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

[bbbbmer]

i saw meet the press this morning and nita lowey was absolutely brilliant in debunking the attempts by both senator bradley and mr. potato head to paint the clinton camp into a corner. not only did she rhetorically spin bradley into a dither, she did so with the best jewish motherly aplomb... she was fabulous... your columnist, however, must've had too much 'kool aid' saturday night...

[jp916]

I get it...it St. Patrick's Day and you started drinking early.

[exxman]

This whole process has become "other worldly" to me. Is anyone else feeling this way? I'm just curious.

[stringer]

This is why Clinton won't win. She's been handed one of the worst fiascos I've seen in recent history on a silver platter, vis-a-vis her opponent's nutty minister, and her own people are still too busy shooting her in the foot.

Hillary Clinton's own campaign is her worst enemy. She's bad, but it's her surrogates who are doing even more damage.

[graffen48]

Kind of funny, but I thought a lot of what that "nutty" minister said was true.

[cindyw]

I couldn't argue with anything the minister said. My only problem with him was the "GD America" remark, not because he's not entitled to say it, but because it plays into the hands of those who want to convince us that Obama is a Muslim, and therefore not American enough.

[sn]

Yes, the language and delivery of the arguments was shocking, but most of the information was factually correct:

Bombing Iraq: Over half a million Iraqis dead, cluster bombs used in civilian areas, cancer rate increased by 1200% among children since 1991, innocent Iraqis demeaned and torured in Abu Ghraib prison.

Cambodia: Over 150,000 cambodian peasants killed by the U.S. bombing, North Vietnamese militants pushed deeper in Cambodia and into an alliance with Khmer Rouge. Khmer Rouge gained power and killed 1.5 million cambodians through an alliance with North Vietnamese militants. This alliance occurred due to the U.S. bombing.

Injecting Syphillis: Tuskegee experiments, where the government knowingly not only did not cure African American men suffering from Syphillis, but also injected them with sypillis without their knowledge. I know this because I am a researcher and I had to read the violations of these experiments as part of IRB certification.

Nicaragua: U.S. was found guilty by the international court of justice in 1986 for mining Nicaraguan harbors and encouraging Nicaraguan contra militants against the Nicaraguan government.

Nelson Mandela: U.S. (and its European allies) supported the apartheid govt. and declared ANC as a terrorist organization and Nelson Mandela as a terrorist.

Unfortunately, the media in the U.S. is one of the worst in the world and therefore has not mentioned anything about the validity of Pastor Wright's assertions.

[LonesomeThunderbolt]

Wasn't Ron Paul saying some similar things?

[kingofscotts]

Really?

You think the United States created the AIDS virus?

Please tell us more about this theory.

There are thousands of scientists who will be shocked to learn that everything they thought they knew about this is wrong.

I'm sorry but anyone who believes this is simply crazy. And how could someone that freaking crazy be someone ANYONE would want to associate with especially the all knowing and all seeing Obama?

[TekTami78]

I agree graffen. The "nutty" minister had some very valid points about us bombing places all over the world and being indignant when someone did the same thing to us. I'm still at a loss as to why this was supposed to whip everyone into a violent anti-Obama frenzy. I'm sure it worked with the fringe freaks who are still convinced that he's a terrorist because of his middle name, but those of us living on planet Earth with some modicum of common sense are still trying to figure out why this was such a big deal.

The goddamn America thing - I don't agree with. But, there are things that preachers say every day that I don't agree with. I respect their rights to say these things.

[Trittydi]

This is so absolutely true. And I'm sick of her three-ring circus and the lack of integrity.

*

[thirteen13]

These are the same people she will surround the third Clinton administration with. That's right, the third Clinton administration.

[KQuark]

I recored Meet the Press on Tivo and just watched it tonight. The Clinton camp just looks so desperate including this representative that was speaking for Clinton. Tim Russert put the fact that Obama won 28 states to Clinton's 14 and had a 159 pledge delegate lead on the screen. It just showed that any way Clinton tries to steal the nomination it will not fly, especially since Nancy Pelosi and many super delegates say the person with the pledge delegate lead should have the nomination. This woman ducked the question of the Clinton tax returns that were not released for the 8 years since they left the white house, ducked the details of the Clinton earmarks, ducked the half a billion dollar donors for the Clinton library and ducked the release of the white house records that Russert pointed out was the experience that Hillary was running on all this campaign. She looked like a snake with all her obfuscating answers. Bill Bradley did a good job though he looked a bit tired of saying that the American people need to know who the donors are with respect to the Clinton library because we don't know what those people expect in return including pardons, squashing prosecutions, favored status for contracts or future cushy political appointments. Very fair points I may add.

[DrToketee]

Earlier in the day, Hillary supporter Leon Panetta appeared on Face The Nation. He appeared in a six-minute interview where several tough questions about the Clinton campaign was asked of him.

Well, guess what happened: Panetta, a former senior official within the Clinton administration, stayed completely pleasant but also completely NEUTRAL, yes 100% NEUTRAL, between the two campaigns. He made absolutely no advocacy towards Clinton and no resistance against Obama. In fact, he never mentioned either candidate by name or party in the entire interview. The legend at the bottom of the screen said "Clinton Supporter", but there was absolutely no support for Hillary shown at all.

That was amazing! My opinion: he is now so embarassed by the ugly and dirty Clinton machine that even he, a long-time friend of the Clintons - is now REFUSING TO SUPPORY CLINTON PUBLICALLY even though he maintains his technical status as one of her supporters! As far as the Hillary campaign is concerned, Panetta gave them six minutes of NOTHING.

[SFreeborn]

Leon Panetta is his own man. Read this and tell me if it sounds like anyone actually "owns" his superdelegate vote:

Leon Panetta: Americans reject fear tactics
Article Last Updated: 03/09/2008 01:52:16 AM PST
MONTEREY HERALD

I n the depths of the Depression in 1933, with more than a third of the nation "ill-housed, ill-clad and ill-nourished," Franklin Roosevelt made clear to a desperate people that the greatest threat was from fear itself.
Seventy-five years later, in the midst of unprecedented foreign and domestic crises, will America surrender to fear or will the candidates for president appeal to the better angels of our nature?

Unfortunately, fear remains an appealing weapon in the modern political arsenal. In a tight battle, the temptation is to scare the hell out of the public in order to win an issue or beat an opponent. Consultants design campaigns to get voters to vote their guts and not their brains. This appeal to the lowest common denominator afflicts both the way this nation elects its leaders and ultimately the way these leaders govern.

Fear exacts a terrible toll on our democracy. Five years ago, America went to war in Iraq over the false fear that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.

Even though we now know that there were intelligence officials who questioned the assertion, few leaders were willing to challenge this argument for war because they knew it might undermine public support for the president's decision to invade Iraq.

More recently, President Bush vetoed a law that would require the CIA and all the intelligence services to abide by the same rules on torture as contained in the U.S. Army Field Manual.

The president says the rules are too restrictive, implying that the use of some forms of torture just could help avoid another Sept. 11.

But all forms of torture have long been prohibited by American law and international treaties respected by Republican and Democratic presidents alike.

Our forefathers prohibited "cruel and unusual punishment" because that was how tyrants and despots ruled in the 1700s. They wanted an America that was better than that. Torture is illegal, immoral, dangerous and counterproductive. And yet, the president is using fear to trump the law.

The same rationale is used to justify eavesdropping on U.S. citizens without a warrant. The president has made clear that the failure of the Congress to pass this authority could jeopardize our security. Instead of trying to negotiate a compromise with Congress that would meet both our intelligence and privacy concerns, it is easier to threaten with fear.

Campaigns are primers for scaring the public. Just within the few days leading to the Ohio and Texas primaries, a Clinton ad appeared that showed a ringing red phone in the Oval Office and scenes of a sleeping child.

The voice-over made clear that the child could be jeopardized if the person answering the phone did not have the foreign policy experience to do the right thing. Barack Obama responded with an ad that used the same ringing red phone and child but argued that it was judgment, not experience, that would save the child.

If Obama becomes the Democratic candidate, will Republican John McCain allow his consultants to use race, Obama's middle name of Hussein and a tourist snapshot in Somali dress to smear his opponent's patriotism?

Some of McCain's supporters have already made this attack. The fear argument is to make Obama into some kind of Manchurian candidate, a closet anti-Semitic jihadist trained in a madrasa. After all, it did not take much to attack the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran.

If race, innuendo and fear become the principal weapons of this campaign, it could become one of the ugliest political races in modern history.

The good news is that the American people appear to have rejected the tactics of fear. They really do want change and a nation unified by a can-do spirit that will confront problems and give our children a better life. They do not want patriotism defined simply by fear of terrorism, the prospect of perpetual war and the historic prejudices against race and gender.

But if the candidates are to appeal to our hopes and not our fears, it begins with their campaigns. For too long, presidential races have been marked by the Karl Rove tactics of divide and conquer. Constituencies are neatly divided and force-fed wedge issues that drive them to the polls.

A few debates are scheduled, but their format is so limited that they fail to give the candidates opportunity to fully discuss their positions. Instead of a national campaign, the races focus on raising special-interest money and the nine or ten targeted states that could make the difference in the electoral vote. The rest of the nation is taken for granted.

Let me suggest that if the candidates are really in touch with the pulse of America, they will agree to give America a different kind of presidential race.

First, they should get together and agree to public financing and the spending limits established by that law. The candidates should be focused on the issues and not the obligations of constant fundraising that consume the candidates and their campaigns.

Second, the candidates should agree to a set of Lincoln-Douglas style debates in each region of the country. These debates would not involve the press but just the candidates. Instead of the same old media questions, they would have to focus on the substantive issues facing the nation: Iraq, the war on terror, health care, global warming and energy, the economy and the deficit, immigration reform, education and foreign policy. Each forum would focus on one issue and give the candidates the opportunity to present fully their positions and to question each other. For once in a political race, the public is entitled to more than just sound bites.

Thirdly, each candidate should be required to tell the nation the names of the people he or she would have in the cabinet. The public should know the team that the next president will have in Washington. Competence and bipartisanship have been missing for too long in Washington.

And lastly, each candidate should tell the nation how he or she will restore trust in this badly divided nation's capital and how they will rise above partisanship in order to govern. In 30 years of political life, I have never seen Washington as partisan as it is today.

It will take more than a speech. How a new president responds to this challenge could spell the difference between a successful or failed presidency.

It is likely that a new president will be tested early. The fact is we will never know what a president is really like until he or she has to confront the crises and pressures of the modern presidency. But one thing we should know before a candidate becomes president is whether he or she will govern by fear or by hope. America does not have to be afraid of its future.


Leon Panetta is a former congressman and chief of staff in the Clinton White House. His column appears every other month in Opinion. Readers may write to him at the Panetta Institute, 100 Campus Center, Building 86E, CSU-Monterey Bay, Seaside 93955.

[Stanley]

We will see McCain win the White House. The Clinton bad karma along with ruthless politics assures McCain to win on experience, judgment, and with the right VP on every other weakness he may have. Clinton had ensured that the only winner will be the Republicans.

[AngerAndDetermination]

John McCain was co-chairman of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He was caught on video, only a few days ago, saying to prospective Republican voters that he would keep U.S. troops for "50 or 100 years" in Iraq. His chance of winning the general election is zero. Let us make this universal: It does not matter who the lying Republicans nominate. He is going to lose.

The Democrats have fire and momentum. The Republicans are the ones languishing outside of the spotlight.I disagree that the long primary is bad for Democrats. Obama has Dems fired up as never before. Democratic primary turnout is _double_ that of Republicans, even in so-called "Red States" such as Texas and Virginia. Having a contested primary makes people perceive that their participation counts, and therefore they participate. This is how Democrats win.As Sen. Clinton points out, her husband did not secure the Democratic nomination until June. He then went on to win the presidency. Either Democrat (hopefully Obama) will come out of this with a well-oiled national GOTV apparatus, and milllions and millions of recently-activated Democrats with the taste of blood in their mouths.

[ErikW65]

I want to give props to AngerAndDe­terminatio­n but I want to stress the channellng of anger into positivity, and reject the words "blood in their mouths." The Dems need to ride this tsunami, not buck it, or ruin it with inappropriate rhetoric.

[LonesomeThunderbolt]

Actually, Iowa is a key state that will help decide the November election. Gore won Iowa by 4,000 votes in 2000, but the result was not confirmed until several weeks after the election. In 2004, Iowa tipped to Bush by 10,000 votes. So, bringing Iowa back into the Democratic column will be a top priority, and Obama has shown he can win the state.

[Wulfstan]

Africa = tax returns ? LMAO

[jrdenn]

My God .. since when do we create blogs to point out human error? Sheesh! Soon all candidates will send out robots who stay on message.

[Parker]

What are you? New?
Please point to me a single blog that doesn't point out a human error of some sort.

[jrdenn]

Yea, but this is beyond ridiculous. So she said Iowa accidentally, that means she's a dunce? Remember when Barack told David Gregory that he won Michigan? Is he a dunce too?

This is just another Hillary hate blog.

[mponti]

CLINTON TAX RETURNS -- HERS OR THEIRS?

Since the Clintons are masters at parsing words -- what exactly did HRC commit to do in releasing her tax returns? Release "hers" or release "hers and Bills"?

Recall, Obama released tax returns that reported both his and Michelle's income.

[zreeb]

She also said April which means she'll probably only release last years.

[MarkieBee]

Nobody disputes they have released their tax records from when they were in the White House. But suddenly, after they needed to get gifted $1 million from Terry McAuliffe to buy their New York home in 2000, their tax returns from 2000 through 2006 have not been released. Why? We know Bill has made bucks as a speaker. Great. More power too him. But let's match the amount of speeches he gave to the amount he listed on his income tax return. We all know that Hillary wrote a book. Made some money. Great. More power to her. But let's see how those royalties match up with what they filed. If there's no there there, then why not just release the records right now. One phone call to the IRS and it's done. Why the obfuscation? Are the scrubbing the returns like they are Hillary's records a s first lady? When we finally get to see those I bet Hillary will be eligible for saint hood.

[PrdAmerican]

Don't you have to file jointly if you're married?

[cindyw]

No

[mponti]

Face it. We won’t know anything before PA. Look for a repeat of gal pal and vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro’s tax flap in 1984 – and again as a Senate candidate in 1998. When it doubt, rewrite the rules.

The Ferraro Option 1
In 1984, after an initial resisting, she agreed to release both her and her husband’s returns. She later backtracked and said she’d release only her returns. When that didn’t fly, she announced her husband would release a financial statement. But she’d failed to consult him and he said no before finally agreeing. That same year, the House ethics committee “found she had violated the Ethics in Government Act by failing to report details of her husband's finances on Congressional disclosure forms, though it found the errors were not intentional (NY Times),” Needless to say, the husband pleaded guilty in a fraudulent scheme to obtain bank financing in 1985.

The Ferraro Option 2
In her failed 1998 NY Senate bid, Ferraro made available 2 sets of her tax returns for reporters. After 3 hours, an aide monitoring the inspections collected the documents, admonishing reporters they’d have to pay the standard $429 an hour accounting fee (per the NY Times) to continue.

[the964kid]

Thats a good question Mponti. Well the Clinton's have 7 years of tax returns that haven't been made public. The media does know that the previous un-released years were joint returns. Who knows what their 2007 returns will look like. However, should she file an individual return the public will ask for Bill's regardless- so I don't Hillary can escape this inevitable moment. However, it may buy her some extra scandal-free time! Those returns will almost certainly cause problems for Hillary with voters...

[57andfemale]

How the "20 years of tax returns" has anything to do with the last 7 years, when Hilary was a Senator and Bill was obviously making huge sums of money, is a ludicrous position. By all accounts, 10% of the library was financed by Saudi Arabians. That these questions haven't been asked of her as a Senator, much less as a candidate for president shows where the "media bias" really is.

I frankly expect this year's tax return to be sanitized. It's why the previous years are so important (and Obama's, too. He hasn't released all of them, but at least he's started the process). The library and the foundation are crucial -- the nation has a right to know if there are conflicts of interest here or advocacy of certain people through the money they have donated. Of all the scandals the Clintons were accused of in the '90's, let's remember that dirty campaign money, bribery of Hillary's brother advocating for pardons -- that stuff was true. How we are not entitled to seeing their money trail is patently ridiculous.

[ModerateLefty]

You provide yet another reason why this election is lost for Democrats. Do you expect all of Hillary's supporters to return to the fold after five months of bashing by Obamanation?


The grave you dig is getting deeper with each pretentious blog.

[lisangela]

So basically Hillary's supporters have such bad judgement that they would guarantee that McCain win and give us 4 more years of Bush policies rather than get over some bruised feelings caused by the Obama side? If that's what you're saying, that's a far worse insult than the bashing you reference.

[Dannydel]

Clintons actions prove it to be true. Do you watch the news? The clinton M.O. is 'win at all costs'. she's a mean spirited bitch and americans are leaping off of her careening battle wagon in droves, because they are sick to death of her lies, half truths and innuendo. The day she makes realizes she can't win (should be any ah, month now), I fully expect her to give the most transparent, insincere speech in history...just wait.

[zundra]

The reverse is also true. I've seen way more bashing and division from the Clinton side in a single day than I've seen during the whole Obama campaign. Clinton holds the blame for dividing the democratic party. Don't get it mixed up.

[ChiGuy]

Five months??? LOL!!

The vitriol is coming from BOTH sides on blogs like this, but the smear tactics began with the Clintons' lies just before the South Carolina primary, have continued ever since, and have been increased by their own admitted "Kitchen sink" attack plan.

You Hillary backers that make these claims can never seem to post a quote or a link to an incident or smear by the Obama camp, or Obama himself. Why is that?

[stringer]

Then again people will have only themselves to blame when Obama wins the nomination and they refuse to show up to vote for him. This is their choice and if they choose to do so fine.

However you will have to look yourself in the mirror if we have another 100 years of occupational war in Iraq, bomb Iran, more conservative Supreme Court justices, more inane tax cuts for the rich, and a woman's right to choose is slowly rolled back.

I can understand some anger at "Obamanation" as you call it, but one really has to try to see the forest from the trees. We cannot afford another 4 or 8 years of Republican rule in this country right now.

[stepintothelight]

It's not bashing. It's defending but then what should we expect from the Republican-lite Clinton camp. They throw "the kitchen sink" ... Obama deflects and the Clintons cry "watch out" ... he bounced it back in our court ... He's attacking. Yeah ... That's the Clinton WH all over again. Nothings changed!!!

[DavidE]

I don't understand why the media wastes our time putting these people on the air. With all the 24/7 new channels that we have, they could go in depth on every topic. Here's an idea. If you want to talk about the economy, put on economists. Why waste our time by putting on trained puppets for the campaigns and letting them shout meaningless sound bites at each other? Why do we have to endure endless discussion of which age/race/sex demographic candidate A or B needs to win the next primary.

[aphid]

Re: her last answer here, beginning with "Several points." The blather makes no sense - how does Bill's work to combat HIV/AIDS in Africa relate to anything Russert asked her?
Was she drunk?

On the other hand, I appreciated Bradley's calm demeanor and avoidance of the typical spin. A nice change.

[lovethesinner]

Nita Lowey voice made me smile. I couldn't figure it out until much later, today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NW6GWEi3g3U&feature=related

[Anastasia]

Which "twenty years of tax returns" is Lowey referring to? Hill and bill are in their sixties and have probably filed around forty tax returns.

Also, Lowey didn't answer the question on the fundraising for the library. People simply don't give oodles of cash to politicians, in exchange for a pat on the back.