Frank Rich’s must read on the Clinton machine:
But I’m glad I watched every minute, right up until Mrs. Clinton was abruptly cut off in midsentence so Hallmark could resume its previously scheduled programming (a movie promising “A Season for Miracles,” aptly enough). However boring, this show was a dramatic encapsulation of how a once-invincible candidate ended up in a dead heat, crippled by poll-tested corporate packaging that markets her as a synthetic product leeched of most human qualities. What’s more, it offered a naked preview of how nastily the Clintons will fight, whatever the collateral damage to the Democratic Party, in the endgame to come.
For a campaign that began with tightly monitored Web “chats” and then planted questions at its earlier town-hall meetings, a Bush-style pseudo-event like the Hallmark special is nothing new, of course. What’s remarkable is that instead of learning from these mistakes, Mrs. Clinton’s handlers keep doubling down.
Less than two weeks ago she was airlifted into her own, less effective version of “Mission Accomplished.” Instead of declaring faux victory in Iraq, she starred in a made-for-television rally declaring faux victory in a Florida primary that was held in defiance of party rules, involved no campaigning and awarded no delegates. As Andrea Mitchell of NBC News said, it was “the Potemkin village of victory celebrations.”
It hurts because it is true.
myiq2xu
Doesn’t hurt -isn’t true.
That CPAC flu must have made you delerious.
Rich is an old school Hillary hater. Are you gonna start listening to MoDo next?
DougJ
Rich has always had it in for the Clintons.
I used to like his columns when he was attacking Bush but Bob Somerby taught me not to.
myiq2xu
Delirious? Deleterious? I need caffeine.
ThymeZone
Well, every word of it is true. Rich is right on the facts, and right on his view of those facts.
None of it adds up to certain defeat for Clinton in the Dem sweeptakes. Or, put another way, to certain victory for Obama in those sweepstakes. But her trend line is down, and the clock is ticking.
Can her powerful machine hang on to beat the upstart? Who knows?
As a Dem, I like the chances of either of our candidates better than the chances of McPain. I don’t think we’ve seen the depth of non-like in his party for the war hero, and whatever it costs the Democrats to have a drawn-out, down to the wire contest here, it is costing the GOP more to put up a guy who is for 100 years of Iraq, still talks about Vietnam, was one of the Keating Five, would be the oldest person ever elected president if he won, and is detested by a large segment of his party’s base.
Think November. Fun times ahead.
Conservatively Liberal
Yes it is. I saw the bit Jon Steward did about Hillary on the Hallmark channel. He showed her getting cut off, and then they went right to the ‘Season of Hope’ advertisement prior to the start of the show. It was pretty funny to see Hillary just talking along and all of the sudden… blip. Off the air and on to the next show.
The Florida ‘victory’ dance was pretty sad to see. It was very Bush like in the surreality of it all, kind of like the ‘Mission Accomplished’ bit. Sorry Hillary supporters, but she is too artificial for me. Her ‘political machine’ seems to be overly controlling in getting the message out. Where Obama seems and acts like a ‘natural’, Hillary seems forced and insincere. Early in her campaign, it almost seemed as if she was expecting everything to be handed to her, so why try hard.
Later, when things started heading for Obama, she seemed almost desperate. The tears episode seemed like she was really hurting and that was her reaction, but it was a hurt that only Hillary understood. Things just were not rolling out the way that she may have thought they should have, and it resulted in tears of what I believe are frustration.
They were sincere tears, but not the kind of sincere that most people would forgive. They were more like tears of self-pity. That is just my opinion, but it makes more sense than anything else I can think of.
Andrea Mitchell was right about the Potemkin Village comment, I saw that live on MSNBC when she made it and I thought it was a very true statement. Hillary seems to come across as a person who believes that the usual rules do not apply to her. Maybe it is something that she learned from Bill, but it is very revealing to see this in her.
I am sure that Hillary is a nice person in regular settings, and that she is not some evil witch that needs to be burned at the stake. But IMO she is not presidential material, never was and never will be. Senate, maybe. But completing one term in office, staring an second term as senator and coming out of nowhere to become a senator in a state that she had just moved to is not presidential material.She has really only become her own person politically recently (2000), and that is not nearly enough experience (IMO) to be president. Barack barely qualifies in my book, but at least he has along history of public works to refer to. His aspirations were clear a long time ago. Yes, Hillary has her ‘accomplishments’, but they do not resonate with me like Obama’s accomplishments do. Hillary’s political aspirations are more recent, so her ‘accomplishments’ sound a bit thin to me. Almost like an afterthought.
That is where her frustration makes sense to me. It almost seems like her and Bill had a road map laid out for this, and Obama came along and blew the map out of her hands. Prior to the primary wars, between the press and her people, the hype made it almost seem inevitable that she was going to have a cakewalk for the office. She has been hit with reality, and it frustrates her to no end. People are not following their script, and the whole play is falling apart.
Of the two Democratic candidates out there, the decision is not tough for me on who I believe is the more qualified person for the presidency. When compared to Hillary, who is his only competition, Obama is the clear choice for me.
The Florida crap pisses me off, and I hope they do not seat the delegates. There is a framework in place for a reason, and just her pushing for those delegates to be counted smacks of her wanting to be treated special. What she did was low and desperate, and I bet that if she had a comfortable delegate lead over Obama at the time then she would not have pulled the stunt. That she did says all it should to me about how she knows that this is her first and last shot at this. She is all in for it.
I hope she loses and her and her husband fade into history. She still has her senate gig, and she can have it.
John S.
Rich may be a Hillary hater, but that doesn’t render him incapable of getting something right. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then.
Her reaction to the Florida primary was definitely Potemkin-esque, and only a true Hillary fan would deny that. Again, even though Andrea Mitchell is a similarly loathsome character, it doesn’t render her observation automatically untrue.
Sorry, but MoDo is in a league of her own. When Rich starts referring to one of the candidates as ‘Obambi’, let me know.
demimondian
I’m cheering for Hucksterbee to keep campaigning successfully. Every day that McCain has to go on the road and talk to the yokels is a day he can’t spend pacifying the real Republican party back home in DC. Every time he has to court us, he has to say things which hurt him with the radical heart of the party.
He made his on bed on his “Straight Double-talk Express”, and the longer he has to ride it, the better for the nation.
myiq2xu
It’s kinda early for the stench of right-wing meme. Nastily? Please explain. Calling BHO’s Iraq claims a “fairy tale?” Bill calling a much younger man a “kid?”
And so far, the party is doing fine, better than it has in a long time. The GOP is the party that can’t handle a cometition for the nomination, they want coronations.
It wasn’t held in defiance of party rules, and like it or not, she won in Florida. The issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates hasn’t been settled.
But I find it ironic that the meme after Florida was “she knew the rules, and they shouldn’t be changed in the middle of the game,” but now Obama Nation wants to dump the superdelegates because she has more of them. That’s changing rules in the middle of the game too.
It ain’t over until it’s over. We’re not gonna stop the game just because your favorite candidate has taken the lead, albiet narrowly.
myiq2xu
Sorry, caffeine hasn’t kicked in yet. That should be “competition”
Wilfred
Let’s see. Running for President for 16 years, loses by at least 2:1 margins in the Northwest, Mid-Western and Deep South but Frank Rich doesn’t like the Clintons so none of that counts. The Times must have leaked Rich’s column.
First time I see the “George Soros consider the source rule” coming from our side.
DougJ
I always consider the source in an opinion piece. I thought everyone did.
Walker
Speaking as someone in her district, she is really appreciated around here, even though she is from out of state. No one was doing a goddamn thing about the hemoraging of jobs in Upstate before her — it was all about the city. While things still aren’t great around here, she was the first to give a damn and work towards helping this area.
If it required us to import someone to get this done, then so be it.
With that said, I did not support her in the primaries.
Conservatively Liberal
The Super Delegate issue is a sore one with me. The intent of the SDs is to prevent an ‘unelectable’ candidate from being selected in the primary. Well, if that was the case then their votes would not be in play now, would they? They would have waited until the end of the primary war to disclose how they are going to vote.
When they disclose that information by pledging to a candidate in advance, they are changing the SDs into something that they were not intended to be.
Plus, I believe that those SDs who pledge early are only angling for a favorable position from which to get their cut of the pie (appointments in the new cabinet). The ones that pledge early and then cross over when things are not going their way only shows me how opportunistic they are.
Either eliminate the SDs or stop their pledging to a candidate until the primary is over. My preference is to eliminate them once and for all. Even if they wait until after the primary, they can still be the kingmakers and cut themselves a deal with the candidate who is willing to give them something in trade for their vote.
myiq, you are blind if you think Hillary was playing by the book in Florida. She was clearly angling for votes, and her announcement from there about her ‘win’ was pure stupidity and it made her look desperate to me. It was a faux victory, and nothing more.
Would she agree to counting the delegates now if there was a re-do in those two states? Re-run the process there and let both candidates campaign there? I doubt it because the results would probably not be what they are now. She wants results that favor her, and what she has now is certain, a re-do would not be certain.
Only with a complete re-do in those two states would any results be remotely fair to both sides. Since it is not fair as it currently stands, they should not be seated.
End of argument.
John S.
Not to flog a horse skeleton, but her winning Florida meant absolutely nothing. Like it or not, that win has no relevance whatsoever in the nomination process.
And the issue with our delegates will not be settled in Hillary’s favor, or there will be one hell of a revolt. The DNC is urging us to hold caucuses, and thus far the Florida Dems have said no. There is no way in HELL the DNC is just going to seat delegates from two sham primaries.
Changing the rules mid-game is wrong, no matter WHO does it. That said, I think your snark about Obama’s desire to unseat the superdelegates is factually wrong. Obama said:
That’s a valid opinion, and in no way is he signalling that the superdelegates be dumped. You made a valid point, but you undermine it by basing it on a fabrication.
John S.
True.
But even though the Devil can cite scripture for his own purposes, that doesn’t mean those scriptures are fabrications.
ding7777
Over 4 million people voted in that Potemkin village and 871,000 voted for Hillary.
Brachiator
None of this prevents Rich, or any other opinion writer from having a point, and perhaps being right in some of his or her analysis. NY Times columnist Paul Krugman is obviously pro-Hillary. Witness for example his strained attempt to rationalize the phony Clinton camp attack on Obama for saying nice things about Ronald Reagan: “And it’s also why the furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.” The full Krugman column is here:
Debunking the Reagan Myth
Krugman stubbornly wants to deny that many voters liked Reagan even if they didn’t agree with all of his policies, and to dismiss voter sentiment is both irrational and suicidal (but does oddly coincide with the Clinton camps dismissal of anything that reeks of empathy or “dreaminess”). Despite this, much of what Krugman writes about the economy is informative, and even his preference for Clinton’s version of universal health care over Obama’s plan has much to recommend it.
The claim of the nasty aspect of the Clinton tactics likely comes from this part of Rich’s column:
The Rich column can be found here (registration may be required):
Next Up for the Democrats: Civil War
Even given Rich’s hyperbole and his anti-Clinton stance, the troubling fact remains that Clinton’s advisors seem neither to know or care that they are alienating as many voters as they are winning by their tactics, and by their inability to play to their own candidate’s strengths.
Pelikan
So is anyone seriously arguing that Hillary should get delegates from a primary where her name was the only one on the ballot?
Really?
myiq2xu
I didn’t say “Obama,” I said “Obama Nation.” Fabrication?:
If Florida and Michigan decide to caucus or re-vote, that’s their business. I live in California and our primary is over. But I think it is wrong to strip two states of their delegates so that Iowa and New Hamster can be special.
mark
where were these useless turds when Bush was doing all this stuff? They were oogling his codpiece and sucking his a**. I’m not a Hiliary fan but the behavior of our news media towards the Clintons, or any democrat for that matter, and Bush is so obviously different and so destructive that it just makes me sick.
myiq2xu
I seems that the people in Michigan are arguing exactly that.
Seriously.
myiq2xu
And they were so offended that they voted overwhelmingly for Hillary.
Conservatively Liberal
It is not that New Hampshire or Iowa are special, it is that the national party set the guidelines and Florida and Michigan’s parties chose to depart from them. They knew the consequences, and if anyone is responsible for disenfranchising their voters, it is their own state parties. They were the ones that made the decision that cost them their votes. Was it worth it? If they are given an exception, then yes it was. And everyone else who played by the rules loses. Not exactly fair, is it?
If they don’t like the rules, then fight to change them. But don’t break them and then expect everything to be fine and dandy. Other states played by the rules, Florida and Michigan can too. Change the rules first.
Don’t whine and complain when you break the rules and get nailed for it.
Brachiator
So these people in Michigan are arguing that they want to disenfranchise other people in their state who never had a chance to vote for Edwards, Richardson, Obama or another Democratic contender?
myiq2xu
They “allocated” their delegates based on the results of the primary vote, with most going to Hillary and the rest designated as “uncommitted.”
The DNC has not agreed to this allocation.
Let me be clear – I don’t have a dog in this fight. But the whole system is screwed up and needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, it’s too late to fix it for this election cycle.
We need to adopt a system of rotating regional primaries spaced out over several months, and eliminate caucuses and superdelegates. We need some form of public financing of campaigns to eliminate the pernicious influence of money.
Requiring the radio and television networks and cable stations to provide free airtime for debates and candidate forums would be a good thing too. They use the public airwaves, so making them set aside a portion of their otherwise monopolistic control is not an unfair burden.
I thought the League of Women Voters did a good job of hosting non-partisan debates, which the networks and cable stations broadcast, but did not control. Creating a screening process that limits the number of candidates that participate to a manageable number would be okay, so long as it isn’t overly exclusive.
But that is for the future. This year, no matter what ends up being done, some people are gonna be pissed and think it’s unfair. And they’ll be right.
John S.
Who gives a shit what “Obama Nation” thinks? It’s what Obama says that is important – not his supporters.
I think it is wrong, too. Especially since I live in Florida. But those are the breaks. What’s done is done. If we have a REAL primary or caucus (not in a vacuum) then let those results stand. Otherwise, there should be no delegates rewarded. That was the agreement.
Yeah, the ones that want Hillary to win. How convenient.
Cain
It’ll never be fixed. I mean look at the whole snafu with the electoral college back in 2000 and they were talking it about it again during the 2004 cycle. They haven’t touched it. THe only time we see any scrutiny on these things is during an election cycle.
Likely, nobody wants to touch it because it’ll set up a debate that would probably have no outcome.
cain
John S.
Yup. End of story.
carol h
I like Hillary but am not blind to her flaws. That said, the blatant Hillary-hatred coming from the mainstream media and the blogs disgusts me. I can no longer watch MSNBC or read some of favority blogs (Daily Kos chief among them) because of the Hillary hatred. The Rich column is just today’s latest example. It is one thing to disagree with her or prefer another candidate but this kind of vicious attack is so distressing. Every think Hillary says or does is looked at in the most negative way possible while Obama gets a free pass. Why is it racist to direct your compaign at the people most likely to vote for you? Obama would not be winning so overwhelmingly in the south if it were not for black voters. It is not racist for him to try and solidify their support and it is not racist for Hillary to try to solidify her support among latinos. I am mainly interested in getting a democrat in the White House and I am afraid that Obama will win the nomination only to be crucified by McCain on experience and foreign policy issues.
Walker
This election is going to be all about the economy. The pitiful efforts by Congress and the White House right now aren’t going to stop the banks from going under.
Foreign policy will come second to that.
Cain
There’s nothing wrong with that. The issue is about how one goes about it. Planting people to ask questions and other tricks. It might not be Hillary but the people who work for her, but it says something if she allows such tactics.
Black voters initially didn’t support Obama because they didn’t think he would win, but his resounding success is changing their minds. A friend of mine, who comes from Nigeria and basically told me that he’s voting for Hillary becuase he doesn’t think Obama had chance. Every major event, and I start mailing him telling him ‘Look at this, still believe that?’. He finds it amusing.
As for McCain and his “experience” especially on foreign policy. Big deal. His experience says that we need to provoke a war with Iran? Stay in Iraq and bleed money on some wastrel embassy and hang around for a 100 years? I think I know where Americans are going to put their votes when it comes to that.
I agree that Obama doesn’t have much experience in economic issues, but McCain doesn’t either by his own admission. It really comes down to who they pick as their advisors and who they put in charge of the various government services. Obama, I know will not have a “partisan” litmus test and would people in charge who will challenge them on any policy Of that I’m excited about. It’ll be fucking West Wing for real! :-)
cain
Kevin K.
The Hillary camp and her supporters are playing the victim card way too much lately. Even the likes of Olbermann and Josh Marshall have become “sexist” and “Nazis” in their eyes. There’s going to come a point (yesterday’s landslides for Obama may have been that “point”) when potential Hillary voters get tired of all the whining and saddle up with the more laidback, positive candidate to escape the constant howls of “they’re picking on her again.” Short-term, it may have worked for her in New Hampshire, but I think they’re laying it on too thick.
Brachiator
I agree with the DNC here. The election was not valid, and “uncommitted” delegates cannot substitute for delegates that were the result of people being able to vote for the candidate of their choice.
I see your point here, and agree with much of it. However, the Florida and Michigan mess has two components, potentially disenfranchised voters and Hillary Clinton’s absurd assertion that she should be able to benefit from a primary election process that she initially agreed not to support.
I kinda like the idea that the states can set their own rules. If it were up to me, I would have let Florida and Michigan have their primaries with a full slate of candidates. I have problems with public financing of campaigns because there are some candidates (Romney, Nader) whom I would never want to get a dime of my money. It is a version of taxation without representation to give my money to candidates whose platforms I find repugnant in an attempt to make “the system” more fair.
We have had more debates than ever, and they have been more widely available than ever, not just on TV and radio, but on the Internet. I don’t know that overall viewership has increased greatly. The requirement of free air time seems to me to be largely a solution in search of a problem.
I agree that the League of Women Voters used to do a good job. But their influence has been hobbled by demographic changes. More women in the workforce has also meant fewer politically involved women volunteers with free time. Here in California, some previously robust chapters of the league have shut down.
An even larger problem is that the League got out of the presidential debate business because the candidates insisted on total control. The problem isn’t just money or access, but the cynical insistence of the current crop of campaign advisors that every aspect of a candidate’s “message” but be tightly managed, controlled, and communicated to the suckers, uh, I mean, voters.
Sometimes, as in the case of Romney’s implosion, voters see through a relentlessly phony attempt to package an essentially empty candidate whose message seemed to be “what do you want me to tell you?” But I doubt that future campaign managers will learn anything from this.
Yep.
crw
Obama can and will flip the experience argument on its head. He has the perfect quip: Don Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had a lot of experience, and look where it got us. A Republican campaigning on experience this year is a losing strategy. Everyone except the Bush dead-enders wants a clean break from the last 7 years.
As for foreign policy, “100 years in Iraq” and “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran” are definite losers. McCain has a tough row to hoe, in my opinion. To win, he needs to prop up his Maverick myth to keep independents on board. But if he plays it too much, conservatives will be demoralized. The Democrats get to run as the party that opposed all the fuck ups of the last seven years, especially if Obama gets the nod. That said, I wouldn’t doubt the Democrats will find a way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory anyway. We’ll see.
CaseyL
Kevin is absolutely right. I was outraged on Hillary’s behalf by her treatment after Iowa; it pushed me into her camp for a while.
But she keeps playing pity-me games, complaining how mean everyone is … meanwhile, she’s shivving voters in the back (in Nevada, Michigan, and Florida).
As I’ve said: play dirty politics with other candidates? OK, I don’t like it, but it’s part of the political game.
But play dirty politics with the voters? Sorry, no; I’m off the bus at that point.
I never thought I’d say this, but I’m thoroughly disgusted with the Clintons.
myiq2xu
How did she “shiv” the voters in the back, when she won the popular vote in all three states with record turn-outs?
She didn’t break any rules. Yes, she has taken the position that the Michigan and Florida delegates should be seated at the convention, but that decision isn’t up to her.
It remains a matter to be resolved, and I hope it can be done to the satisfaction of the majority of Democrats. Let’s not waste energy getting outraged on this issue when it could well be resolved or be a moot point by the time of the election.
The Grand Panjandrum
I don’t think it will be as disastrous as some might think. The race is motivating Democrats to get out and vote. So Huckabee staying in the race at least gives the Republicans the semblance of a race. Huckabee did well yesterday and that generated headlines for the Republicans. Once McCain locks it up he disappears from the headlines until convention time. In other words he will get little attention unless blows up and lets that infamous temper get the best of him.
Not necessarily. I threw my name in the hat to become part of a project to make sure this fucking disgraceful nomination process is at least vaguely democratic. I am an Obama fanboy but I don’t have a problem with the Florida and Michigan delegates being seated if everyone can agree that it be done equitably and that Super Delegates do end up swinging the vote away from a candidate who has a clear lead in pledged delegates. (NOTE: Yes, I know the caucus’s are not perfect, but we can’t fix everything!)
(A little blog self-pimping here.(Please! I am pimping myself so don’t ask for me to be suspended.)) I have a post about the Super Delegate Transparency Project begun by The Literacy Project blog. Take a quick glance and if you are so inclined go to the Literacy Project and get involved in making sure that we mitigate disenfranchisement, and that the rank and file members are the deciding factor in this election.
Let the chips fall where they may. I don’t want the super delegates swinging the election one way or the other. Super delegates, are not elected by any constituency (with regard to this nomination process), it was a system set up to make sure the establishment gets the final say when the nomination is close.
After the NM Democratic Party’s complete and utter mismanagement of our caucus here, (We still don’t know who won!) I don’t want any of these rat-bastards throwing the election. They don’t deserve to have that much say. In the state of NM, based on caucus turnout, super-delegates have the weight of approximately 12,000 voters.
myiq2xu
Interesting story on superdelegates:
Both candidates want to win, and they both will spin whatever arguments will help them achieve their goal.
That’s politics.
Birdzilla
A SEASON OF MIRICLES? dose that meaan not having anymore liberal demacrats in office or having them voted out? THAT WOULD BE A MIRICLE
firebrand
There isn’t anything in that Frank Rich article that is untrue. He called out the Clintons on their dirty tactics, and they deserve to be called out on them.
myiq2xu
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Go back to Redstate and tell them you need some new meme
Dave_Violence
Frank Rich is a bleeding-heart liberal among bleeding hearts. He’s left of Bob Herbert. His audience for the essay is other bleeding-hearts to whom the NYT is TRUTH. Thusly, he is adding “integrity” to the democrats as he is criticizing his own party’s candidates for their non-allegiance to truth, justice, honesty, purity of spirit, non-corruption, etc. – you know, all the things the Democratic party stands for – and what Hillary! is supposed to stand for, right?
Got that right. Which is why Hillary! should be focusing on the economic team she will bring to the white House with her. Her husband’s team can be credited with the awesome prosperity of the 1990s. Will she bring the US back to that – from the desperate times we’re in and have experienced during the nearly last 8 years? I mean, what with the soup kitchens and homeless tents all over the place, it’s what we need…
crw
Speaking of dirty tricks, the Republicans stopped counting the caucus votes in Washington with nearly 13% to go, and called it for McCain. Apparently they didn’t want to risk their man McCain being embarrassed by yet another Huckabee win.
Mmmm. Schadenfreudaliscious. The GOP is imploding in spectacular fashion.
crw
Feh. Word press ate my link:
Here
myiq2xu
I am continually amazed at the faux outrage expressed at Hillary’s “dirty tactics” when no one can point to anything illegal or unethical as an example.
No bribes, no vote rigging, no “caging” or Rovian false rumors.
A couple inappropriate statements and a few others taken out of context are hardly “dirty tactics,” especially when they immediately fired the worst offender.
The same people who express this outrage think Shuster’s comment was no big deal. Coincidentally, they were opposed to Hillary in the first place.
The dispute over Michigan, Florida and the superdelegates is just that, a dispute. It is being conducted openly and both sides have a vested interest in the outcome. What is dirty about that?
Rich’s column is weak on facts and long on assumptions. It’s all sizzle and no steak.
That is “playing the race card?”
Walker
From the last sentence I assume you are being sarcastic. But go to Florida, Arizona, Nevada, California. Michigan, or Ohio right now and you will understand that things are indeed becoming economically desperate. And they are just the first wave of the burst. Other states will follow. The banks are indeed starting to fail, and the FDIC is preparing for a retread of the S&L bailout.
Greenspan’s bubble economy of the past 8 years was not prosperity. The average voter knows this. This is why in poll after poll they no longer trust Republicans on economic matters. Republicans have lost any claim to fiscal responsibility.
The Other Steve
Funny. That’s what the Republicans said too when defending the swift boat attacks on John Kerry.
The Other Steve
It appears there as been a implosion inside Camp Hillary. The campaign manager has been disappeared, and replaced with a new talking bobblehead.
Sadly, Mark Penn was not caught in the implosion.
The Other Steve
Yeah, I have to agree that the economic collapse caused by the credit markets has not hit bottom yet.
Dr. Squid
Like most of what Frank Rich writes, it’s pleasing crap. And I don’t even like Hillary.
About 85% of each candidates voters would be pleased with the other candidate as nominee with the GOP is tearing itself apart, and Rich is touting “Civil War” among the Democrats?
Complete garbage. Somerby’s going to have a field day tomorrow.
ThymeZone
Obama 57% Clinton 42%
59% reporting in Maine caucuses.
Fausto Carmona
That same explosion seems to have encompassed Maine, Steve.
Five for five. I’m starting to wonder if Clinton even survives the month.
Brachiator
Very interesting stuff. The announcement came at a moment when Clinton’s campaign was symbolically grounded:
Williams is more than a bobblehead, however. She is Clinton’s former chief of staff from Hillary’s days as First Lady. In the past, Williams has been praised as an administrator and as an advisor on Clinton’s health reform strategy (which could be good or bad). A 1994 Washington Post profile on her also noted:
The full profile can be found here:
Williams Is Assistant to Both the Clintons
One can only hope.
myiq2xu
That’s your best shot? I’m disappointed.
Kate Stone
There was not one fact in Rich’s piece. Did anyone notice how he slimed Carole Simpson, an African American journalist. He called her servile. Carole Simpson has more class and dignity and professionalism than Rich could ever hope to have.
The Other Steve
I did not want to be accused of being mean to Hillary.
Conservatively Liberal
Shorter myiq: Leave Hillary Clinton alone!!! Leave her alone!!!
The more you rant and rave about ‘poor Hillary!’, the better the MUP looks. Keep it up!
Wilfred
And if you ever, change your mind, about, leavin’, leavin’ me behind…
Brachiator
None of the candidates are particularly strong on foreign policy experience, and it is amazing that any of them would seek to make a big thing of this given the spectacular failure of Bush’s supposedly hard-headed “long-experienced” team of Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Also, no matter what he might do if he is actually elected, McCain is honor-bound by demands of party loyalty to shackle himself to Dubya’s foreign policy folly. This makes him vulnerable to either Democratic Party candidate.
In some ways, we might be better off judging the candidates on foreign policy by the caliber of the people they select as advisors and potential cabinet picks than by parsing the candidates’ personal experience in this area.
I don’t think we can count of the fantasy that a Hillary Clinton Administration would be a clone of her husband’s term in office, nor on the equally moony fantasy that her decisions and actions will exactly mirror those Bill made just because she was supposedly magically co-president, or her 35 years of
experienceapprenticeship/ back-seat driving.empty
I keep looking for these “rants” and “raves.” Maybe anytime someone disagrees with you they are “ranting and raving?” How about actually answering the guy’s points.
firebrand
Oh Please. Take your ad hominem attacks and shove ’em. Just because I don’t buy into your Clintonista spin doesn’t mean I’m some sort of arch-conservative.
myiq2xu
It’s kinda like one of those talking toys. Press a button, get one winger meme. Press it again, get another. But after a few times it starts over at the beginning.
Neo-con?
over_educated
Ever notice that any anti Hillary thread has a particularly high count of:
1. New posters rushing to Hillary’s defense.
2. Constant, avid, and almost too talking-point-like defenses by myiq2xu (also a relatively new poster who appeared during the primaries)?
To be honest I will vote for Clinton or Obama, whoever wins, but a have seen coordinated pro-Clinton responses on more than a few boards…
myiq2xu
As I recall, 7 years ago that was supposedly one of G-Dub’s big strengths. He had Powell, Rice, and the neo-con dream team as foreign policy advisors.
How did that work out?
John S.
myiq2xu-
Uh-oh, things aren’t looking too good for your gal.
First, having to loan her campaign money, then getting swept in 5/5 contests this weekend by wide margins and now dumping her campaign manager.
I’m not counting her out just yet, but things sure don’t seem to be going her way since Super Tuesday.
myiq2xu
I hope the media starts reading her oh-bitch-you-ary again.
$10 million and 100k donors.
I guess Eli should have given up last week when the Patriots scored the go-ahead touchdown late in the 4th quarter last week. Things weren’t looking too good then either.
But the next time I vote, I’m voting for the Democrat.
LIberal Masochist
Re: Hillary as Eli Manning
Tough analogy if that’s where you think Hillary is right now (83 yards, 2 minutes to play and needing a TD).
myiq2xu
Oh yeah, those notorious racists promoted a black woman to the top campaign spot in Hillary’s operation, replacing a latina woman.
The black woman was previously HRC’s chief of staff when Hillary was the First Lady, and is a long-time friend and supporter.
Redleg
Hillary’s dirty campaign tricks are pretty fucking minor as compared to the kind of shit being spewed out by the Republican candidates. Until Hillary declares that her opponent(s) are pro-surrender-to-terrorists, the Frank Rich’s of elite journalism should stop making mountains out of molehills. Where were Frank Rich and the rest of the hand-wringers when KKKarl Rove was stinking up the airwaves during the two Bush campaigns?
ThymeZone
After listening to campaign speeches for a week, it’s my opinion that the Pony has switched sides.
It’s not Obama offering you a pony, it’s HRC. Her speeches are a laundry list of liberal promises, many of which have been made and not kept in various ways for the last several decades. Just by virtue of the the list’s length alone, one can easily argue that there is no way she can possibly deliver on half of it.
I don’t know if I have heard such speeches, in which the candidate simply rolls out a list of anything and everything that any person in the audience could possibly want from government, and says Vote For Me I Geeve You Everytheeng.
Give me break! She is about an inch away from farce at this point. I’m a liberal, I like all those pretty ponies too. But I don’t believe for a second that she can deliver them.
MUP? Gone. It’s the Magical Handout Pony now. Burger King Politics — Have It Your Way.
Honestly, it’s insulting.
myiq2xu
Clapping with joy and writing stories extolling G-Dub’s honesty, integrity and strong moral leadership.
myiq2xu
Remember – real ponies don’t go oink or wear lipstick.
Asti
I love that! ;)
On a side note: I had a recent thought, instead of worrying about McCain running, shouldn’t we be more worried about who he plans to pick for VP as it seems THAT is the person we’re probably going to be stuck with if a GOP win (fat chance) happens.
Brachiator
I have noted before that Republicans lamely claimed that Dubya magically absorbed foreign policy experience while traveling with his Daddy, and anyway didn’t need to know anything about foreign policy because he had been touched by the baby Jesus.
This only a little different from the equally spurious claim that despite little actual foreign policy experience, Hillary Clinton has absorbed all of her husband’s experience or was somehow his side-by-side companion and chief advisor throughout all of his foreign policy decisions.
Note that I do not dismiss Hillary Clinton’s senatorial achievements, but the fact remains that none of the presidential candidates are particularly strong on the question of experience.
Also, Powell was kicked to the curb in favor of Rummy, Cheney and the neo-con hacks, and Condi served best as Dubya’s foreign policy tutor and nanny than as National Security Adviser or Secretary of State. There are also the continuing reports that Cheney runs his on foreign policy apparatus, bypassing the Departments of State and Defense, and anyone who is not the most narrow true-believer.
But a president does not conduct foreign policy on his on, or through his or her connections, or by plucking contacts out of a rolodex. Judgment and flexibility are as important as experience.
As a historical comparison, I note that Douglas MacArthur thought that his military and diplomatic experience allowed him to run roughshod over Harry Truman.
How did that work out?
ThymeZone
Am I the only person here who has absolutely no idea on earth what that means?
myiq2xu
Not too good for Dougie.
BTW – any comparison to G-dub is really unfair because of all the adjectives applied to Hillary and/or Obama, “dumbass” is not one of them.
myiq2xu
Probably not, cuz Patrick McManus is an acquired taste.
BTW – I had a strange mental image of you yesterday. I was trying to think of an example of the difference between someone who is anti-war liberal and a pacifist, and I imagined you at an anti-war rally, smacking some wingnut over the head with a sign that said “Give Peace a Chance – Or Else!”
No offense intended.
The Other Steve
Burger King politics is right. Hillary is running a classic Democratic campaign. She thinks that the way you win votes is not to gain the voters trust, but to offer to buy them shit.
It’s the same mistake that Karl Rove made in trying to create his Permanent Republican Majority with prescription drug plans and such.
The Other Steve
Channeling your inner wingnut?
ThymeZone
Can you send me a picture? Thanks.
But serially, I’ve done the non-violent protest thing, civil rights marches in the sixties, anti-war in the later sixties and early seventies. Never hit anyone.
I am not really a pacifist … yet. I think I have been heading in that direction for a long time but on 9-11 I was ready to put on a helmet and go shoot the perpetrators.
Well, the Iraq war cured me of that, since Iraq had nothing to do with 911. But I am more and more convinced that modern warfare is really highly mechanized terrorism, and I don’t like it. I don’t like the gratuitous violence and I don’t like the lies we have to tell ourselves to believe it’s justified. It isn’t.
I don’t blame Al Qaeda for 911, I blame a flaccid defense system that was developed for the Cold War and kept intact long after the Cold War was over. I blame the people who didn’t do their jobs, and didn’t listen to the briefings and scoffed at them as “covering your ass.”
The world has always been full of crazy sociopaths, it’s our job to protect against them.
myiq2xu
No, just recognizing that TZ will fight for his beliefs.
Asti
You’re sure?
firebrand
Try a sane individual. You know, the kind of person who opposed voting for the war in Iraq, voting for a bankruptcy bill written by the credit card companies, and voting for a bill that would basically authorize war with Iran. You know, all those things Hillary voted for.
myiq2xu
Anyone who isn’t willing to fight to protect themselves, their family, their friends or their nation doesn’t deserve freedom, and probably won’t get it or keep it for long.
But far too often people are misled into fighting so someone else can make a profit or gain power.
Simple rule of thumb – if you have to lie to people in order to get them to support a war, that war is immoral and wrong.
ThymeZone
Heh. Accountability is a bitch.
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but Obama voted present!
myiq2xu
Hillary did not vote on the Bankruptcy bill, she did vote for the AUMF, and voted for Kyl Lieberman.
Obama voted against the BK bill, wasn’t there for the Iraq vote (but has voted with HRC all but once ever since elected) and skipped out on Kyl Lieberman, even though he was in Washington DC that day and voted for other bills. he also sponsored a bill similar to K-L earlier that year.
Sorry if jumped to the wrong conclusion, but when you repeat right wing meme’s you have to expect confusion.
As my grandma used to say “If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
So, tell me about all the “dirty tactics” the Clintons have used. Please be specific.
ThymeZone
What’s that? Her voting record is pure War Party and go along to get along.
I don’t see her record as being that of a person who stands up and says “No” to the establishment. She is the establishment. I don’t think that’s a wrong conclusion.
Asti
Quite honestly, that’s why I’m hoping she doesn’t win the nomination.
myiq2xu
I wasn’t talking about HRC’s war vote. But you might find this quiz interesting.
myiq2xu
Ooooh! Snap!
HRC is on 60 Minutes, and she was asked if he nickname in high school was “Miss Frigidaire”
Her response was “Only with some boys.”
D-Chance.
We all await the YouTube meltdown video…
John S.
myiq2xu-
So, lemme clarify something with you.
Obama gets a dig for skipping a key vote:
But Hillary skipping a key vote is no big deal:
Is that what you are saying?
Also, wasn’t Hillary the only one to skip the bankruptcy bill?
Oh and, I’m not sure where you get the notion that Obama voted on other matters the same dayas Kyl-Lieberman because according to the Senate records, there were only two roll call votes on September 26, 2007:
And Obama was not present for either. Could you point me to whatever inormation you’re looking at that indicates something I’m not seeing?
John S.
Of course not, because her voting record isn’t that great. But hey, why focus on that when we can look at some fun soundbytes!
By the bye, which do you think is more important: a) what a politician says they are going to do or b) what they actually do?
ThymeZone
It would be more interesting if the guy who wrote wouldnt fuck with us and just label the material with the names.
The alphabet game is unneccessary and not hlepful.
Natascha
“Let me be clear – I don’t have a dog in this fight.”
LOL
Is that why you’ve dedicated so much time in defending Hillary Clinton in various posts?
myiq2xu
Skip to the end.
myiq2xu
You’re reversing it. Obama skipped the vote on K-L then bashed Hillary for voting for it. He voted against the BK bill but she skipped that one.
Either both skips matter or neither.
myiq2xu
Hmmmm. Like a politician who opposes the war and then scrubs his opposition speech from his website and says his position is no different from GWB and votes to continue the war over and over after he is elected and actually has a vote on the issue?
Splitting Image
“I am continually amazed at the faux outrage expressed at Hillary’s “dirty tactics” when no one can point to anything illegal or unethical as an example.
No bribes, no vote rigging, no “caging” or Rovian false rumors.”
Actually, the Clinton camp was linked to both the Obama-is-a-muslim business (a Rovian false rumor) and to the attempt to stop some of the Nevada caucuses from being held (arguably an attempt to rig the vote, although Clinton actually did win it).
Clinton’s statements to the effect that the nation will be destroyed by terrorists if they vote for the wrong man, although not a dirty tactic by any means, also seems to have rubbed many people the wrong way. And it certainly is a page out of Rove’s book.
I don’t know if I’d say her rap sheet is as long as some people make it out to be, but with respect to the Florida and Michigan business, I think she’s being more foolish than anything else.
The Republicans are in big trouble on the “fair elections” issue. Democrats still blame them for stealing 2000 and a fair number feel the same about 2004. Huckabee is filing suit over the Washington vote and people in the states he’s won are already hopping mad about McCain. The Democrats can break the G.O.P. into little bits over this, but they will completely lose the moral high ground if they fail to handle the delegate issue properly.
I don’t agree with what the DNC did, but having made the decision they did back in the fall, they pretty much have to stick with it and not change the rules to suit one of the candidates. If they do and the re-seated delegates decide the nomination, it eliminates one of the Democrats’ strongest selling points. The superdelegates could be an equally sticky issue. I’m sure they’re hoping that one or the other candidate will pull far enough ahead to make the point moot, but the last thing the Democrats need right now is to show disrespect for the electoral process.
It’s worth mentioning that the Republicans handled the “rogue” primaries much better. Although they lost half their votes, those states are booked and counted, and those delegates won’t be argued over even if Huckabee does hang in until the convention. It would be wiser for the Democrats to make sure that this issue doesn’t take up much airtime during the summer.
(I’m not 100% sure of the details, but I seem to recall that the date of the Florida primary, at least, was set by the state Republicans rather than the Democrats, and in a pinch, the state’s loss of its delegates can be blamed on them. The Democrats need to keep their noses clean to make sure that it is.)
John S.
I repeated exactly what you said. You gave Hillary a pass for missing a vote and then made a jab at Obama for missing a vote. What did I reverse exactly?
To be consistent, yes. You didn’t seem to be doing that with what you said, but in principle I agree. The only caveat is the significance of a vote. If you are comparing a vote add a monument in Washington DC to a vote to invade Russia, then you cannot compare the two equitably in terms of their significance. Context matters.
By the way, did you find where you saw that Obama voted on other matters the same day as Kyl-Lieberman?
myiq2xu
Let me clarify something – I’m not saying that Obama’s votes on the war since he was elected to the US Senate show that he is worse than Hillary.
He made a speech against the war when he was an Illinois legislator in a liberal district. Then he scrubbed that speech from his website and quit openly opposing the war once it started and was popular with the majority of voters, and especially while he was running for the US Senate.
But since he got there his record is virtually identical to Hillary’s in regard to Iraq. Even though it wouldn’t have changed anything, he could have taken a stand and voted to defund the war, but he didn’t.
Now the war is unpopular and he opposes it, but so does Hillary. He skipped the vote on K-L, then bashed Hillary for voting for it, even though he sponsored a similar bill earlier that year.
What I’m saying is don’t bash Hillary for those votes and use it as justification for voting for Obama because when push comes to vote he’s no different than her.
I’m not saying she’s better than him, but I’m not saying he’s better than her. I think either one of them will get us out of Iraq at about the same time.
myiq2xu
Yes, a Rovian false rumor against both of them, because she didn’t start it.
Because a union that endorsed her filed suit because one group was given work-related caucus sites but no others. Even if you assume that she was behind it, it was done openly in a court of law. Law = legal = not dirty.
WTF? I must have missed that one, do you have a citation on that?
Who are these “some people?” FOX News? And again, the Florida/Michigan thing is done openly and within the system.
Rules are rules on the primaries, but let’s change the rules on the superdelegates?
It was the Florida State Legislature that set the primary date, not the Florida Democratic Party.
myiq2xu
Hillary and Obama on the bankruptcy bill
myiq2xu
John S: re: K-L, I was going from memory and must have conflated it. Obama was not present that day, he was in New Hamster campaigning.
He claimed he did not receive notice in time to return for the vote, but Dodd and Biden stated they were notified in time to return.
It doesn’t change the fact that he sponsored a similar bill earlier that year, but bashed Hillary for voting for K-L.
myiq2xu
I am not a “Hillary fan” although she is my current favorite. I don’t hate Obama either.
My favorite candidate decided not to run, due in large part to his unpleasant experience in 2000. My second, third and fourth choices dropped out (3rd and 4th before the 2nd) leaving me with two well qualified but less than optimal (in my opinion) candidates to choose from.
I would not hesitate to choose Hillary or Obama over anyone in the GOP, including any or the midgets that ran or the deeply flawed frontrunner, McCain.
I am happy because I believe that either of the remaining Democratic candidates will win and will do well.
What some have called rants or unhinged diatribes against Obama are really my efforts to debunk the idea that Obama is some messianic figure that transcends politics and bodily functions.
He’s a lawyer and a politician from Chicago for Jeebus sake! He’s received endorsements from major Democrats and tons of money from corporations and wealthy donors. He’s built a formidable political machine, despite having been in Washington D.C. for only a few years.
If Hillary is the “establishment” candidate, then Obama is the “alternate establishment” candidate.
Cain
Sullivan is like the biggest cheerleader of Obama. He had some great anecdotes of what people outside the U.S. have been thinking. There was a particularly good Maine one about Barack giving an old fashioned stump speech outside without security. I think it’s the little stuff like that, common courtesy to people who have come to see you talk that makes people change their mind. I think he made several converts that day.
Hillary should be taking notes. I’m not sure she emulate that style but she sure needs to try something because the snowball thrown off the cliff is turning into an avalanche.
cain
cain
ThymeZone
No disrespect, myiq, but I don’t think you get this.
You can’t tell what is going on here by parsing legislative records or saying things like “they’re both lawyers.”
They are significantly different people. Their backgrounds are radically different. Their personalities are very different. Their expressed governing styles are different.
They attract voters for different reasons.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t do a monthlong imitation of a rabid Hillabooster and then act like you are just fine with whoever wins.
Looking for some way to explain why people feel differently about these two, I came up with this personal observation:
HRC chirps happy talk about being a woman, about glass ceilings and all that. Good for her, I am glad she is proud to be the first woman in the position she is in today.
Obama talks like a man who just takes it all in stride. He is calm, cool and collected all the time. Almost detached from the fray. Not an act, but the way he really is.
Gotta tell you, after the last few decades of American politics, I am attracted to a candidate who seems cool, a little unemotional, doesn’t drag a lot of Washington baggage around with him, and has a analyst’s way of looking at issues. I also like that he is black because I am sick of American racism and I think this puts a nail in its coffin. He’s the underdog and yet remains calm and serious about his pursuit of the goal. He doesn’t whine. He doesn’t campaign on a laundry list of promises. He doesn’t wink toward groups or away from problems. He answers questions with one word answers, like Yes and No.
I’ve already given more money to this guy than I have given to all the campaigns in my life so far. I plan to give more. He inspires me that way.
I don’t know what you are selling but whatever it is, I ain’t buyin it. I don’t hate it, but I don’t want to buy it either.
Conservatively Liberal
Actually, with Barack running for the presidency, IMO skipping the K-L vote was probably wise. It was one of those specially crafted ‘lose-lose’ bills that the right so loves to hang around the necks of the Democrats, and it is only designed to embarrass them and not much else.
Hillary fell for it and decided to support it in an attempt to pacify the right in the coming election. Obama may have seen it for what it really was, an attempt by the right to hang an albatross around his, Hillary’s and the rest of the Democrat’s necks. Just like the AUMF right before the November 2002 elections. Only the dumbassed dems fell for that one, and their political decision still cost some of them in the end.
So skipping out on K-L was no big deal for me as I knew exactly what the bill was crafted to to. It is a time honored tactic of the right, and it is only to make the other side look bad. Since the rabid right wingers will eat that shit up all day, the vote was of no consequence to them.
Now her skipping the vote on the bankruptcy bill is nowhere the same to me. She could have voted against the bill, but the financial arm of her campaign backers would not like that one a bit. Hers was another tactical decision, but this one had consequences for a lot of American citizens.
When her time comes and Hillary passes away, she is going to be reincarnated as a tripod for a surveyor.
Don’t worry myiq, we are used to you conflating things and make the necessary adjustments at this end to compensate for it. No explanation necessary.
Conservatively Liberal
empty, I have tried to talk some sense to myiq, as have many others here, but myiq is not interested in anything that does not
pimppump Hillary up.When myiq puts up an argument, it is so thin that it is getting easier to just walk around it rather than waste our time in responding to it. Still, we try.
There is hope that one day myiq will stand a bit too close to the back end of the MUP and get a swift kick in the head. A bit of tough luv from the MUP ought to do the trick!
Brachiator
Unfortunately for Clinton, the news station here (Southern California) showed a clip of Hillary speaking somewhere in Virginia, and apologizing for not being able to speak all dreamy and stuff, and instead emphasizing the value of her Midwestern-school-marm-take-your-medicine approach.
Ironically enough, here she not only disses Obama, but also her husband’s ability to connect with people, not to mention inspirational Democratic presidents of the past such as FDR and JFK. Why she continues to insist that her “seriousness” is such a tremendous asset is absolutely mystifying.
It will be interesting to see if the elevation of Maggie Williams will be able to elevate Hillary’s campaign.
chopper
see, many people use the primary fight to judge how a candidate will act under the stress of a leadership position. which is why a good horse race is a good thing, it lets us see more than just the shiny TV face of the candidate gladly taking the nomination.
personally, i see obama on top acting the same way he acted when he was behind. consistent, cool, collected.
myiq2xu
Two words for you:
“Crypt Keeper”
myiq2xu
Not exactly an example of bold, decisive leadership or taking a stand. He bravely criticized Hillary for her vote, when he skipped out on it to avoid being embarrassed.
That doesn’t explain Obama sponsoring a similar bill earlier last year.
Do you know why she skipped that vote? Not to campaign for President, or to avoid taking a stand so that her record couldn’t be used against her, but because HER HUSBAND HAD HEART SURGERY THAT DAY!
But you’ll probably say that Bill faked having heart surgery in a calculated attempt to provide Hillary with political cover.
Amirite?
Zifnab
Ask David Broder or Joe Klein. “Seriousness” isn’t the most important thing, it’s the only thing. Without “seriousness”, Saddam would still be trouncing around Iraq threatening us with WMDs and Osama would never have been chased into Pakistan exactly as Dear Leader planned.
Dude, whatever. Bill’s in and out for heart surgeries between Big Mac Attacks. If Hillary feels that standing by her husband’s side in the ER is more important than casting a bill against an atrocious bankruptcy bill, then that’s fine by me. She can hand over her Senate seat to someone with more time to do the job and spend more time with her family. But don’t give me the “sick puppy” defense. The Dems dragged Senator Tim Johnson onto the floor to vote down some rather bad legislation when the guy was still recovering from a stroke. “My husband had heart surgery the day of the vote” is no fucking excuse.
Zifnab
Casting a vote. Casting a vote against an atrocious bankruptcy bill. Damn you, lack of edit button!
myiq2xu
This guy gets it:
No matter what Hillary does or doesn’t do, it’s wrong.
If someone says “I hate Hillary because of X” and you prove that X is not true, they say “Dude, whatever, I hate her because of Y.”
It’s an ineradicable and ever-mutating virus.
dslak
I hate Hillary because I’m a white man, and that’s just what white men do. Prove that I’m not a white man!
myiq2xu
Krugman today:
I hope Paul meant to say ” . . . is no more real than the claim that Al Gore said he invented the Internet.”
dslak
He had it right. He’s saying that both are fictional entities. The way you want to re-word it, he’d be saying that it was a fictional entity claiming that Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet.
myiq2xu
I don’t need to prove you’re not a white man. I am a white man, and I don’t hate Hillary. The same is probably true of Bill Clinton.
BTW – You were being snarky, weren’t you?
dslak
Aye, but you’re not a true white man then, are you?
Either you’ve been here too long or not long enough.
myiq2xu
It’s too early for me to parse that sentence.
Al Gore never said he invented the Internet.
dslak
It’s too early for me to point out that, if it hadn’t been to early for you to parse my sentence, you would have seen that I didn’t say that he did.
myiq2xu
The Tao of Yogi Berra?
John S.
Funny that in this very thread where you reject Rich’s observation on the grounds that he “is an old school Hillary hater” you would bring up Krugman.
Because Krugman hasn’t done a very good job of hiding the fact that he is a new school Obama hater.
dslak
Yes, Krugman does hate him some Obama (and as of today, Obama supporters). That doesn’t mean he’s not right in this particular instance, though. He would have made his point better if he had at least conceded that Bill’s “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina, too” comment could reasonably be seen as an attempt to paint Obama as the “black” candidate, and then said that Bill’s faux pas shouldn’t reflect on Hillary.
Since they’re some kind of bizarre package deal however, that defense probably wouldn’t hold up, anyway.
myiq2xu
Apples and oranges. Frank Rich is one of the Village Idiots, while Krugman has long been a liberal icon and an island of sanity in a sea of stupidity.
Besides, this doesn’t sound like hate:
Having a dispute on an issue isn’t the same as hating.
dslak
You’re right. It’s just the venomous Obama supporters he hates.
John S.
Which means that Krugman can’t possibly hate Obama?
Man, you need to quit posting for a while. Your willingness to justify anything – so long as it fits your pro-Hillary narrative – is really starting to become transparent. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. Krugman has been on the attack against Obama for months. You can spin it however you like, but that is a fact.
TrumanDem
Really? Andrea Mitchell actually mouths “The Potemkin village of victory celebratons?” This is the same woman who is nothing more than a hack stenographer to the Bush WH contrasting a Clinton event to a Potemkin village? The entire Bush aura, raison d’etra is a paeon to the Potemkin village. The simple and mere fact he purchased a so-called “ranch” in Texas to prop up a non-existent reallty that he was a simple cowboy with simple values makes anyone with a pea brain of comprehension want to wretch. This is Andrea Mitchell who never qualifies her work as being the wife of Alan Greenspan and who made it clear from the beginning she was for Bush over Gore at a campaign event with Sandra Day O’Conner. Potemkin village? Try your entire campaign Andrea. It’s a delusion of monumental denial in a world of FoxNews. Christ.
TrumanDem
Truman’s Conscience
“The Buck Stopped Here”