and pandering being considered more useful qualities than leadership.

  • Here’s why the “buddy system” theory makes sense:

    If two people can work together to criticize a third, they can make the thrid look worse than if one works alone. One person out of even only four might just be the kook. Support shows agreement, and, reasonable or not, people are wired to see trustworthiness in the agreement of other people. It takes wisdom to be able to rationally recognize and adhere to an unpopular view you know is the right one. Think about blogs- if a Republican wants to show up and drop bad advice for us, all he/she has to do is write a comment, cast it in some terms to make it look like it’s a liberals sincere opinion, and then write a bunch of other comments under a bunch of other handles (and, even better, from different computers) supporting the comment. Are any of you going to doubt that the people writing the comments are sincere? Too many people who grow up in safe, affluent areas, like there are many of in America, just don’t expect to be screwed over like that. At least, liberals don’t, because conservatives see the world as a touhger place, and they play a tougher game.

    Then, all you need for the “buddy system” to make sense is an incentive for the participants. Will taking Hillary out help Barack? Yes, because she’s the main competition. Will it help out Edwards? Yes, because he needs to take out one of the two people who are ahead of him to be in striking distance of the other one. Basically whoever he can get to do a “buddy system” with him is better than nobody, unless the public will see it as really unforgiveable that he does it. It doesn’t seem like the public thinks what Obama and Edwards are doing is unfair.

    So there you have it.

  • The Democratic support for one candidate over another as a whole is still kind of tepid compared to how it could be. But, within that total context- relative to the support for other candidates we’re seeing within that total context- there is a lot of really reactionary support for Barack on the Internet that adds up to a lot of bad analysis of what’s going on in the campaign, a lot of bad analysis of details.

    I think people have kind of been coralled by the media, unconsciously, to follow the media’s lead and to be contrarian, reactionary anti-Hillary, and that’s where it comes from. Barack is okay in a lot of ways, but the support for him is not rational enough.

  • So, you’re giving Obama a pass on coming into the Senate and not being a force for change because he was one of the “new guys?”

    Nope. No pass. I said right in that comment that I wish he’d done a better job. I wasn’t following him particularly closely at the time, so I can’t speak to the particulars. If the votes are similar to Hillary’s than they don’t reflect my wishes. But, I haven’t heard anybody say they’re the same—what are the differences? They might be important.

    Hillary is also on all the right committees to have made the most informed decisions/judgements…

    Specifically related to Iraq, Hillary voted against the Levin Amendment which would have required Bush come back to Congress before an invasion. This specific vote compounds her error, and to me undermines any possible justifications for supporting the AUMF.

    The only other major voting differnce I saw comparing their records was Obama opposing the abominable Bankruptcy Bill in 2005—and Hillary skipping that vote. One of the single worst domestic pieces of legislation in the entire Bush era in my opinion.

  • Tamalak said, “Hillary supporters, what am I missing?”

    You’re missing what happens after the election – the governing part.

    I’m not a Clinton supporter, although after the past week I’m leaning in that direction. First, because I think she will be elected with a larger percentage and, second, because she has concentrated on the governing part.

    First, the electibility. We already know almost everything that can be thrown at Sen. Clinton. There is a segment that has been so vicious to her for the past 15 or so years, that’s I don’t think there is even anything left that they can make up that would stick. Go listen to Kathleen Hall Jamieson with Bill Moyers (http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01042008/watch.html) Yes, her negatives are high-ish, but no more so than many, many other politicians. And, they seem to be static.

    Sen. Obama, OTOH, is so new to national politics that he is a blank slate. These primaries are the most difficult races he has yet run. Who knows with the Rove/Atwater branch will either dig up, twist, or just make up? So his negatives have no where to go but up and how high – who knows. That is certainly not to slam him, we’ve just sung this song before.

    Governing. From what I can see, Sen. Clinton has spent her time in the Senate practicing good governance. Her work with the Armed Services Committee has helped her develop what I hear are good relationships with the military leadership, unlike some of our former presidents, and this will be a huge help in extricating ourselves from Iraq. Also a huge help when the new president faces whatever challenge is thrown at us. Go look at her various committees and her work on them http://clinton.senate.gov/senate/committees/index.cfm Maybe I’m impressed with her work on the committees because the ones she is on are important to me (Environment and Public Works; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions; Aging)

    Sen. Obama, OTOH, I don’t know. I see that he sits on some very important committees that do some fine work, but I don’t know about his activities on them. I only really have heard about the subcommittee he chairs that has not met. I am concerned that he is more interested in running than governing at this point Again, this is not a slam, but an observation.

    This is getting long, but I’ll make a final point. Sen. Clinton is a brilliant woman who has spent a lifetime in public service, learning as she went, and working towards good governance. Certainly she has made errors along the way, who hasn’t, but overall, she has been on the right track. The “calculating, ambitious, etc” memes have all been stuck on her starting back with the Arkansas Project of Scaife and, because that went on for so long, have been accepted by people too young to remember when that wasn’t part of the conversation. Let the scales slip from your eyes and really look at the history.

    Sen. Obama is an exceptionally intelligent, fine man, and, I think, will do extraordinary work, but I don’t know how he will govern. Our country is facing a myriad of serious problems that must be dealt with right away. I don’t know how he will handle it , but I do think I can trust Sen. Clinton to do the right thing at least 95% of the time.

    I want someone to run the country competently, I’m not voting for a best friend.

  • If the most recent debate was not the best example to call out ‘the buddy system’ on, it may just be that since she was ganged-up on more in other debates, Hillary has become sensitive to the effect I talked about in my other comment- to the perception created that ‘everybody knows’ that somethings wrong with her. So, she’s just jumping to point it out, even if CB is right and in the most recent debate Edwards only did something like that once.

    Melissa McEwan’s comment is totally hyperbolic and makes me doubt her credibility as a commentator. When Hillary said “the buddy system” she was obviously talking euphemistically and metaphorically. She wasn’t criticizing the life-saving “buddy system” that people use in physically dangerous endeavors. For Melissa McEwan to suggest Hillary’ josh about “the buddy system” was actually doing this smacks of an intentional mischaracterization. Only stupid people and Southerners conflate fantasy with reality like that.

  • socratic_me said: “[Hillary] is a great heaping pile of conventional wisdom- the type of conventional wisdom that actually means inside the beltway myopia. Most of us are sick of the results that has produced. “

    Yep, that bothers me too. On the other hand, Boy George II is a great heaping pile of Texas Oil Mafia ‘wisdom’, and seven years of that makes me want to go back to policy wonkiness and balanced budgets.

    “Most of us are sick of triangulation and pandering being considered more useful qualities than leadership.”

    There I disagree. I think triangulation is a form of leadership. Welfare Reform was leadership, if for no other reason than it took the issue away from the Republican’ts.

    Tamalak said: “My point about the whine is that, even if there was a whine in his voice (which, yes, does make a difference), it means he’s whining about cynics thinking he has no chance. That does not connect to race at all unless YOU make that connection. He is not and has not played the race card in any way. No matter what political race factors there are, Obama is above contempt in this regard.”

    It wasn’t because the Cynics don’t think a Black Man can win? Sorry, but Prof. Dyson sank that assertion by claiming the “Bradley Effect” the next day.

    And Obama’s concession speech was actually quite a list of problems.

    No solutions maybe, but quite a list.

  • As RacerX alluded, it’s pretty easy to get Hillary’s contention that “The Boys” buddied up against her on the map. All she has to do is gently float it out there, like she did. All it takes after that is ONE interviewer to respond with, “Yeah, I kind of noticed that, too” and it’s as real as if it actually happened. Hillary constantly flogs her experience – remember, message manipulation is part of that.

  • Really! Clinton’s entire rationale for being the best candidate rests on the fact that she’s “buddies for life” with Bill. And that she was basically the co-President then and Bill would be the co-President in 2009.

    Can we talk about something else now?

    • Comments are closed.