I didn’t watch the debate last night, I actually watched a couple old episodes of Angel (yeah, I am a dork), but I did tune in for the dumbest portion of the night:
Aside from the idiocy of Russert, I think this was a clear win for Obama, as his “reject and denounce” after Hillary tried to play “Gotcha!” just made her look foolish. If you listen to video, people are laughing at her when she says “Good, good. Excellent!” it is the same sort of nonsense we have dealt with for years, and Obama was having none of it.
At any rate, I promptly turned the debates off after that, and I wish I had not- apparently Schiavo was mentioned (and K-LO is upset!), but I still can not find a transcript. Oh, well.
So far, the more I see of Obama, the more I learn, the more I like him. I can’t think of another politician like that in my experiences.
*** Update ***
Found it at the NY Times:
RUSSERT: Senator Obama, any statements or vote you’d like to take back?
OBAMA: Well, you know, when I first arrived in the Senate that first year, we had a situation surrounding Terri Schiavo. And I remember how we adjourned with a unanimous agreement that eventually allowed Congress to interject itself into that decisionmaking process of the families.
It wasn’t something I was comfortable with, but it was not something that I stood on the floor and stopped. And I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better.
And so that’s an example I think of where inaction…
RUSSERT: This is the young woman with the feeding tube…
OBAMA: That’s exactly right.
RUSSERT: … and the family disagreed as to whether it should be removed or not.
OBAMA: And I think that’s an example of inaction, and sometimes that can be as costly as action.
Good for him.
*** Update #2 ***
And, as noted in the comments, just a few weeks ago I said– “Personally, the closer I look at Obama and his unity pony, the less I like.”
A few weeks of the Clinton campaign and starting to listen to Obama rather than his over-the-top supporters can work wonders.
Sasha
That’s the power of the Magical Unity Pony. Deny it at your peril.
sean
William F. Buckley. Ded
TheFountainHead
You know what’s funny, as good as a speaker he is, and as much as watching the debates live is interesting, seeing his words in text seems to make them even more intelligent and compelling. That or I need to reset my Kool-Aid IV drip…
Z
Uh-oh! K-Lo and co. aren’t feeling the unity…
How dare Obama value the Constitution over what social conservatives want!
zzyzx
Fun isn’t it?
I’m probably the one Obama supporter who doesn’t like his public speaking, especially in a debate. I see him stuttering and stammering a lot. However, what he says is so often what I believe, that I’m amazed to actually be voting for someone. This might be the first time I’m doing it in my life.
I just hope this isn’t setting me up for disappointment in either November or a year or two from now…
Scotty
I doubt any of the other of the 2008 candidates, past and present, could have answered these types of questions so straightforward and in a way that makes perfect sense. McCain would have answered with a ‘fuck you Russert’.
Halteclere
Interesting choice of adjective – “young” – youthful, innocent, full of life.
But Schiavo wasn’t exactly young – I vaguely remember her being in her ’30’s. But she was permanently brain damaged, which is the salient point of why the brouhaha. And which the adjective “young” does not touch.
RandyH
This morning John’s brother Juan Cole breaks down the semitic meaning of the name “Barack Hussein Obama” and shames that jerkoff radio host that introduced McCain at a rally yesterday. A very educational read.
Jon H
” I can’t think of another politician like that in my experiences.”
Ponies for everyone!
It’d be funny if the Iraq clusterf**k really did lead to finding a Pony. Just not in Iraq.
Justin
Every time K-Lo gets mentioned, I get a mental picture of another conservative bombshell bimbo. Then I google her name, and get her picture at the top of the screen, and throw up in my mouth a little. I have a bulimic’s teeth now because I keep mentally blocking the image and then returning to it.
Nothing says “fringe radical zealots” like a group picture that’s often mistaken for a portrait of the Peacock Family.
bootlegger
So the cons want to frame him as pro-choice and opposed to the TS fiasco? Good for them, the American people overwhelmingly support BO on this and it is one more nail in the cons’ rotting coffin.
I too find myself liking OB more and more as I get to know him better. At first I was kind of appalled at the whole bandwagon thing, but I too like the way he thinks. And not just philosophically, but the way he does it on his feet in debates. He denies the questioners’ premises, he throws his opponents critiques back in their faces, and while he does come off as a stammering Erkel at times, it also appears to be thoughtful. I like this dude and will be proud when he’s my president.
ThymeZone
B-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but WAIT!
lukasiak hasn’t given us his morning numbers matrix and explained why Clinton is still really winning!
Let’s not get ahead of ourselves here ……
I enjoy Paul’s numbers charts, they remind me a little of Sudoku, but without the fun part. Well, and without the box with the lines it in and stuff.
ThymeZone
Oh, I seriously doubt that. McCain smokes the Russert bone faster and harder than Russert can smoke the McCain bone, and that is some world class bone-smokin’ we are talking about, compadres.
Martin
He needs to work on his debate presence. He needs to lead with the terse, strong statement and then fill in behind it instead of doing his usual speech buildup thing. They are completely opposite in terms of how you lay out an argument and I think he knows that and having to consciously rework his speaking style throws him off. I give a lot of long talks as well and when I get in a debate setting, I do exactly the same thing. Making his situation a little worse is that he tends to build fairly long logical sequences. They aren’t long for speeches and such, but debates have such a small window to work it, it constrains him some.
McCain won’t be too hard in the debates but Obama better take time this summer and practice his debate style. But if McCain wants to, and the debate format allows it, he can probably rattle Obama pretty hard by cutting in on Obama early in his statements and denying him the ability to get to his point and forcing Obama to defend against incomplete points that he’s made. He’ll look like a dick to a lot of people, but if he takes Obama off his game it’ll be worth it. It’s an exploitable vulnerability.
Clinton has a quite good debate style. She gets most of it right. Her main problems are that she doesn’t relax so people don’t feel comfortable with her and that she’s not disciplined with her comments and tends to overreach and give places for her opponent to attack her. Given the situation, I don’t think we can fault her much for the latter – she’s got nothing else, really.
Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill
Exactly. I read Obama, via articles and the text of his speeches, well before I heard anything other than the ’04 DNC speech. In supporting him, it’s been a long, long tale of “what do you mean, ‘you don’t know what he stands for’? Did you forgot how to use Google, all of a sudden?”
Billy K
I tells ya, this Obammy kid is goin’ places!
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
That’s because he’s on his daily morning run to 8 months into the Future. Time machine, and all.
Even super geniuses have tools, you know!
Bubblegum Tate
Yes, but you see, whatever SoCons want is, by definition, the most Constitutionaliest option, so in this instance, by valuing the Constitution, Obama demonstrated clear hatred for the Constitution. Do you see the flaw in your logic now?
Shinobi
I had to re read that K-Lo post like 4 times before I could actually figure out what she was trying to say. It just made my head hurt so hard that anyone could think the whole TS fiasco was a good thing.
ken
Obama is going to be the first democratic candidate in my lifetime, and I have been voting since I cast my first presidential ballot for Eugene McCarthy, that I will vote against in November.
I will not vote for him because 1) he is the lesser qualifed candidate now against Clinton and will be again in November against McCain; and 2) Obama is just a ‘personality’ with no substantive record that I am aware of and as a liberal I oppose his messiasic message and his cult like followers.
p.lukasiak
Clinton has a quite good debate style. She gets most of it right. Her main problems are that she doesn’t relax so people don’t feel comfortable with her and that she’s not disciplined with her comments and tends to overreach and give places for her opponent to attack her. Given the situation, I don’t think we can fault her much for the latter – she’s got nothing else, really.
She’s good when she’s on her game, and last night she was off it.
After the Xerox debacle last week, she’s afraid to try any new material — and afraid to go on the offensive.
I mean, when Russert asked her about her tax returns, she should have shut him down by pointing out that this campaign is about issues, and that’s what the American people wnat to hear about — and that she’s made full disclosure of her own finances every year, and the only reason that Russert and his buddies want to see her tax returns is so they have another reason to spend hours endlessly obsessing over the details of her husband’s private life.
But instead of going on offense, she went on defense.
When Obama talks about how people up to 25 will be on their parents health insurance, she should say “Well that does help explain why you do so well with young voters, and I’ve got the support of working parents. I’m not going to tell parents to pay health insurance premiums on their adult children who can afford it themselves, but feel ‘indestructable’.”
All of her responses to Obama and questioners are canned — which is fine when she’s on her game, but don’t do the trick when she’s off her game.
Jim
I hate to cite Sullivan as someone I agree with, because he is too far gone on Clinton hate, but one point that he makes about Obama that does resonate is that Obama’s temperament is fantastic. He never seems particularly ruffled, and he doesn’t let the digs get to him like Clinton and McCain. I’m still not sure that it isn’t my dislike for Clinton that drives my liking of Obama, but he does wear well on people.
p.lukasiak
I will not vote for him because 1) he is the lesser qualifed candidate now against Clinton and will be again in November against McCain;
ken, as someone who feels the same way about Obama as you, not voting for Obama (if you live in a battleground state) is simply foolish. Seriously. Bill Clinton was unqualified for the job, had a disasterous first two years, then found his footing. And as bad as that kind of thing will be for the country, its far prederable to a “qualified” right-winger like McCain.
So, if you are thinking of not voting for Obama if he gets the nomination, remember two words:
Supreme Court
Laertes
I like and admire Hillary Clinton, and I’m sad to see her reduced to this. I wasn’t certain until just now, but it’s clearly over. Look at her. She knows that she’s beaten.
The audience laughed when Obama landed his riposte, but I also heard laughter when she created the opening in the first place. Ugly.
On the bright side, I expect Ted Kennedy looked like a chump by the end of his 1980 campaign, and he nevertheless went on to be a truly great senator for decades. HRC outta be able to come out of this okay, and Senator is a pretty sweet gig.
p.lukasiak
Obama’s temperament is fantastic. He never seems particularly ruffled,
yeah, he’s practically Reaganesque in that regard.
Which I would be happy with, if we could expect the GOP to roll over for Obama like the Dems did for Reagan.
The big difference between Reagan and Obama is that Reagan also had a killer instinct that I don’t find in Obama. I mean, given the same political opportunity, Reagan would grab a 57 magnum and blow your had off, Obama would choose a knife and deliver a flesh wound.
bootlegger
Experience?! The only person with experience at being president is someone who has been president. If by experience you mean time in congress, I don’t see how legislative deliberation qualifies you to be an executive. If it means executive experience, i.e. governor, these folks have no foreign policy experience. If by experience we mean “long in the tooth” then we should just hand our country over to the elders.
Fuck experience, I want someone who’ll make the right choices and if it’s a ten-year old from Oshkosh then I’ll vote for her.
p.lukasiak
The audience laughed when Obama landed his riposte, but I also heard laughter when she created the opening in the first place.
the worst part is that Hillary was right. Obama was waffling all over the place on Farrakhan — it was all about denouncing things that Farrakhan had said, not denouncing Farrakhan (and his support).
But she didn’t focus on his waffling, she just talked about what she’d done about a group that nobody ever heard of in New York.
Chris Johnson
Killer instinct has been working REAL great for this country. I like him the way he is. I don’t watch his speeches or go to them, ever, but I caught the youtube clip and he made me laugh with the ‘okay okay, reject AND denounce’ bit.
The underlying point being, “since when do I get to demand Farrakhan NOT SPEAK? Whether it’s in my favor or about things I detest, I’m not even going to pretend I have some right to shut him up, just to exercise my OWN right to say when I disagree.”
I don’t want to see Obama ‘denounce Farrakhan’. Let him keep right on denouncing the PARTS of what Farrakhan says that piss him off. We are not children, no doubt there are lots of good things Farrakhan does for those he works with. You just can’t let him make decisions about Jews and Israel, because he’s a bigot and has pre-judged the lot of them. Maybe there are lots of things you can’t let Farrakhan DO. That’s okay as well. We have all sorts of systems in place for stopping people from lashing out against each other, some are called policemen and judges and laws.
Nobody ever said you had to stop Farrakhan’s bastardly thoughts, you only get to stop him acting on them.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
The big difference is that Obama will leave the knife on the table; intentionally let his opponent rush to pick up the knife, trip, fall, and savage his femoral artery.
And it works, because his opponents are all the political version of meth addicts; they don’t realize how _completely stupid_ modern political common sense has become.
Example: Obama’s screw up on Farrakhan. He was apparently ready to denounce him, but he didn’t say “I denounce” so much as say “I have denounced”. Then Hillary jumps up to say “Yeah, but *I’ve* denounced _and rejected_ people!” Hillary mistakes a subject on nervous anti-anti-semitism for one about her. Because common sense says it’s always about her. Because it’s always about getting elected.
Obama doesn’t _need_ to hurt these people. Waste of effort.
p.lukasiak
Experience?! The only person with experience at being president is someone who has been president. If by experience you mean time in congress, I don’t see how legislative deliberation qualifies you to be an executive.
please. The idea that Clinton’s White House years count for nothing, given her role those eight years, is ridiculous. Except for people who have been President, there is no one alive who knows more about what it means to be President, and how the office operates.
Feel free to worry about the lessons she learned — how Bill Clinton regained and then maintained his high approval ratings simply by not taking on big challenges, refusing to take principled stands on issues like DOMA, and hyping popular but insignificant legislative achievements.
But lets not pretend that Hillary Clinton isn’t the person who is best qualified in terms of being ready “on day one”.
Billy K
Troll.
Sasha
He happily mentioned that he has denounced Farrakan before and that he didn’t cotton to the man’s hateful rhetoric. The fact that he didn’t start playing “my repudation of Farrakan is bigger than yours” is not much different than his refusal to play the “who’s the bigger patriot” game.
Chris Johnson
hey p.luk- Farrakhan is an American citizen so far as I know.
He has a RIGHT to support whoever he likes, whether that person backs all his bigoted nonsense or not. It’s called free speech, one of the things we used to have here.
I see no waffling, I see you not quite getting the point.
You actually want Obama to become a hysterical child, lump Farrakhan together with his crazy opinions, and cry out OH NOES THE BAD MAN or something? Just to try for Jewish votes harder, or at least the people who are more interested in their President having the same villains as they do?
What you do with a Farrakhan is you find ways to stop him harming society at large with his crazy bigotry. You don’t have the right to demand that he straighten out his wrong ideas or die- you do have the right to demand that his wrong ideas don’t do lots of physical damage and start running the show.
If you’d like to get Hillary in there to lock up the guy for being Farrakhan, I don’t see enough of a difference from Bush’s people locking up an Alabama governor.
Billy K
I can’t believe you can’t see it, p.luk. Obama has a silent assassin’s style. He gets the job done quietly, but completely. He outsmarts his opponent, often letting them hang themselves.
Can’t you see this is what he’s done to Clinton? Going into this primary, she was the 800-pound gorilla, the frontrunner, the Queen. He’s beaten her handily and fully without breaking a sweat. He’s cut off every recourse for her. She goes on the offensive, it backfires. She plays defense and he gains more strength. Hell, she didn’t even realize she’d been boxed in and beaten until last week or so.
If this isn’t a “killer,” I don’t know what is. I think you’re just too used to seeing the GOP’s style of brute force.
Sasha
Compare and contrast:
John Cole – January 13, 2008
John Cole – February 28, 2008
From hater to Kool Aid drinker in six weeks!
:)
So John, when did you first start munching on those delicious Magical Unity Cookies?
Chris Johnson
Enough with the ‘killer’ talk. We’ve had a goddamn killer in the White House for nearly eight fucking years. We need a grown-up.
Laertes
Word, Billy K.
At some point people gotta recognize that when one fighter is on the ground, unconscious and bleeding and the other is standing there without a mark on him, even if what happened was too fast or too subtle for you to follow it, the guy who’s standing can fight.
Billy K
Can we compromise for a grown-up killer? Or a killer of grown-ups?
John Cole
Honestly, when I stopped paying attention to his over-the-top supporters and actually listened to him. I am not sure if everyone is aware of this, but I have an instinctive revulsion to crowds. I hate protests, I hate rallies, I hate groupthink.
Billy K
Me too, John. Me too exactly what you just said. I also hate groupthink.
Jen
Weird, I think my very favorite moment at all wasn’t mentioned. Brian Williams told the National Journal had called him the “most liberal senator”, and he did, kind of quietly, this little “mmmm, mmmm, mmmm”, like this little sarcastic “oh, my, isn’t that awful, most LIBERAL, you say?”. Then he slammed that baby out of the park by talking about how ethics shouldn’t be a liberal thing (which, natch, they are, but hey)
Jen
BTW, the MUP has a million donors now.
Brachiator
The big difference is that Obama will leave the knife on the table; intentionally let his opponent rush to pick up the knife, trip, fall, and savage his femoral artery.
Good one. Some have become so demoralized by the GOP smear machine that they have endowed it with nearly supernatural power, like the dark mist on the tv show “Lost.” But the wheels have been coming off the GOP Smear wagon, from Limbaugh and others reduced to whining about the ascendancy of John McCain, to McCain himself repudiating the comments of a talk radio hack, and thus sending a clear signal that he will not simply assent to the vicious swift-boating of Obama.
On this morning’s episode of “The View,” comedian Joy Behar noted that she went to the dictionary and saw that “reject” is a word that you use about a bad boyfriend that you are breaking up with, and that “denounce” was the right word and was sufficient. And Behar remains a very strong supporter of Senator Clinton, but thought that this whole episode was a waste of time and did not serve Clinton well.
p.lukasiak —
By this logic, every First Lady should be their party’s first choice for presidential nominee. But I don’t see anyone seeking to draft Laura Bush to challenge John McCain for the GOP nomination.
While Senator Clinton may know what it’s like to be married to the president, there is nothing to suggest that she magically knows what it is like to be president or that even if she has such knowledge, she knows how to translate her once-removed observation of a chief-executive into the ability to do the job herself.
Further, her performance on the campaign suggests that she does not know how to choose able staffers, she does not know how to inspire voters to join her campaign, and she does not know how to reject bad advice. Even you note that she “she’s afraid to try any new material—and afraid to go on the offensive.”
All those years being the silent partner, behind the scenes, in the audience while Bill Clinton was governor and president apparently deluded Senator Clinton that she could easily step up on stage and become the star herself. But this would be like someone who was a 35 year long Green Bay Packer season ticket holder suddenly declaring that he or she should be named the next coach of the team.
Sadly, I think that Senator Clinton is the one who should stop pretending. In fairness, I think that she time has time to earn the nomination, but that window is quickly closing.
p.lukasiak
He’s beaten her handily and fully without breaking a sweat. He’s cut off every recourse for her. She goes on the offensive, it backfires. She plays defense and he gains more strength. Hell, she didn’t even realize she’d been boxed in and beaten until last week or so.
yes and no. The fact is that most of the serious “damage” being done to Hillary is done by the media. He’ll give her a flesh wound (or she’ll do something stupid), and the media will attack that wound like a bunch of maggots — and a wound that would have healed under ordinary circumstances becomes an open festering sore.
And the exact opposite thing has happened with Obama — up until now. An wound inflicted by Hillary (and any self-inflicted wound) is not merely allowed to heal, but at times the media is cleaning out the wound with antiseptic, and putting the bandages on.
Obama has played the game well, but its the refs who are really running the show.
You know the kind of treatment that both candidates got last night in the second segment? The kind that the Obots are outraged over (on behalf of Obama only — Hillary “deserves it”)? That’s what Hillary has been putting up with for this whole campaign. (I mean, do you remember the “drivers license” debate?)
Asti
John, I think it’s so cool that you and TZ and I are all planning to vote for the same person. ;)
Z
Ohhh, I see now. Plus, if you just change the meaning of the words in the Constitution, then unconstitutional=constitutional anyway. Whee! Cognitive dissonance is fun!
p.lukasiak
By this logic, every First Lady should be their party’s first choice for presidential nominee. But I don’t see anyone seeking to draft Laura Bush to challenge
get a grip. Laura Bush is not a policy wonk. She may be there, but she’s not there, in the thick of things.
ATLLIBERAL
“A few weeks of the Clinton campaign and starting to listen to Obama rather than his over-the-top supporters can work wonders.”
Listening to Obama is what makes his supporters go
over-the-top sometimes. The more I listen to him the more I like, the more I am hopeful we can reverse some of the worst of the last 7 years. I get insulted when people criticize Obama supporters as naieve as if we have no idea what he stands for. I’m a political junkie, watch c-span, read blogs, watch the debates, read the position papers, listen to the speeches, and make my decision of who to support based on who I think will be best for the country, not magical ponies.
Laertes
You gloss over the fact that Laura Bush is a traditional First Lady (read: potted plant) and HRC was a serious player in President Clinton’s administration. She wasn’t President, but she wasn’t a decoration either. No doubt she learned a great deal about how to use and not use the office, experience that would serve her well should she ever get there herself.
A damning criticism. Bush The Lesser has taught us many things, and chief among the lessons is that a President who can’t spot and exploit talent can’t succeed.
Billy K
I don’t have cable TV. I watch very little broadcast TV. I have little time to watch YouTube clips. What news media I consume is 90% online. So I can’t argue this point with you in good faith.
But I will say this – Hillary supporters whining about the media not giving them a fair shake just make them sound small and incapable – the exact opposite argument Hillary has been trying to make. And it puts you in the same camp as the Hannitys and Limbaughs complaining that it’s all the media’s fault.
Is this really how you want to appear to the world?
Asti
What did Hillary do besides get involved in Healthcare and pick out china patterns?
I feel more comfortable with a potted plant in the First Lady position than someone involving themselves in a job they weren’t elected for. When I voted for Bill Clinton, I didn’t vote for Hillary to be a policy maker, I voted for her to pick out china patterns.
p.lukasiak
A damning criticism. Bush The Lesser has taught us many things, and chief among the lessons is that a President who can’t spot and exploit talent can’t succeed.
I beg to differ. Presidential candidates are usually so busy campaigning, they have little time to run their campaigns themselves. As a result, small problems can fester and become big ones without the candidate finding out until too late.
The role played by a candidate, and a President, is completely different. Its their job to make the decisions… and someone who is not doing their job is going to be spotted a lot quicker by a good President. (This is one of the things that bothers me about Obama — not merely his inexperience, but the whole ‘I rely on my staff to give me what I need to see when I need to see it’ stuff. )
Sasha
Me too!
Asti
Should we start placing marital communities on ballots instead?
Sasha
What he said! We are all individuals!
:)
Z
Ditto, Laertes.
p.lukasiak
But I will say this – Hillary supporters whining about the media not giving them a fair shake just make them sound small and incapable – the exact opposite argument Hillary has been trying to make. And it puts you in the same camp as the Hannitys and Limbaughs complaining that it’s all the media’s fault.
Well, if the main reason that a better hockey team was losing was because the refs were watching (and calling) only the better team for penalties — and even calling penalties when they don’t exist — while you may call it whining, I think the team has a legitimate complaint.
zzyzx
Not me!
Billy K
No. A better team gets over a few bad calls. Happens every day.
(And don’t you dare retort with “she’s not getting a FEW bad calls against her – she’s getting them ALL.”)
zzyzx
YM football and I’m still mad about XL ;)
Laertes
It’s certainly true that the media hates Democrats in general and Clintons in particular. I won’t try to deny that Clinton’s been ill-treated by the media jackals, even worse than Obama’s gotten it. It’s not fair, and it sucks.
That said, the media wasn’t her biggest problem. HRC’s #1 problem was that her moment coincided with the emergence of a uniquely charismatic and exciting candidate. The Obama phenomenon is a once-in-a-generation event. There’s no way she could have seen this coming, and I don’t know that there’s anything she could have done to prevent it.
And if Obama wasn’t in the race, she’d have the nomination by now, and she’d go on to crush McCain come November, and no amount of media asshattery would change that.
zzyzx
As for the main complaint there, well politics isn’t fair. Sometimes a candidate somehow manages to be able to deflect criticism that would bury another one. No, it’s not fair, but complaining about it doesn’t work either.
I probably would make a pretty good public official in terms of understanding policy and being able to articulate why the opposition has flaws, but I have some speech problems and low charisma. That doesn’t mean that’s it’s unfair that I won’t ever be elected to office. Being able to deflect criticism away from you is a political skill.
It’s not that the press haven’t tried to go after Obama; it’s that he’s been able to stop them every time.
Billy K
But let’s not forget that she had an IMMENSE advantage in name-recognition over everyone in the field due to that media attention, good or bad. A lot of her votes are still coming from people who haven’t paid much attention and just know the name Clinton and remember things weren’t so fucked up back then.
Double-edged sword, and she doesn’t get to pick which side she gets at any particular moment.
Brachiator
Uh, bad metaphor. Maggots have been used effectively to eat away at necrotic tissue, preventing a wound from becoming infected.
Aside from that, the media will always be around. A good candidate overcomes obstacles. A bad candidate, her supporters, and the GOP smear machine, whine about bad media coverage.
Both you and Hillary Clinton need to get your story straight. She was supposedly either watching and learning from experience or actively in the thick of things, setting the agenda. Of course, Senator Clinton cannot really prove any of this (and strangely refuses to allow access to many presidential papers that specifically dealt with her).
Instead, she insists that we take this all on faith. Also, instead of a clear feminist record of independent achievement, her claims here reek of the claims of embittered wives that either they were really the power behind the throne, or that their husbands would have been nothing without their advice and guidance.
But any way you cut it, simply being a policy wonk does not make you an effective leader.
Her main attempt to be a player, attempting to push the Clinton health care plan, was largely a debacle, and even here she can’t take any responsibility herself but blames her opponents and the media.
But the larger problem here is that unlike Bobby Kennedy, who could ultimately make himself into a person independent of his brother, even though he had been JFK’s confidant, advisor and muscle, Hillary Clinton, as the wife of Bill Clinton, cannot entangle herself from him. And ultimately, any claim that she makes to have been a player is blunted by the hard fact that any power she wielded was a result of her husband’s position as governor and president, not to her own independent ability to wheel and deal.
I very much doubt. What I have seen of her in the campaign, and what I have heard from her in the debates says that she is more Policy School than Command School. I admire her as a senator, but don’t see her as more presidential than Obama.
Some keep harping on Senator Clinton’s deep knowledge. Some even call her brilliant. But some of our best presidents, from Abraham Lincoln to FDR to Harry Truman, had initially been dismissed as lightweights. JFK was a callow playboy who was pushed into the spotlight only because his older brother had died earlier.
But all these presidents were noted for their ability to listen to, and to touch the people. They also knew how to pick their staffs and their generals, and to bring out the best in their advisors. It’s said that a good Irish Catholic had two pictures on his wall, one of Jesus and one of JFK. In different, perhaps lesser, ways, Reagan and Bill Clinton had a touch of this as well.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, seems stuck in “Why don’t you understand why I am your best choice” mode. And her claims of being ready from day one, of being ready to work hard, carries with it the picture of someone behind closed doors doing what she thinks is best, while the common man and woman are on the other side of the door, shut out, with no one willing to listen to them.
Senator Clinton is very smart, but apparently not smart enough to recognize the degree to which she is on the wrong side of history.
bwaage
Wow. I can’t believe that Hillary tried to characterize rejecting anti-semitism in New York as some sort of brave, risky political stand.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Someone else gets it! I feel included.
Well done, sir, well done. Perfectly executed with two words and a punctuation mark.
Brachiator
This just in from Team Clinton: From Obambi to The Obaminator:
The full story here:
Obama Blitzes Airwaves
What was that again about a lack of a killer instinct?
Jim
Obviously Hillary wasn’t completely informed as to the goings on in the Oval Office.
Caidence (fmr. Chris)
Perfect Hillary speak.
Not “They seem determined to end this now”
Not “They are outspending us; we believe unwisely so”
Not “We are lacking the funds to take Obama head on”
Not “Since Obama captured the unions, Obama’s brand seems ubiquitous”
Not “Obama appears under-confident that he still does not have the convention clinched”
Not “Obama lacks policy so he’s spending money instead”
But “HALP we’re being ATTACKED by Barack!! He’s trying to CRUSH US! Pain and suffering! Imminent darkness! Mommy!”
Rick Taylor
There’s a bit of it on youtube as well.