Clinton's Cringe-Worthy Moment

posted by John Nichols on 02/26/2008 @ 11:56pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (76)

Subscribe Now

Hillary Clinton should probably spend a little more time boning up on her husband's trade record than watching NBC's "Saturday Night Live."

That might have helped her to figure out that no good was going to come from trying to be funny, biting and substantive at the same time.

But, as she did last week with her "change you can Xerox" line about Barack Obama's borrowing of speech lines, Clinton tried to take a swing at Obama and hit herself in Tuesday night's Democratic presidential debate.

It was a hit she couldn't afford to take.

With the criticial Ohio and Texas primaries less than a week away, Clinton needed to get everything right Tuesday night.

Instead, she created one of the more cringe-worthy moments of the 20 Democratic presidential debates in which the pair have participated.

Recalling last Saturday night's spoof of Obama-friendly media – which saw faux journalists asking an actor playing Obama if he was comfortable and then demanding that an actor playing Clinton answer probing questions – the senator from New York suggested that MSNBC debate moderators Brian Williams and Tim Russert were going easy on the senator from Illinois while giving her a hard time.

"Well, can I just point out that in the last several debates, I seem to get the first question all the time. And I don't mind. I -- you know, I'll be happy to field them," Clinton said after taking a perfectly legitimate question about the trade policy issues that are so central to the Ohio primary fight that will be decided March 4. "But I do find it curious, and if anybody saw ‘Saturday Night Live,' you know, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and needs another pillow. I just find it kind of curious that I keep getting the first question on all of these issues. But I'm happy to answer it."

Judging by the audience's reaction, Clinton struck precisely the wrong note.

As with the "change you can Xerox" line, Clinton's jab was greeted with boos.

On a night when she needed to turn in the best performance of her political career, the former frontrunner instead seemed petulant, even desperate.

Obama, in contrast, was able to suggest that his campaign "doesn't whine."

And in so doing he prevailed.

In a debate that failed to reveal fundamental differences between the candidates on the health care and trade issues that tended to dominate the night, he came across better: smoother, less easily ruffled, more in control.

Clinton, as has been her pattern in debates, was quicker on her feet and more detailed in her answers. At her best, she succeeded in presenting herself as what she seeks to be: the more experienced, more worldly and more politically savvy contender.

But Clinton was not always at her best, as the "Saturday Night Live" shtick illustrated.

Take her actual answer to the trade question.

"You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning," she claimed. "I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration, but when I started running for the Senate, I have been a critic. I've said it was flawed. I said that it worked in some parts of our country, and I've seen the results in Texas. I was in Laredo in the last couple of days. It's the largest inland port in America now. So clearly, some parts of our country have been benefited."

Let's try and follow that one for a moment.

Clinton's been "a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning." Does that mean she argued against the trade deal back in 1993, when the Congress was debating it? Well, not really. The best Clinton could do was to say, "I think (White House hanger-on)David Gergen was on TV today remembering that I was very skeptical about it."

Clinton says that, from the time she started running for her New York Senate seat in 2000, she's "been a critic." But, as recently as 2004, she was suggesting that, on balance, NAFTA's been good for New York and America.

Clinton says she's "a critic," that the deal is "flawed." But in the same breath she is detailing how "some parts of our country have been benefited."

In a word, her answer, which Russert got her to repeat several times, was "convoluted."

Obama was not particularly better. After Clinton had dodged and deviated for the better part of ten minutes, the Illinois senator said, "I think actually Senator Clinton's answer on this one is right."

In fact, for all of the sparring on the issue, the two candidates ended up saying pretty much the same thing.

"I will say we will opt out of NAFTA unless we renegotiate it, and we renegotiate on terms that are favorable to all of America," said Clinton.

"I will make sure that we renegotiate, in the same way that Senator Clinton talked about," said Obama.

Not an inch between them.

And that made the debate a win for Obama.

The Illinois senator, who is surging in the polls in Ohio, Texas and nationally, only needed to hold his own Tuesday night.

He did that, with a little help from Hillary Clinton.

Comments (76)

NICHOLS: In a debate that failed to reveal fundamental differences between the candidates.......

Therein lies Hillary's fundamental problem against a photogenic Magic Candidate who has yet to find the need to "whine".

IF Hillary loses the fight......blame it on the wagon she wouldn't unhitch! Gore did, and went down swinging against the Repub....Not another Dem!

Posted by Happy at 02/27/2008 @ 12:06am
thank god this is almost over.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/27/2008 @ 12:11am
Nichols is right, there's barely a dime's worth of difference between Barry Oh! and Hillbillary's policies. But, Barry Oh! looks so much better, and no experience is better than the wrong kind of experience........

So, Lets all do the Obama Chant!

Hope for change, hope for change, change, change, hope, hope!

(Can't you just imagine Obama Girl covered only in pom-pons?)

Posted by TransitDave at 02/27/2008 @ 12:38am
I was embarrassed watching Sen. Clinton eviscerate herself. She has devolved into the object of a feeding frenzy. Yet, she put herself there by slow degrees. Sen. Clinton emerged 14 months ago as the heir to the throne, with much pomp and circumstance. No candidate can possibly start a campaign as the self proclaimed winner and expect to remain there. It's a matter of hubris. It left her wide open to a candidate who has built his campaign from the grass roots up. It was on February 5th when both campaigns achieved parity, and Clinton discovered she had a flimsy base. Obama's base, however, was able to lift him by its swell. If Sen. Clinton falls behind in TX and OH, this will be totally Shakespearean.

Posted by Staggo Lee at 02/27/2008 @ 12:38am
"convulted."

what does that mean?

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 12:54am
ok. here it is:

Jobri Convulted Pillow Plus

PRODUCT INFORMATION

Jobri Convulted Pillow Plus

SKU: JB-60-208-00 Retail Price: $17.00

Our LOW Price: $14.99

You Save: $2.01 (12%)

Availability: Usually ships in 2-3 weeks

Jobri Convulted Pillow Plus

Gift-wrapping is not available for this product. [damn! i wanted to send one to the hip-hoper]

Features:

Special curve, medium density foam.

Special convoluted dimple design, allows air to circulate.

Removable and washable 100% cotton cover.

Color: White

http://www.egeneralmedical.com/jobri-convoluted-pillow-plus.html

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 12:59am
Dear Frosty Zoom--

It's a kind of parfait.

Posted by Staggo Lee at 02/27/2008 @ 12:59am
Sen. Clinton falls behind in TX and OH, this will be totally Shakespearean.

Posted by STAGGO LEE 02/27/2008 @ 12:38am

LADY MACBETH To bed, to bed! there's knocking at the gate:

come, come, come, come, give me your hand. What's

done cannot be undone.--To bed, to bed, to bed!

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 01:02am
It's a kind of parfait.

Posted by STAGGO LEE 02/27/2008 @ 12:59am

i scream, she whines............

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 01:05am
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/27/2008 @ 12:38am |

thats a great tactic, ridiculing people for having hope. gonna win you guys an election. go with it!

but why imagine obamagirl with the pompoms ON? enjoy life...

just abandon hope...lol...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/27/2008 @ 01:11am
I'm sorry this maybe strong but Hillary behaved like a petulant child. I was hoping Tim Russert would say Ok we'll ask Obama. I dont get what the big deal she should go first since she goes on and on and on and on. I thought she was very rude. I didnt think that came across as strong just impolite. There was a point when Brian Williams had to go to commercial and she didnt want him to go WTH. This isnt a job for the local walmart its a job for the President of the US. She is in an interview and thats how she behave. And that crack about SNL I was so glad that Obama didnt smile at her poor attempt at humor at least I hope thats what it was. Since its ridiuclous to quote a show that uses anecdotal parodies as reality.

I was very disappointed in Hillary I dont think she behaved like a possible leader of the free world tonight.

Carol

Posted by harriscrl3 at 02/27/2008 @ 01:50am
Posted by HARRISCRL3 02/27/2008 @ 01:50am

always classy, well thought out posts.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/27/2008 @ 01:52am
a possible leader of the free world tonight.

Posted by HARRISCRL3 02/27/2008 @ 01:50am

and the imprisoned one, too........

Posted by frosty zoom at 02/27/2008 @ 02:02am
Ah, yes, another article on a minor aspect, blown out to enormous proportions, padded here and there with presumptive generalities, and tied up in a bow. Gee, where have I seen this before? The AP? Reuters? Why bother talking about the salient parts of the debate? Let's just talk about "soundbites" in "sports metaphors," like Keith Olbermann, a shill if there ever was one.

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 02:09am
Typical AP Clinton article:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap_campaignplus/20080227/ap_ca/on_deadline_ohio_ debate

Reuters chimes in:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080227/pl_nm/usa_politics_clinton_russia_dc _1

*

Care for an Obama AP article? Here's a typical recent one:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080226/ap_on_el_pr/obama;_ylt=AgFCa1Na6Sjmi mB4.CJ8prRh24cA

There are plenty more.

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 02:23am
Also, Zero, did you happen to notice that you're making comments on an article about the debate tonight, which is the exact same debate that you admitted elsewhere on this site that you didn't even watch. Keep on trucking.

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 02:37am
Poor princess. Considering her infantile whining and sullen pouts, Barack handles her exceptionally well.

It proves that he is presidential and she is not ready for prime time.

Posted by Lil at 02/27/2008 @ 06:56am
Clinton is running on pure ego and for the good of the country she and her cult followers should step aside before any more harm is done to the precious democrats.

(just wanted to see how the anti-nader folk would react if I changed a couple of words from their litany of regurgitated hymns)

Posted by crabwalk at 02/27/2008 @ 07:22am
I saw David Gergen's comments. He did not say that she opposed NAFTA itself when the debate was taking place during her husband's administration. He said that she opposed expending political capital on NAFTA rather than health care.

Posted by DennisDowling at 02/27/2008 @ 07:46am
Hillary Clinton supported the war on Iraq and she supported NAFTA.

NAFTA was the hallmark of the Clinton Administration's economic policy and even its foreign policy. NAFTA uber alles.

And she's supposed to be a progressive?

Posted by jakewood at 02/27/2008 @ 07:48am
Hillary fell flat on her face with that whining about the media bit, very pathetic. All in all, Obama definitely came off as presidential, and she came off as angry and petty.

But obviously its all the media out to get her! A vast media conspiracy I suppose.

Posted by bridoc at 02/27/2008 @ 08:26am
this "leader of the free world" nonsense is another example of American imperialism, and why the world hates us. it's called hubris.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 08:36am
Remember the Good Ol' Days of....just a month ago...

when FRANKGRITS would show up after ANY Democratic debate and ANY performance by Her Majesty (good, indifferent, or bad) to tell us...

"She batted it out of the park last night!"

Sigh....good times, good times.

heheh

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 08:50am
Posted by TRANSITDAVE 02/27/2008 @ 12:38am

Funniest bit there was Obama's talking about Chris Rock - something like, "My wife and I, we've been together 10 years, but if she comes up here to do a comedy routine, she's not going to be funny." Pretty much captured the point for me.

Posted by STUMPED 02/27/2008 @ 02:09am

NAFTA is a substantive point, and it was indicative of how poorly Clinton performed. I don't particularly like the policies of either Democratic candidate, but I will say this - every time Obama says, "I think Sen. Clinton is right," or takes an attack and rolls with it - like he did with "If the word reject Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word denounce, then I'm happy to concede the point," he said. "I would reject and denounce." I find myself liking the guy more. Why?

Because he can take criticism and change his behavior to account for it. Name how many times Clinton, or even McCain, has done the same.

As for Keith Olbermann, that's just a cheap shot. He is infinitely better than the brain damaged Matthews (who was the only one that used a sports metaphor in his commentary that I can recall) and is significantly better than even Russert, for that matter.

Posted by CRABWALK 02/27/2008 @ 07:22am

Has there ever been a candidacy for President that didn't significantly involve ego? I don't like these comments about Hillary Clinton, anymore than Ralph Nader. Clinton has the right to take this as far as she can - and let's face it, she would be a fool to pull out before Texas and Ohio. If I were her, I'd take it as far as I could go - particularly after spending more than a year of my life on the campaign trail.

Posted by srjenkins at 02/27/2008 @ 09:07am
Clinton says she's "a critic," that the deal is "flawed." But in the same breath she is detailing how "some parts of our country have been benefited."

Yes, and? There is nothing at all contradictory about these parts of her answer. There isn't even a tension between them. It makes perfect sense that a "flawed" program would benefit only "some parts" of the country. Presumably if some of those flaws were corrected, more parts of the country would benefit. This isn't so difficult to comprehend.

It's sad that we've reached the point in our political discourse when any answer that contains any more nuance than "X is good" or "X is bad" is considered "convoluted."

That said, Vote Obama! (Yes, I am defending Clinton, but I prefer Obama: mind-blowing, isn't it?)

Posted by BlueSpark at 02/27/2008 @ 09:15am
Posted by BLUESPARK 02/27/2008 @ 09:15am

She's trapped....on NAFTA.

1. The Ohio Dems want it "rejected and denounced".

2. She needs Ohio BAD.

3. She has to criticize it, but can't criticize it TOO much, because it happened on Bill's watch (and with HIS SUPPORT, even arm-twisting) and 70% of her "Day One, experience" line is "all her involvment" during his Administration.

So how does she attack something from Bill's Presidency (that she needs to attack to salvage her candidacy)...when it would mean attacking the lynchpin of her candidacy...her involvement in Bill's Presidency?!?!??!

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 09:45am
It doesn't matter to me about NAFTA in comparison to the war in Iraq. Hillary has the taint of the war of aggression on her, the butchery of bombing and killing in a country that was no threat to us, a slaughter that was launched on a pile of lies and deception. The sooner Obama dispatches that political opportunist, the better.

Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 02/27/2008 @ 09:50am
Obama admitted the same thing about NAFTA--that's it's worked here and there.

Watch Olbermann's initial commentary, and watch the first five to seven minutes of the post-debate on MSNBC. I couldn't watch anymore. Matthews, Russert, and Olbermann might as well have just hung a sign out front.

Obama was not in the Senate to have any taint on him about the initial Iraq war, but what has he done since he's been in there? Voted FOR funding the war each and every time. The Obama supporters really need to drop the Kool-Aid for a second on that one. He also co-sponsored the new fangled Patriot Act. How does that go: Yes, We Can! Which is an entirely different point, his ghastly stump speech. Just once, I would love to see a reporter spend one minute thinking about his disgusting linkages between his Yes, We Can in his little Ivy League suit and tie run for the presidency to his imagined Yes, We Cans of those who really put their lives on the line in the founding of this country--real deaths, real struggles--, to the slaves and their terrible lives, to the civil rights struggles in the sixties. Maybe just once we could hear how his commingling himself among these huge, complex, deathfilled issues is one of the grandest, overblown, and disgusting rhetorical flourishes ever. Just once it would be nice to hear a reporter say, "You, know, Barack, that's really some unbelievably stupid stuff." Maybe Frank Rich could tear himself away from eating Hillary Clinton's leg for just one second to take a shot. Keep Hope Alive!!!

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 10:44am
I turned off the debate in order to watch a socially relevant show.My Redneck Wedding.There is nothing like watching a bunch of drunks with guns hunting hogs at two in the morning to give one a new perspective on life.

Posted by i'm nobody at 02/27/2008 @ 10:44am
this "leader of the free world" nonsense is another example of American imperialism, and why the world hates us. it's called hubris. Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/27/2008 @ 08:36am |

Perhaps that means "free" as in Guantanamo. And 2.2 million persons in US prisons.

Or free markets, as in Enron & subprime.

Hubris is right.

And it has been HRC's misfortune that she projects hubris at about the same intensity Obama emits dignity.

Bye, Billary. You're going to have some very angry rich backers to contend with.

Posted by sloper at 02/27/2008 @ 10:46am
So, let's get this right. We're going to vote for a guy who's FOR Hope--never mind that this has never been actualized into concrete details--that's he FOR Change--never mind that that's been an empty campaign platform for just about every presidential candidate ever, and that he has STYLE and DIGNITY. Are we voting for someone to be the next American Idol or are we voting for an actual president of the United States, in one of the gravest times--we're at war and our economy's sinking fast? Unbelievable.

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 10:57am
It amazes me how the Clinton supporters cannot accept the fact that the CHANGE American voters want is a president reaching across the aisle and bringing both Republicans and Democrats together to get needed legislation passed instead of the Clinton way which is demonizing the opposition, and being totally divisive and polarizing. Hating the Republicans is not going to get our nations business accomplished, and this whining about Russert and the moderators sounds like a sports fan's paranoia that the referees in a game were always penalizing their team. Poor losers make those kind of accusations. Obama will work with both parties to get needed changes and his message is uplifting and working together whereas Clinton's message is tearing your opponent apart. If what you want in a president is a mean, nasty and divisive person then vote for Clinton. However, our nation deserves better and progress never comes from mean spirited, nasty, divisive politics.

Posted by mjkoch at 02/27/2008 @ 11:03am
Clinton's worst response was concerning her failure to release her taxes. What is she trying to hide, and how ironic that his "failure to disclose tax records" was what put Governor Strickland over the top in Ohio!

Posted by Metteyya at 02/27/2008 @ 11:05am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/27/2008 @ 01:02am

I try not to go for the cheap & obvious quote, but so apt for the present occasion, I cannot resist. From the same play, apropos this last sputtering purile travesty of a "debate":

". . . a tale told by an idiot / Full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Are we done now? Can we just move on to the main event?

Posted by goyadad at 02/27/2008 @ 11:11am
You've been a good Obama listener and repeater, MJKOCH. Let's make those simpleton rhetorical Obama claims once more: He's for the FUTURE--She's for the PAST. He's about CHANGE--She's for the War. (Again, never mind that he's voted for the war every time he's gotten a chance.) You've been raised well by Mr. Obama and the tired national media.

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 11:14am
So Stumped says: "So, let's get this right. We're going to vote for a guy who's FOR Hope--never mind that this has never been actualized into concrete details--that's he FOR Change--never mind that that's been an empty campaign platform for just about every presidential candidate ever, and that he has STYLE and DIGNITY. Are we voting for someone to be the next American Idol or are we voting for an actual president of the United States, in one of the gravest times--we're at war and our economy's sinking fast? Unbelievable."

Stumped, are you actually advocating for voting against someone with dignity? Are you for real?

Posted by rasalula at 02/27/2008 @ 11:56am
Hey Stumped, what is Hillary standing for? Win at any cost? Ends justify the means? Change your tune whenever the winds tell you? Being patronizing? Dismissing large chunks of the electorate because they are black, wealthy, educated or cauckus goers? Claiming time as a first lady as experience in negotiating? Claiming time as a first lady railing against your hubbies NAFTA policies?

Come man, get real.

Posted by rasalula at 02/27/2008 @ 11:59am
Remember the Good Ol' Days of....just a month ago...

when FRANKGRITS would show up after ANY Democratic debate and ANY performance by Her Majesty (good, indifferent, or bad) to tell us...

"She batted it out of the park last night!"

Sigh....good times, good times.

heheh

Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 08:50am | ignore this person

That's because his head has exploded, or he's simply back as STUMPED.

Posted by brunowe at 02/27/2008 @ 12:13pm
Rasalula, that's the perfect Obama campaign trap. Keep talking about how you're for HOPE and project DECENCY. You're immediately untouchable, right? Who could be against that, right? It's a campaign strategy. If Clinton's argues against the silly emptiness of HOPE, HOPE, HOPE, she's anti-optimism. She's cruel and mean, right? Hope doesn't do anything. Hope isn't going to put more money in your pocket. Hope isn't going to fix inner city problems. I cannot believe so many people are falling for this tripe. But this is Obama's gambit, because he has really nothing else to use, since he's been in the Senate for such a short time. Go with the abstract, empty feel-good stuff. Who can be against sunshine and sticky sweets and teddy bears? Oh, big old bad Hillary, that's who.

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 12:17pm
Posted by BRUNOWE 02/27/2008 @ 12:13pm

Naw....if FRANKGRITS came back as "STUMPED"....after saying he was "leaving for good"...

that would make ol' FRANKY a ....liar.

Right, STUMPED?

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 12:18pm
BTW, STUMPED....head over to "Dodd to Clinton: Hint, Hint, Hint!" by John Nichols...

some help for you at: Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 10:39am

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 12:21pm
I'm afraid you're wrong, Mask. I don't know who you're talking about. This is my first time posting on The Nation. But let's not talk about the content of my comments.

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 12:25pm
Stumped, a leader needs to be a visionary and must inspire. Hillary was seen as divisive long before Obama came around. So don't blame her weaknesses on him or us. The fact is, both Senators are highly intelligent. Both Senators have progressive policies. What is different is in the way they handle themselves. Sure, Obama has talked about change and hope and belief in our future. But that is not all he has done. Go to his website and read his proposals. Hillary has run one of the worst campaigns ever. She has ridiculed his voters, slung mud and ran against optimism. Anyone who says optimism sucks is not a leader and should not be President. Optimism is what makes us work to achieve the better things. Its when hope is gone that things crumble. Go to any ghetto and see what the absence of hope does to a person. Hope plus action is what moves things forward.

Two final things: 1. Hillary's experience involves corporate law, wal mart, first lady and a carpet bagging, war mongering Senator from a liberal state. Again, wake up. If anyone is trying to pull a fast one, its the Clintons. 2. Bill Clinton ran on a message of Hope too. It seemed ok then. Although, if he had any decency we may have been able to avoid the Lewinsky scandal and all the chaos that brought about.

Re-read this post. And if you don't realize that YOU are the fool after that, then set up a pay-pal account and I will wire you $100,000,000 for your troubles.

Posted by rasalula at 02/27/2008 @ 12:33pm
But let's not talk about the content of my comments.----Posted by STUMPED 02/27/2008 @ 12:25pm

Okay, take your word for it....and let's...

Why didn't HILLARY come up with "hope" and "change"? You admit it's a good "campaign tactic". If she was so brilliant, couldn't she see that the public (among Dems of course) WANTED "hope" and "change" and promoted it for herself?

Instead of "I'm ready on Day One to bring back the Bill Clinton years which I was a part of and should get credit for....except for NAFTA, which I demurely opposed....oh, and 'don't-ask-don't-tell'.....oh, and welfare reform......oh, and Bush fooled me into voting for the war in Iraq, 'cept I'm smart...and I don't apologize for it, but I wish I could 'take it back'"?

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 12:41pm
On the domestic issues Clinton and Obama where not a dime apart. On the foreign policy issues the same.Which was disgusting. Both bashing Russia's ascendancy,sucking up to Israel and just about threating war over Kosovo. An utterly disgusting display.Both of them are Bush-Lite on foreign policy. Shame.

Posted by Dimwit at 02/27/2008 @ 12:51pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=Dimwit

so what do you suggest?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 12:59pm
There is not a difference between them because Obama get's all his research and opinions from Clinton's answers. He's the proverbial kid in class who sits next to the smart kid so he can look at her work. He all but spent the last several debates saying, "Yeah, what she said." People are ignoring his weakness in foreign policy, domestic policy, and lack of any substantial politic body of work because they want to. They want him as thier nominee. I'm telling you, McCain and the Republican machine won't care about cutting Obama off at the knees. Clinton will not do that because it would hurt the party. McCain will do it every day, every minutes, every second until November. This will be a blood bath, and all people will remember about Obama will be the words Rezko, and the sound bite where he was interviewed telling the world he would not run in 2008 because he did not think he had enough experience. Every day. Every second. And how smug is everyone going to be then that Clinton was considered a whiner because the media didn't even feel the need to pretend to be unbiased.

Posted by krisellyn at 02/27/2008 @ 1:03pm
I suggest the supporters of Democrats pressure these candidates into a sensible foreign policy.Something which is totally lacking amongst them.

Posted by Dimwit at 02/27/2008 @ 1:20pm
Has there ever been a candidacy for President that didn't significantly involve ego? I SRJENKINS

Nope. that's why this whole Ralphy ego thing is just so much claptrap reguritation.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/27/2008 @ 1:21pm
Posted by KRISELLYN 02/27/2008 @ 1:03pm

Why don't you just use the same nick every time....

C.C.S.O.T.P.N.T.R.U.N.N.A.F.H.G?

.

..

.

...

.

..

(Clinton Campaign Staffer One-Time Poster Never To Return Until New Nick Account From HotMail or Gmail)

heheh

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 1:29pm
Posted by KRISELLYN 02/27/2008 @ 1:03pm

the good thing about being a newbie is that people won't be bringing up Obamas 20 year connection with lobbyists like we get to do with The Maverik.

Rezko is a non issue. See McCains indicted buddy from Arizona if you want some real dirt. His name even starts with "R" to make it easier. "Indicted Republican Represenative Rick Renzi" is what you will want to Google. So far no indication of any connections to little boys with boxers.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/27/2008 @ 1:29pm
Nope. that's why this whole Ralphy ego thing is just so much claptrap reguritation.

Posted by CRABWALK 02/27/2008 @ 1:21pm

So you disagree it's "ego in JUST Ralph's case"....but that he IS like all other politicians and it's ego for him too?

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 1:30pm
I am not voting for either one of them. We could be out of NAFTA within six months, and these two are going to negotiate our economic sovereignty away. To me, it is economic treason, and I am leaving the Democratic Party!

Posted by P. J. Casey at 02/27/2008 @ 1:32pm
Posted by MASK 02/27/2008 @ 1:30pm

Having problems with my previous 20 posts on this issue MASKY? Seeking to have a tiff with me cuz no one else will come out and play right now? I think I will turn you over to ZERO, he has had some good insight into the Nader fear lately and I know you two get along so well.

Posted by crabwalk at 02/27/2008 @ 1:38pm
Obama didn't do so well. His Foreign Policy was incoherent. He wants to take the troops out of Iraq...then put them in Afghanistan...then he will bomb Pakistan...If he is cool and collected, could he be a cold fish ready to sell all of us out?

Posted by nursevic at 02/27/2008 @ 2:06pm
P.J. Casey,

NAFTA has been hard on the average mid-western worker. Do you think leaving the Democratic party is going to help those workers. Sorry but Republicans will be much quicker to send jobs abroad if it means bigger profits for Wall Street.

That is part of the problem with American elections. People don't even understand the issues and what they are saying. The Republicans win so many elections because they run on simple, fear tactics. An enlightened electorate would realize, and realize quickly, who is doing them harm.

Stumped, where are you? I have been waiting for your retort.

Posted by rasalula at 02/27/2008 @ 2:16pm
My vote for Obama will be a vote against Clinton, but I have to hand it to him on the way he handled her. He does have class, a finesse-- that she seems to sense she lacks and can't compete. She is desperate--and maybe a little unpredictable and he treats her gently with diplomacy. It is a real asset for an effective politician.

Posted by Lil at 02/27/2008 @ 2:16pm
Posted by CRABWALK 02/27/2008 @ 1:38pm

Not picking a fight, CRABBY...just asking a question. Your cynicism of politicians is reknown....

just curious as to if it extends to ALL politicians, including Mr. Nader?

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 2:22pm
With all the pathologic Clinton haters out there, I am very uncomfortable about jumping on their wagon. Yet I find myself steadily losing respect for Hillary, and it has nothing to do with policy matters. Rather,it is the result of her apparent inability to fathom why the Obama campaign is soaring while hers is plummeting. She does not understand that Obama is riding a wave of revulsion for the political establishment, of which Hillary is a top-ranking member. All of her claims to be an agent of change have a distinct ring of insincerity, given the plain fact that she and her husband stand to benefit much more from a maintainence of the status quo. One has to see the Clintons as the standard bearers for the DLC, the corporate organ of the Democratic Party, which, for at least two years, has gone all out to discredit the progressive wing of the party. If the progressives somehow manage to gain control of the party, the boys and girls of the old school will become irrelevant.

Obama may eventually turn out to be a false messiah, but one thing he has demonstrated is that the American people are fed up with the current system and that politicians who cling to that system will end up on the wrong side of history.

Posted by robgo2 at 02/27/2008 @ 2:51pm
i'll agree that there is little difference between what clinton and obama say, but can't we acknowledge that a clinton or obama PRESIDENCY would have vast differences? is it just me, or do we, in obama, have the first serious candidate for president in our lifetime that isn't tied to lobbyists? its my understanding that the differences in their campaigns make them miles apart.

Posted by pillar at 02/27/2008 @ 3:16pm
I wonder what Hillary's strategy is for Texas? Has she written off the DFW Metroplex? Obama has been airing ads--both TV and radio--for a couple of weeks or so now; I haven't seen or heard a single Hillary advertisement.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/27/2008 @ 3:43pm
just curious as to if it extends to ALL politicians, including Mr. Nader?

Posted by MARY

Is Nader a politician?

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/27/2008 @ 3:47pm
Is Nader a politician?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/27/2008 @ 3:47pm

www.dictionary.com

pol·i·ti·cian /ˌpɒlɪˈtɪʃən/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pol-i-tish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. a person who is active in party politics.

(Was Mr Nader ever active in a party's politics? Did he ever seek political office? Note, didn't say "successful politician"....heheh)

Posted by Mask at 02/27/2008 @ 4:10pm
Maybe someone on her campaign staff should explain to her what the concept of satire and lampooning are. If they (her campaign) can't do it, there are a number of Comedy Troops that can hold workshops on the basics of these categories, they would love to get some of that consultant money that Dunkin Donut currently gets.

Come to think of it hasn't the Clinton Campaign become a lampoon of itself?

Posted by CorsairHawk at 02/27/2008 @ 4:43pm
The segment of last night's MSNBC debate focusing on "Disclosure" was aimed at providing insight into each candidate's character. When Tim Russert posed questions to Hillary Rodham Clinton regarding her refusal to disclose her tax returns, Barack Obama let her respond on her own, without challenge or qualification. In other words, he didn't try to capitalize on a potentially controversial issue even though he had every right to (Obama disclosed his own tax returns upon the same request from the media). Clintons are legendary masters of nondisclosure. Hillary fumbled, and was failing this segment miserably.

The focus then turned to Obama, and disclosure of the fact that he received unsolicited "words of support" from Nation of Islam leader and fellow Chicagoan Louis Farrakhan – an issue that had nothing to do with Clinton whatsoever. Barack more than adequately responded to Russert's question, stating that he unequivocally denounced any and all association with the controversial leader. The matter should have been put to rest, right? Why did Hillary need to chime in, stating that "reject" would be a more appropriate word than "denounce"? Question: If you applied for admission to your dream university, would it be more heartbreaking to receive a "rejection" letter"or a denunciation" letter?

A "reject" vs. "denounce" argument coming from a Yale educated attorney doesn't seem to make sense, at least on the surface. Introductory law school classes taught us that it's much easier to create doubt than it is to establish truth. Did she need to establish this doubt because she had just fumbled her disclosure question, and she needed to make Obama look as unclean as possible? Partly, but her motive was actually deeper than that. In the eyes of many Americans, Farrakhan represents all that is bad with Black America. With Obama effectively disassociating himself from anti-Semitism and the controversial Black leader, doubts about him shrink, and his voting base grows even broader. Hillary was obligated to chime in because she needed to reverse the shrinkage of one of her most loyal bases - the "Obama doubt" vote.

Posted by philippel at 02/27/2008 @ 4:49pm
No need, Rasalula, to send the money, though I appreciate the gesture. Hope, Obama tells me, will be all I need.

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 5:16pm
Posted by MARY

So you do know how to use a dictionary? That's great. And, yes, I have to admit that with such a vague definition you've got me.

Posted by mtspence05 at 02/27/2008 @ 5:28pm
Wow, I read thru two pages of posts to get to that response frank,er I mean stumped? Rasalula made some very good points that you simply ignore, but I guess ignoring plainly obvious points must come naturally to a Clinton staffer huh?

I am suporting Obama, because for the first time in my 28 years, I am actually looking forward to voting for my party's candidate, and, most importantly he has nothing to do with the DLC. I will never vote for a DLC democrat ever again.

Posted by TheCraftyB at 02/27/2008 @ 5:46pm
Is Nader a politician?

Posted by MTSPENCE05 02/27/2008 @ 3:47pm | ignore this person

a person who seeks a political office, is ipso facto a politician.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 7:04pm
what will the Clinton bashers do when she leaves the race?

Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 7:23pm
they will likely be more heart broken than Frankgrits.

Posted by emile duBois at 02/27/2008 @ 7:24pm
Hillary needs to get out of the race now before she causes the Democratic Party to disintegrate. She could not get consesus for Universal Health Care in the 1990's and she is certainly not going to unify the Democratic Party now. Get out now Hillary and save us all a meltdown

Posted by Chhabili at 02/27/2008 @ 9:36pm
I'll take someone who's actually been in the White House, albeit not the president, who understands first hand the routine, the entire system thoroughly, who has prior relationships to foreign leaders/countries, who's experience it for eight years, who's been a senator for twice as long as Obama, who's 15 years older than Obama, who doesn't fill the air with feel-good nonsense, and who, in addition, is the wife of a former president. I'll take someone like that before some hope-filled, self-appointed Messiah, which is, if I'm reading your other email correctly, a great way to talk to people, even though you know it's b.s. while it's coming out of your mouth. As long as you can dupe people to that nonsense, you seem to be saying, it's a good message, a good strategy? Now that's character for you, isn't it? Keep Hope Alive!

I seem to have to answer your questions according to someone at the end of these comments, but you haven't responded to Obama's war votes in the Senate. You haven't explained how the anti-war talker previous to his Senate job became the war voting Senator. Explain that one, please. Anyone? Because certainly the national media won't talk about it, so maybe you could avail us.

The sanest voice on here is the poster KRISELLYN. She states exactly how it'll all go down in the next several months, if Obama gets the nomination. McCain and his Republican knuckledraggers are going to pound Obama without mercy. You're not getting a good view of how it's going to go because Clinton is a fellow Democrat. It'll be relentless. You're also going to see, mark my word, Obama becoming more and more hawkish as it goes along, because McCain's going to beat national defense like a drum. He better come up with something better than HOPE by then as a thing to build his campaign around.

Finally, let me state for the second time that I am not whoever this person was who posted here previously. As I said, I have just started posting here. Have The Nation, if you care to, look it up. Hell, I'll take a lie-detector for you. You know, there are probably more than two people who view the pro-Obama media the same way.

Posted by stumped at 02/27/2008 @ 10:44pm
Yo, Stump ... better cash that Burson-Marstellar check real quick, before the Billary account closes down.

Posted by sloper at 02/28/2008 @ 01:31am
It's funny, Sloper, that my simple opinion on these matters brings you to suggest that I'm part of a PR firm. Are you part of a PR firm? Is everyone on here part of a PR firm, because they've chosen to voice their opinion one way or another? If only the media were doing its job, you wouldn't feel that positive remarks about Hillary were so strange, so bewildering, so wrong-headed. Growing accustomed to the near total Obama Love Fest in the media must have made you unaware of how it's still possible to have a differing viewpoint.

Posted by stumped at 02/28/2008 @ 01:45am
Stumped-

Are you kidding? You truly believe that Obama will be an easier target for the repugs than Clinton? Just the name makes most repugs cringe, kinda like bush does for me. Clinton will motivate the repug base to come out and vote, while Obama will pick up the independent voters needed to win, as he has a lead over McCain in the polls with that demographic already. But back to Obama being a bigger target than Clinton, I think that is nonsense. Sure he will be a target, any dem would be! But with Clinton's greater "experience" she also has a longer record and more dirt to be dug. Much that we already know about, whitewater... Maybe you think that all her dirt is already known and has been handled, I somehow doubt that. When the dirt does come out, Obama has shown that he will be able to deflect it better than Clinton.

Posted by Extraneous at 02/28/2008 @ 1:23pm