The Wrath of Hillary: Finally, She Really Fires Away at Obama
| Sun Jan. 6, 2008 7:31 PM PST
The morning after, it got nasty.
At Saturday night's Democratic debate in New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton served notice she was looking to tear down Barack Obama with two charges: he's a flip-flopper and he's all talk and no action. And moments after the debate ended, her aides trotted out to the so-called spin room to hammer home these points.
Consequently, it was no surprise that on Sunday morning, she began a day of campaign events in which she declared that New Hampshire voters should elect "a doer, not a talker" and that it was time to distinguish "rhetoric from reality." Her campaign released a statement emphasizing this line of attack that was headlined, "Rhetoric vs. Results, Talk vs. Action." It was not subtle:
At the debate last night it was clear when opponents were asked what change they had made:
Instead of telling New Hamphsire voters what he had done for them, Barack Obama defended rhetoric and talk and cited legislation that bans sit-down meals with lobbyists but allows them to stand up and eat together.
Obama talked about government reform, but denied that the co-chair of his New Hampshire campaign is a lobbyist. He talked about energy reform but couldn't defend his vote in favor of Dick Cheney's energy plan that gave the big oil companies billions in tax breaks. He talked about his speech against the war, but didn't explain why he voted for $300 billion in funding for the war and why he said as late as 2004 that he didn't know how he would have voted on the war.
The Clinton campaign was doing its best to stretch the little oppo research it has been able to dig up on Obama. When Obama voted for the energy bill--which passed the Senate on an 85 to 12 vote--he said that the measure had fallen short of what was necessary to achieve U.S. energy independence. Environmentalists did not fancy the bill, but over half of the Democrats in the Senate supported the legislation. Most of them came from states that would benefit from the subsidies in the bill--as did Obama. This vote was not a shining moment for Obama, but it represented a conventional political decision (help your state), not hypocrisy. As for the Iraq war funding issue, Obama, like other Democratic senators opposing the war (including Clinton), has voted for bills financing the war. Regarding Obama's New Hampshire co-chair, Jim Demers, the Clinton gang did have a point. He is a lobbyist for drug interests and other groups--but in New Hampshire, not Washington, the Obama campaign say. Still, he is an influence-peddler of the sort Obama has decried.
All told, though, the Clinton campaign did not present a strong case. Then came the robo-call charge.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
On Sunday afternoon, the Clinton campaign zapped out an email to reporters accusing Obama of conducting illegal campaign activities. The press release said that the Clinton campaign had received reports from New Hampshire voters who were on the do-not-call list but who had received prerecorded calls from the Obama campaign. Under New Hampshire law, it is illegal to robo-call people on the do-not-call registry, and state law requires a prerecorded call to identify its sponsor within 30 seconds. This particular call did not do so for 38 seconds. (The call contained a message from a Planned Parenthood official who said that Obama has a "100 percent pro-choice record." The Clinton campaign has slammed Obama for voting present--neither yea or nay--on seven abortion-related bills during his years as an Illinois state senator.) The Obama campaign, the Clinton crew asserted, "appears" to have violated the law.
The Clinton campaign arranged a conference call for reporters to discuss this pressing matter. During the call, Kathy Sullivan, a co-chair of the Clinton effort in New Hampshire, denounced Obama for the robo-calls. But when a reporter asked how many instances she could cite of a person on the do-not-call list being bothered by one of these messages, she replied, two. That's not a lot.
The Clinton campaign is clearly in the throw-whatever-we-have mode and is hoping that something--anything!---sticks. During this conference call, I questioned Howard Wolfson, the campaign's communications director, about the charge that Obama had been inconsistent on the Iraq war. Hillary Clinton, I noted, now opposes the war, but she, too, has voted to fund it. Isn't it a bit unfair, I asked, for her to slap Obama for doing the same? But Obama, Wolfson countered, "said one thing when he was running for the Senate and then changed his mind."
Obama's campaign says that when he was campaigning for the Senate he opposed the $87 billion funding bill under consideration at the time because it included unnecessary spending. (He then voted for other war funding legislation when he became a senator.) So I asked Wolfson if Clinton was attacking Obama the same way that George W. Bush's campaign had assailed Senator John Kerry, who first supported the $87 billion package but then opposed it after Bush and the Republicans refused to suspend tax cuts for the wealthy to pay for it. Wolfson acknowledged that "there certainly could be...a change of policy, a change of circumstance" that caused Obama to shift his view regarding war funding legislation. But he went on to claim that Obama had changed his approach toward health care, gun control, and mandatory minimum sentences for criminal convictions. "In the case of Senator Obama," he said, "you see a pattern....This is important information for people to know." And, he implied, we're damn sure going to get it to them.
The Obama campaign was preparing itself for the last-minute onslaught. And on Sunday afternoon, David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, was punching back. Concerning Clinton's charge that Obama is all poetry and no production, he told me, "I don't know where she was when he passed the single biggest ethics reform since Watergate as well as significant arms control legislation. Maybe she wasn't there when he passed the Google bill, which would put the federal budget on line. I know she's not familiar with what he did in Illinois, where he passed legislation on health care reform and death penalty reform. She must be unfamiliar, or there's another possibility: she is willfully distorting the truth." Axelrod said he is expecting more of the same: "She has failed to convince the people of New Hampshire that she should be president. She will spend her time now trying to convince them Barack Obama shouldn't be."
At a Sunday rally in Derry, New Hampshire, Barack Obama, speaking to a large crowd, indirectly replied to Clinton's get-Obama strategy. "Being against something--that's easy," he said, adding, "the reason why people came out in Iowa is because they want to be for something." With new polls showing Obama leading Clinton by up to 13 points, there's not much time for the Clinton campaign's nicks to draw signficant blood. But each day, the attacks (well-founded or not) get sharper. The question is whether they are relevant to the dynamics of the Democratic race--which have been defined so far by Obama's message not Clinton's. As I noted earlier, he's selling vision, she's selling vegetables. Those voters yearning for the former may not be persuadable by the conventional (and occasionally petty) attacks mounted in conventional style by the conventional campaign of Hillary Clinton. Tuesday will show whether Obama's soaring politics of hope can be brought to Earth by Clinton's ground fire. If it cannot be, what else will--or can--she try?
Comments
Submitted by Ames Tiedeman (not verified) on Sun Jan. 6, 2008 7:40 PM PST.
The wrath of Hillary will onluy hurt Hillary. She is going to get crushed in New Hampshire.
The smugness of the Obama disciples is really quite nauseating. He's the political equivalent of Boxing Day, and everybody's falling all over themselves (it's not actually "everybody," but that's what the lapdog media would have us believe) to join in the something-for-practically-nothing frenzy.
"Obama's soaring politics of hope"...otherwise known as the selling of a bill of goods.
Thanks for setting the record straight on all these misleading attacks.
I think the only one with any merit to it is the one about the energy bill, but you can find bad votes from every candidate (and if that vote is the worst they have on Obama, he must be pretty good)
Submitted by badcreditpersonalloan (not verified) on Mon Jan. 7, 2008 5:43 AM PST.
Today marks the 60th anniversary of the first Kinsey Report on Human Sexual Behavior. The identity of many of the participants who divulged the details of their sex lives to Kinsey remains secret.
http://www.royharris.com/forum/member.php?u=13558 bad credit unsecured personal loan uk
http://www.ducati1098.net/forum/member.php?u=4580 bad credit loan personal repair
http://forums.rofmagazine.com/member.php?u=8244 bad credit personal loan uk
http://www.learn-guitar.net/member.php?u=38006 unsecured personal loan for people with bad credit
Submitted by William W. Wexler (not verified) on Mon Jan. 7, 2008 5:49 AM PST.
Nicely written, David.
To this I would add her "man problem", which is that she is wildly unpopular with men of both parties. I saw a poll recently that showed that only 17% of Democrat men voters and a meager 9% of Republican men voters said that they could consider voting for Hillary.
Now it appears she has a "woman problem" too, as the Iowa caucus shows that women went to Obama's side 35% to 30% for Hillary.
Duck! Incoming from the lefty version of the Swift Boaters.
-Wexler
Submitted by Ames Tiedeman (not verified) on Mon Jan. 7, 2008 6:21 AM PST.
William,
I do not think even liberal women ever liked her. I know a web designer for Moveon.org. She told me everyone hates Hillary. If she cannot get the support from what was supposed to be her base, liberal women, and women in general, then she in finished. Has anyone contemplated that the media is what made her and the public was never on board the Hillary wagon to begin with?
One thing is for sure,the right wing does not want to take on Hillary.Obama is their choice. Because they know theirs no leaving Iraq. And without total U.N. permanent talkover.We lose,and Obama wins by playing the withdraw card on Iraq. President wanted,No experience nessasary. apply Babblebrainland.
Bill, persuaded Hillary to go have some medical tests done. A short time later the physician contacted Hillary for a follow up consultation. "I have some good news and some bad news for you," he told her. "The good news is that your PMS test is negative. You do not have PMS."
"Oh, that is good news," Hillary beamed. "I am sure Bill will be so happy to hear that. What is the bad news?" "The bad news," The doctor replied, ".. is that you are just a bitch!"
News flash: Obama is not perfect! He is a politician! He compromises on legislation! Oh my god..he must be a total fraud!
Its ridiculous to think that any candidate would not have changed their mind on legislation, EVER. For Hillary "I voted for the war before I was adamantly against the war" Clinton to criticize Obama for changing his mind on a health care proposal is incredible.
Obama is not perfect, but he so much better than Hillary!
Mr. Corn, this statement is inaccurate:
"He talked about his speech against the war, but didn't explain why he voted for $300 billion in funding for the war..."
He certainly did explain his vote to fund the war. Perhaps you should review the debate again. It wasn't even subtle, he was asked about the vote, specifically, and he explained it, saying that although the war was wrong, it would be a mistake to allow the troops to remain without being able to provide them with necessities.
When I was in J-school, we weren't allowed to simply make up "facts" and report them. They don't have the same standards at MotherJones?
Submitted by Sharon Ash (not verified) on Mon Jan. 7, 2008 10:43 AM PST.
Obama got his words twisted in a speech on Sunday and instead of shouting his usual mantra of the "The time for change has come." He let all know that the time to 'come' has changed. Finally, information from this man which is useful to know.
Honestly, I'm flabbergasted.
The very same people who would nickpick every single thing Hillary does or says, are not willing to take a close look at this man's obvious record of inexperience where it counts, politically.
And we will once again elect a "personality."
I will not vote for Obama. I'll simply either write in my choice or stay home. I'm leaning towards staying home. Our vote doesn't matter much anyway.
The media and pundits elect presidents these days.
Submitted by capt (not verified) on Mon Jan. 7, 2008 12:23 PM PST.
"A vote is like a rifle: its usefulness depends upon the character of the user."
~Theodore Roosevelt (1858 - 1919)
I am a 58-year-old Independent from North Carolina who will join his spouse and his son in voting for Obama and will attend his inauguration if he, in fact, wins the election. I voted for Bill --- twice --- but Hillary is not Bill. Far from it. We desparately need change, not more of the same.
I'm not sure everyone is on board with Obama or Clinton. I know I'm not sure about either. As an African American, I resent those who assume that I will vote for Obama because he's Black. I have yet to find anything in his speeches that resonates. I can also say Hillary is a big disappointment to me. I think if she wins the nomination, the Republican nominee will be the next President.
So, for my part if my home state of California held their primary today, I'd probably vote for Edwards. I find him much more likable and he's a known entity, having heard him speak during his VP run.
The level of sexism in so many of these comments surprises and disappoints me. I have never seen so many "liberal" or "independent" minded folks take such hatred-focused aim at a cadidate - even to the point of posting jokes about PMS? Come on! Would you really post a joke about Obama on Viagra or crankiness due to not getting to watch a football game? Hardly.
Within the same email people refer to Obama by his last name and HIllary by her first, as if personifyng her on some personal level - a level that NONE of us knows. I would like just once to have Clinton's words analyzed within a pure political strategist way, and not behind some veil of her being this angry female out to get people - where do you come up with this? It is so disappointing to have an independent thinking community of Mother Jones readers fall into such sexist stereotypes.
I despise dirty politics and what I see and hear in Clinton's new campaign strategy against her main opponents is too reminiscent of "the swift boaters' dirty tactics and has convinced me that she is completely out of the picture for my vote for President.
Once again we see attacks leveled on Hilary because she is a woman. Few, if any of the accusations made thus far: "shrill and "brittle",
"desperate actions" and "you are just a bitch!" would ever be used to describe a male candidate. It's a pity that even liberal voters don't recognize their own bias toward a woman being elected to the most powerful leadership post in the free world. Obama will be crucified by the Right; already he is tagged a "Radical Muslim"; they will scream this in every campaign ad just before the election to scare the pants off those wishy-washy Independents, now so beholden to his campaign and watch them go back to their Republican base. Grow up and get wise.
I hope the two corporate candidates both battle it out with each other. They both want to leave the troops in Iraq until the bitter end, both don't have a real sound policy on health care and both don't really want to help the working class by trying to protect the trade policy of our country w/ NAFTA and CAFTA.
So when the dust settles American's will really have a choice in John Edwards.
The reason Hillary has a problem is that she's a 'fence straddler"...She doesn't take a strong stand on anything for fear that it will take away from her votes.Progressive Democrats want strong stands on important issues like Iraq, Iran, FISA, the environment and other issues she backs bush on. I hope she learns the hard way...
GO OBAMA....
These "Hillary Haters" are all over the Internet. What I find most amusing is coming from some Obama supporters that goes something like this--"There is no way in Hell I would ever vote for Hillary Clinton." Then when I ask if they are really Dems, many will not answer. This brings me back to the FACT that many Repubs are changing their registration and voting for Obama in an all out effort to stop Hillary from getting the Dem nomination. I have KNOWN these FACTS for many months and am trying to inform as many people as possible as to what is actually going on. Hope you Hillary supporters will pass this important information along to others.
MY candidate (Hillary) could NEVER be defeated in a fair and square contest.
There MUST some dirty work afoot, or she'd be winning.
Yeah.., right.
Ask most Republicans and they'll tell you they PRAY Hillary ends up being the nominee, because they know how many Republicans and independents will turn out to vote against her, while a lot of Democrats will stay at home, because the negative perception of the woman really IS that widespread. That's why, as you say lylepink, they're all over the internet.
Enough of dynasties.
If the Obama balloon bursts, so be it.
The Clintons delivered us to NAFTA and the globalization schemes that remain as delusional as soviet style communism.
NAFTA was supposed to solve the illegal alien border crossings and solve Mexico's insufferable poverty it did neither.
In a popularity contest between Clinton, the most maligned political woman of our generation, and Oprah, a media that insists on only putting a good light on Obama and the left, like this blog, who continues to do the same, Clinton has a problem.
Those were legitimate questions which you mitigated with a quick dismissal by kicking Hillary. But the hypocrisy is at its best when you go over Hillary's words, actions, both past and any present she proposes, with a fine tooth comb and a pocket full of hate.
Obama is not uniting this country. I am but one of two on this short list of 15 or 16 posters (at the time) who feel this way. No! Not because you support Obama, but because the scrutiny you fail to give him now stands to bury him against a very highly likely McCain. And that is what is at risk.
And I feel as strongly against Obama as I did about Bush. For no other reason than he has failed to convinced me with facts (and not hope) that he will indeed be able to live up to the demands this particular presidency poses.
Because a cult of personality counts on his personality, not facts to win the day. He doesn't have to explain anything to anyone. His personality is all he has to put forward. The substance is secondary. He can be arrogant, rude or wrong but he's still the hero! Sound familiar? Man, this is crazy!
Does this not worry you? That just because he can get you on your feet doesn't mean he his fast on his?
He gives the best stump speech I have heard in a long time. But when it comes to details and one on one, I can't imagine this man negotiating with anyone! He's a born lecturer -- speaker, and that does not a negotiator make.
I can more see Edwards or Clinton having that capacity, based on their quick thinking and ability to express an idea effectively.
Finally, I find it completely contradictory to say experience doesn't count for Obama but Hillary's extensive experience is bad. As illogical as bashing Hillary for using the "woman" card (my personal favorite) while Obama stands up and preaches he is the agent of change because he is the first black candidate with a chance.
I'm sorry? Who is playing the race card? And it is working like a charm. The only way you can explain that a man who has no experience and can't debate himself out of a paper bag ("all he has to do in NH is not blow it! Yay! He did it! He met our low standards!) is a better candidate for the job than a white guy with a great plan and a woman with an even better plan AND yes! 35 years of experience on the job. You may not agree with the experience. You may not want to qualify it as do, but that she has experience is not debatable.
We are being sold. Just like we are always sold. Only this time, the criminals are letting YOU THINK that you are voting for your own interests. The Republicans are packing the rallies to help build that momentum.
If you don't agree with me, why not take Mr. Obama's words then? When Hillary said they thought she was the strongest opponent to the Republicans, Mr. Obama (in his usual snide but ill thought way) responded that perhaps the Republicans were doing that because they thought she was weak.
Yes, Mr. Obama. Perhaps the Republicans are talking about you because they feel that YOU will be easier to beat. I agree.
Yesterday, I saw Wolf talking to someone reporting from a Obama rally.
They went on and on and on about how big the crowd was and how this shows the enthusiasm ... until, it appears someone suggested to Wolf it might be a ethical to disclose that the majority of those at the rally had come from neighboring states and were Republicans.
Yes, the Republicans ALL love him? Really?
Maybe I've been around too long but when I smell a dead fish, I'm near the garbage. don't tell anyone who to vote for. But I am going to speak up about what I see is a coronation and the very real risk we are running by putting this man up without talking about these things before the Republicans do. They won't be nearly as gracious as Hillary has been.
G'nite Gracie!
I would appreciate having some details on the Wolfson charge that Obama has changed his positions on health care, gun control, and minimum sentences for persons convicted of crimes.
If Obama did change his position on any of these, in what form did he do so?
Has he proven willing to stand up to special interests such as oil, coal, insurance, pharmaceutical lobbies and others? What will he do about campaign finance and other corruptions?
Has he called for proper taxation of hedge fund zillionaires? Reform of off-shore tax shelter cheats?
thank you.
Hillary is just another flavor of the "old boys club", a consummate politician who can speak for 20 minutes and say nothing of any real merit or commitment. She willfully and unfortunately, quite ably, dodges questions in time-honored fashion. She epitomizes the corporate politician. So if you want more of the same, vote for her. But if you truly want change, there are better choices.
I don't see how it isn't hypocrisy to go on and on about "change" and being different then the existing political complex and then acting in a way that "represented a conventional political decision (help your state)". That's a pretty convenient definition of "change" Obama supporters. Honestly, I am sick of HEARING about change and being PROMISED change which at this point is just the buzzword of the moment for politics and it seems the end all be all of qualification for some people's vote. I agree with David Corn - Obama is "selling vision" I just don't think he'll DELIVER when it comes down to it. Also as a woman, I don't know why you wouldn't support the candidate who without a doubt supports a woman's right to choose without any of the conscientious religious disclaimers. P.S. Edwards is virtually a carbon copy of Obama.
I hadn't intended to vote for Hillary, but neither will I vote for Obama. All I've heard from him is vague rhetoric like: change - a better tomorrow, etc. - but no specifics, and I have noted his voting record is very spotty. I just don't think he's ready to lead a country like ours.
Submitted by Alan_in_CA (not verified) on Mon Jan. 7, 2008 3:12 PM PST.
I certainly hope HRC will be hoist by her own petard.
I think Bill Richardson said it all when he said that he had been at hostage negotiations that were more civil,( at the Manchester Debate).
If you are going to vote responsibly and not just bet on a horse race, do yourself, (and the rest of the world) a favor and look into the only candidate with executive and major diplomatic experience. The only candidate who has a two page "greatest hits list", like raising teacher pay, balancing budgets, insuring all children under 12, and improving environmental quality significantly in his state and so on. Bill Richardson has the best ratings from Conservation International and the Sierra Club. He puts human rights first, and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. His appointment as UN Ambassador was passed by 100 US Senators, that's one hundred US Senators from both sides of the aisle. There's nothing wrong with any of the Democratic candidates this year, but isn't it time we had someone who knows what he's doing?
I agree that the Republican conservatives would LOVE to see Obama be the Democratic candidate. If Obama has great plans for change, he could have shared them with the voters by now. Bush gave us nothing but rhetoric and look what terrible shape we are in now!
Clinton has the experience. She can handle the job. I'm looking forward to her getting the US back in a leadership position.
What does Obama know about washington and are we electing him or Oparah Wake up people we need someone that can do the job. The Clintons had this country running smooth and look at it now. So wake up world we need the working peoples friend the rich have enough money
Huckabee beliefs, which seems rather clear from the quote from his book, seems to be that of those who deny the reality that someone can be homosexual but only behaving as one. His appearance on Meet the Press is just the latest example of Govenor Huckleberry's remarkable ability to shoot himself in the foot that for some reason is usually found in his mouth. He might just make it through with the Republican nomination appealing to the lunatic fringe on the right (just to show I'm not biased on this I believe there is a lunatic fringe on the left too) but if he does, he's going to scare the wits out of the average voter with his views and make a landslide possible for the Democratic nominee even if it's Hillary.
Hillary needs to look at what happened to McCain in SC in 2000 after the Bushies' "McCain Fathered a Black Child" telephone attack. He went on to play dirty and it lost him the ticket.
Will Hillary learn from this? Probably not. The politician survival instinct to fight dirty when on the skids seems to be close to the surface under her skin.
It will cost her. It IS costing her.
Thinking people know that whatever HRC might dish out will be NOTHING compared to what the Reps will do if Obama gets the nomination. Should that happen, I think he will be made to look a fool. On the other hand, should HRC get the nomination, I think she can stand up to anyone, give a shot, and take a shot. I think she has the brains and the ovaries to lead our nation.
Som of beitch I want some of that thar vision stuff mama Jones, perhaps it'll fill the belly like a good home grown veggie would.
It this (Vison)high in fiber and a little substance? so when I go to bed I feel full instead of bloated? from the air I'll be sucking trying to believe this empty suit is giving me something besides bull shit.
Next time you write a fluff piece for the empty suit aim higher, air heads need more than wind passing between their ears to get excited, but then again perhaps not thats why the young and the ignorant are taken in by this empty suit with no substance
bobawanna: this is about thje best assessment of this Over-Hyped phenom I'v read yet nice job,and well written may I add.
I to concurre with your observation where Oblaba is concernced, he reminds of an air horn on tug boat blaring his message in the fog and the fools on the other ships cant see the reality that he is sinking with the help of the repukeagains and he dosen't see it.
Hes not a debator nor is he a great legislator, you cant name a single bill that HAS HIS NAME ON IT, in Illi-noise and or elsewhere.
Other people's bills yes but not his own.
We had one pres that came to the job with no background in legislating now we have another who wants to share his vision thing with us, cant eat it, nor can you decipher what it is he's articulating.
Why do so many seem to believe that Hilary was ever anything but media hype? Some conspiracy types believe and have publicized on a PBS station that it was deliberate - TV being sponsored mostly by corporate
republicans who wanted Hilary to win the democratic nomination because she would be easier to beat. After following several sources of media, most of the debates and the caucus of Iowa, I still can't see any evidence that she is or ever was qualified (unlike her husband who was an excellent president, if a second rate husband). The only people who believe in her are the shallow minded analysts and news reporters on Fox & CNN, and of course Hilary herself who seems to possess an overly inflated ego. She is qualified enough for normal times, but after Bush has butchered this country so badly, the people want someone totally different, probably so they can forget it was their own stupidity that put Bush in office in the first place. That's why the young are voicing their opinion, loudly; they don't trust their elders anymore. Now, for the first time the media is jumping on the go Obama wagon because they have been unpleasantly shocked into seeing that people do want a different candidate than the only one they have been spoon feeding us for a year now. They are now giving Obama equal time, for the first time and ignoring Edwards as the un important one. How dumb do they- the media- think we are, or rathr how smart do they think they are? Now the liberals are backing off because they no longer see Obama as the underdog and they wouldn't dream of taking the time to read his book. If they did, they'd know what he stands for. I am so sick of everyone but him bringing up the racial issue. That has no more to do with anything than Hilary's being female.
Hilary's sniping is only important in that it connotates a lack of ethical behavior, another thing the American people are sick of.
She's going to do herself in unless she changes radically, which of course she will - maybe even enough to be the media darling again, still hypocrisy. Maybe Obama is too good to be true and Edwards too real to be good for us, but I trust we will be able to decide for ourselves because the American people are making up their own mind and ignoring the media crap - It's the most encouraging and hopeful thing I've seen for 7 years.
