Nita Lowey: Worst Clinton Surrogate Ever?

One of the big problems with the fact that the Democratic primary process continues to grind on and on and on and on with nothing new on the horizon until Pennsylvania -- unless some other governors would do us all a solid and get caught screwing some whores again -- is that the media is running out of campaign surrogates with whom to talk. The A-Listers have long passed, and the B-Listers all said crazy things about how lucky black people are and how God hates America for Hiroshima. That's why we were saddled with the jowly drone of Bill Bradley today, his voice as dynamic as a bowl of week-old wheat crackers, boring us to tears today on Meet The Press. And yet, this is a net win for the Obama campaign because of the gaffe-filled performance of Nita Lowey for the Clinton campaign.

Highlights? Yeah, we've got them. First up, here's Lowey making the case for Clinton based upon their oft-hyped "some states are more important than other states" strategy. Except she confuses "Ohio" -- which Clinton won -- with Iowa, a state that Obama won back in January and then apparently re-won this week when some Edwards delegates shifted to his side.

LOWEY: Now, you and I both know that no one since 1960 has won the presidency without winning Iowa. We know you have to win Iowa, we have to win Pennsylvania, have to win Florida, they are key states that are critical to getting the number of votes in the electoral college, and I think right now, frankly, it's a tie.

Even better is the answer Lowey attempts to give Russert on the matter of Clinton releasing her tax records, which ends up being long, convoluted, comically inept, evasive, shallow, and then finally bad for the campaign, as she more or less commits them to a firm date of April 15 for the release of these records, after weeks of the campaign using "on or around tax time" as the deadline, which would have bought them the entire month of May.

RUSSERT: Congresswoman Lowey, should Bill and Hillary Clinton release the list of $500 million of donors to the library, the tax returns since they left the White House, and her schedules and records from the National Archives relating to her activities as First Lady so people can make a true judgment about her experience as she's portraying it.

LOWEY: Several points. First of all, it's my understanding that there are 20 years of tax returns in the public view from both Bill and Hillary Clinton. Secondly, in terms of earmarks and transparency, the Democrats have cut earmarks in half and now there has to be a certification next to each earmark that the person who's submitting them will not have any financial interests in that earmark. In terms of the Clinton and the work he's done in the fund raising, I've been to several countries in Africa. I've seen the work of the Clinton Foundation and the positive work he's done for HIV/AIDS. I do believe that the Clintons have a long record of releasing their tax returns and as I understand, that on April 15th, they will release their other records and with regard to the National Archives, that is going -- it's been gone over line by line and it will be released. Was there anything else? I don't remember.

Tune in next week, when Tony Rezko and Geraldine Ferraro perform a pantomime adapted from the Eliot Spitzer wiretaps!

Comments

[argosfalcon]

Two days later never saw my comment posted hmm, but there is more venom from both sides. Well maybe they can't stand the thought of winning as a united party. It does seem that the hazards of joining a personality cult was lost on them, so what if the war never ends, the economy disintegrates, and the poor and disenfranchised remain voiceless and unrepresented. All that matters is avoiding real issues and winning at any cost. Have fun children draining hope that someone would have pointed out the really great way this country has been run in the last seven years, maybe done something as dangerous as taking a stand on some things not just spout bumper sticker talking points, or even "gasp" talk to the voters as adults instead of endless half lecture, half cheer leading sessions. But what can you expect from one of the poor and unwashed, a fool that thought Edwards had some good ideas. Well now I'll wait and see if any other comments get posted.

[AnninCA]

You made a story out of someone mixing up the names of two states?

Good grief.

[ThatSharkeyGeezer]

"As I understand it..."

Exactly, lady. That's why everything you said afterwards amounted to nonsense.

[AZDemocrat500]

The Obama supporter are getting vicious, they must realize this Anti-American might not be the nominee of the Democratic party. MCCain is going to win in a landslide anyway.

[ErikW65]

You obviously chose not to listen to Sen. Obama's historic speech today.

[AZDemocrat500]

The Obama Post is at an all time low when they are attacking surrogates. Whatever happened to hope and they say the Clintons will do anything. You Obama supporters at the Post is no different and do not censor my post.

[mjc]

Nita Lowey did a great job refuting Bradley and Russert anti-Clinton rhetoric. Yes, she did confuse Iowa with Ohio but you knew which it was as did the rest of us who watched. Get over your obvious anti-Clinton bias. Lowey expressed the problem many of us DEMOCRATS have with the re-voting or not counting the Michigan and Florida primaries. Looks now as if Florida will NOT go along with any plan for a re-do of the primary there and it is just as Lowey explained: all the candidates were on the ballot, there was a great turnout of Democrats for the primary and the votes should be counted. In Michigan of course Obama withdrew his name but he was represented in the "uncommitted" slot. Lowey didn't bring this up but it is the fact that other states disobeyed the DNC rules about dates for the primary and after the ukase from the DNC about not counting the delegates Florida proposed Feb. 5 for the primary but were turned down. Arcane rules are usually meant to be broken and they were.

[smzzzz]

You are wrong on so many things it's hard to know whether you are just ignorant of the facts or believe in the Clinton way of just flat out lying. No, there was not a great turnout in Florida - if you look at the numbers it (along with Michigan) is one of the few states where Republican turnout exceeded Democratic turnout. To say Obama was "represented" by uncommitted is just as ridiculous as Hillary's claim that Michigan was a "fair" election even though the other candidates weren't on the ballot. Fair, where, in Russia? Rules are meant to be broken? Boy, that is a Clintonian approach to public service isn't it? Maybe people are against the Clintons not because of bias as you Clintonistas never grow tired of whining about, but because they are sick of this type of slimy politics and government.

[LonghornDem]

AND she gave a comically horrible answer to the tax record question. She went off about earmarks and Africa and 20 years of tax records...what does that have to do with WHAT THEY WON'T RELEASE!? It doesn't take a bias to see that she gave a horrific answer. It takes a bias NOT to see it as a horrific answer and to defend it.

[LonghornDem]

Those weren't arcane rules. They were agreed to last year. And being in the "uncommitted" slot isn't the same as being on the ballot. That's foolish. 35% of voters in that primary came out just to say "uncommitted." That's impressive. I want to see how Obama ACTUALLY fares in Michigan against Clinton. To argue that was actually a matchup because people could vote uncommitted is beyond ridiculous.

Less ridiculous but still not credible is the argument that both candidates were on the ballot and we had a great turnout in Florida. Democratic turnout dwarfed Republican turnout by large margins in virtually every state. But not Florida. We had a good turnout, but it probably would have been higher if there had been a campaign down there and if people knew their votes would count. Both things probably suppressed turnout. Furthermore, in an election where Obama has gotten huge support from spending time campaigning in a state, you can't call it a fair contest when the only thing voters down there had to go by was name recognition. Re-do it, don't re-do it, but you can't argue that they should be seated as-is because they were fair contests. They weren't.

[Arbos]

Well when you don't play by the rules you live with the consequences. The sooner the Clinton Royal Family figures that out the better it will be for Democrats everywhere.

The voters will be respected and heard once the Delegates are seated 50/50 at the convention.

[usyankee]

kingofscottsTrust, i Obama wanted to play dirty, there is so much dirt that can be found on them, it would make Bush look good.

http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html?cid=rss-Washington_DC

[nick1936]

Mass went for clinton does this mean that the Gov. and Senator's Kenney and Kerry all super deligates will not follow the voters of their State.

As for Bill Bradley just another sore loser on meet the press

[usyankee]

Maybe Sandy Berger hid them in his pant legs brought them home and cut them up like he did with the National Archves 9/11 reports on terroism protecting the Clintons. Oh wait, isnt he her advisor right now in her campaign? Makes it kind of difficult when his sentence included taking his security clearance away for 3 years!

http://www.examiner.com/a-977346~He_s_back__Sandy_Berger_now_advising_Hillary_Clinton.html?cid=rss-Washington_DC

[SocialConscience]

Official NON-STORY.

[speakingtruth2power]

Why bother posting something that is going to take hours to post.

It's like snail mail instead of what regular Huffposters had before.

Huffington Post should make a statement, on why this has to be.

[WomanInOrangeSweater]

Not only does it now take hours to post, now about 50% of the posts actually make it up...and not for any good reason that I can see.
But worse, it's seems that every article here is just a transcript of something i've seen on TV. And usually the transcript has been edited to make a sensationalist point (which is usually pro-Obama).
This is quite an alternative to the MSM. And just as honest.
I'm out.

[Bettysdad]

I had the misfortune of watching this yesterday.

Is there anyone in the Clinton campaign that can give an honest answer?

Lowey is absolutely breathtaking!

Clinton supporters better start realizing that their candidate is a serial liar supported by a huge contingent of serial liars.

Maybe Obama should complain about "the vast right-wing conspiracy?"

[AceInTheHole]

ITS NOT THE MESSENGER , ITS THE MESSAGE, YOU CAN'T MAKE CHICKEN SALAD OUT OF CHICKEN POO! THE SOONER HILLARY'S CADRE LEARNS THAT FACT, MAYBE THE SOONER THAY WILL GET THE H...I OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THE NEXT PRESIDENT (OBAMA) OF THE UNITED STATES
GET BUSY TEARING MCNOBRAIN a new one.

[CaveatMagnusFrater]

Caps Lock is directly above the left Shift key. If you press it when you're putting up all caps, you'll stop. If you had it in CAPS LOCK on purpose, you probably don't realize it makes your post more difficult to read and creates on image of you that is unflattering.

[ErikW65]

Thank you.

[AceInTheHole]

At my age , if you think I'm still concerned my image, I got some seaside property in Nevada that I can sell to you real cheap. But I'd like to thank you for the sugestion anyway and I take it in the spirit that it was offered.:)

[Zyzzygowski]

I saw the show and thought Rep Lowery was hardly impressive. How many times did she say, 'with all due respect'?

Moreover, will someone please ask Sen Clinton about 2006 Tax Returns and then ask about 2007 Tax Returns. Also, ask Sen Obama about his tax returns. He has said he made them public. OK, which years? Say it with me people. The question is, "Will you release your 2006 and 2007 Tax Returns?"

The people who have access to the candidates, ask terrible questions.

[GeorgeKaplan]

It's over! Nita has done us in! The world as we know it will change forever.

[riverhouse]

I'm a NYer. Nita Lowey was the long suffering waiting in the wings next to run for Senator when carpetbagger Hillary showed up and had the Democratic Party push Rep. Lowey aside and usher Hillary into what should have been Nita Lowey's opportunity. I was surprised to see her there as Hillary's debater. Bill Bradley, with his calm demeanor, took the day for Obama.

[PollyWonk]

Thank you, Riverhouse for bringing that up. Apparently Lowey's years and years of 'experience' didn't count for much when HC decided to elbow her way into NY politics.

[mjc]

The Clintons didn't have as much to do with that as the Senator at the time from New York. Lowey was not considered to be as electable as Hillary Clinton and the Senators from New York had a lot at stake; thus, they supported Clinton.