The Campaign of Magical Thinking

When a top Hillary Clinton advisor predicted on February 16 that his candidate would "lock down" the Democratic nomination, called the number of elections and delegates won by Barack Obama "irrelevant," and later characterized the race as "wide open," it occurred to me that in the homestretch to March 4th, and what could be the decisive primaries, Clinton's campaign is relying heavily on magical thinking.

These bold statements, from longtime Clinton cohort Harold Ickes, demand subscription to the notions that if superdelegates are willing to flout what is currently Obama's lead in the popular vote and pledged delegates, and Clinton manages to get the renegade Michigan and Florida delegates seated at the convention--and wins either Texas or Ohio, then she will land the nomination for the presidency.

This reasoning is pinned at present on diaphanous evidence, threatened lawsuits and some audacious fear-mongering. It is rooted in the Clinton campaign's emotional investment in a host of great expectations--to finish what Clinton started on the health care front in the 90s, to restore the Clinton legacy, and to elect the first woman president in U.S. history-- ideas which have lost their luster in the Democratic, and perhaps American psyche, since those golden days of inevitability.

As Joan Didion wrote in her memoir, The Year of Magical Thinking, about her mental and emotional state after her husband's sudden death, this kind of thinking can set in when grief is too great to bear, and one cannot deal with the reality of death. "I had entered at the moment it happened a kind of shock in which the only thought I allowed myself was that there must be certain things I needed to do."

With Clinton's inevitability turned to dust and her losses in eleven straight contests pointing to the likely end of her campaign, the candidate and her staffers are busying themselves with ominous tasks to fend off the shock.

The question is: At what cost to the rest of the Democratic party, and the nation?

Robert Pinsky explained in the New York Times that magical thinking "creates needs, interdictions, omens: I need to be in the one city where the dead person would return, if he came back; I cannot give away certain of that person's shoes; the dead sea gull and the typo and the undeleted e-mail message are signs. That internal voice, 'magical thinking' denying its own desperation, whispers that the funeral ritual will restore what is lost. It says that reading the obituary would be a betrayal."

In the final days before March 4, the Clinton campaign was frantically making straw man arguments about disenfranchised voters, wildly trying to change expectations and firewalls, rattling the lawsuit saber in Texas, and airing spurious television ads that raise the specter of nuclear attacks. Her advocates are also working furiously to keep and court more superdelegates. The candidate herself, however, made a public request that superdelegates wait until after Texas and Ohio to publicly announce who they'll support at the convention, in an effort to stem the tide of elected officials and party power-brokers defecting to her rival, Senator Barack Obama, or moving from her pledged support column to undecided.

Despite this request, as of Friday at least thirteen superdelegates had publicly announced a distancing from Clinton, including Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) who formally announced last Wednesday that he was switching his influential support from Clinton to Obama, while DNC member and California superdelegate John Perez has switched from supporting Clinton to undecided. As he told the AP, "Given where the race is at right now, I think it's very important for [superdelegates] to play a role around bringing the party together around the candidate that people have chosen, as opposed to advocating for our own choice." Senator Chris Dodd's endorsement of Obama last week is also a harbinger of more supedelegate support to come, according to several party activists and observers, who pointed to the fact that five of these superdelegates announced their support for Obama on Friday.

According to the widely-cited blog, 2008 Democratic Convention Watch (DemConWatch), of the 794 superdelegates currently up for grabs, Clinton does have pledged support from 240 superdelegates to Obama's 191 (the New York Times reported the candidates' own estimates on Friday as 258 for Clinton and "more than 200" for Obama), but superdelegates will not actually vote until the national convention. There are no rules forcing them to vote according to their current pledges, and if Obama were to attract no more Clinton supporters and he gets even half of the remaining unpledged superdelegates, which current trajectories support, he will surpass Clinton in the overall delegate/superdelegate count and win the nomination. (Wouldn't it be nice if this madness would end before we have to start counting unpledged add-on delegates?!)

Then, there is the Michigan and Florida aspect of the Clinton campaign's magical thinking.

Clinton and her supporters believe that the delegates from the renegade primaries, which Clinton "won" (in Michigan because she was the only candidate on the ballot and in Florida where candidates had agreed not to campaign), should be counted. They believe this despite the DNC's August 2007 ruling that these states' delegates would not be seated, as punishment for Michigan and Florida moving up their primary dates. And they adamantly believe the votes should be counted as is, rather than via new contests, as currently suggested by the DNC.

In an interview that aired last Thursday on Texas Monthly Talks, Clinton said she intends to press the issue that Florida and Michigan delegates be seated, despite the widespread belief that she signed a pledge to the contrary. Magical thinking has Clinton and her staffers convinced they are right, even though every other Democratic candidate clearly understood and accepted the DNC ruling at the time, and it strains credulity to think that Hillary Clinton would have misunderstood the intention of the agreement, particularly when none other than her advisor (and delegate expert) Harold Ickes voted in August to strip Florida and Michigan of their delegates as a sitting member of the DNC Rules and Bylaws committee.

"I signed an agreement not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Now, the DNC made the determination that they would not seat the delegates, but I was not party to that," Clinton said. "I think it's important for the DNC to ask itself, Is this really in the best interest of our eventual nominee? We do not want to be disenfranchising Michigan and Florida...Senator Bill Nelson, of Florida, early on in the process actually sued because he thinks it's absurd on its face that 1.7 million Democrats who eventually voted would basically be disregarded, and I agree with him about that."

While it is true that Nelson did file a suit in a Florida district court, the case was lost in December, and there is little hope that any other court will tamper with the party's inner workings on this matter; it will likely remain a matter for the DNC credentialing committee. In a letter dated February 8, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond petitioned the DNC to seat Florida and Michigan delegates on "civil rights" grounds, while opponents of this theory, such as the Reverend Al Sharpton (currently neutral on the endorsement front), say it would be a "grave injustice" to change the agreed-upon rules now, and that such a claim should have been made months ago, before the primaries were held--not after.

"To raise that claim now smacks of politics in its form most raw and undercuts the moral authority behind such an argument," Sharpton wrote in his own letter to the DNC.

Lost on Clinton supporters, in their magical-thinking determination to have the wins in Florida and Michigan represented in her delegate count, is the fact that these delegates still do not put Clinton in the lead. According to DemConWatch, even with the renegade delegates added into the mix, Clinton would still trail Obama in pledged delegates going into Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas and Vermont, by a count of 1211 to Obama's 1255 delegates.

This brings us to the final point in Clinton's magical thinking about her chances, in which the candidate scoffs at mathematical impossibilities and believes that winning Ohio or Texas will give her the juice to become the Democratic nominee.

As recently as Thursday, Clinton operatives were still pushing the argument that Clinton could win one or both of these two delegate-rich states. The latest polls in Ohio do show Clinton ahead, but only by 47 to 45 percent. And, as the polls changed Thursday night to reflect that Obama is now ahead of Clinton in Texas by 48.2 to 41.7 percent, the Clinton campaign started crying foul about that state's hybrid primary/caucus election system (which has been in place for decades), and is making noise about suing the Texas Democratic Party.

The Clintonites believe that Obama does well in caucuses, so their magical thinking tells them that caucuses must be stopped. According to author and activist Glenn Smith:

"It is widely assumed that Obama's organizational advantage will achieve in the caucus portion of the Texas election just what it has achieved in earlier caucuses: a significant victory in delegates. There are 67 delegates at stake in those caucuses. The Clinton campaign would like to delay the reporting of the caucus results, and that is why they have continually "reserved the right to challenge" Texas law and Democratic party procedures...The Clinton campaign strategy is to justify taking the fight beyond Texas even if they fall further behind Obama in the national delegate count. To do that, they must cast doubt over the fate of the 67 delegates that will be chosen at the caucus level. Hence, their tough positioning in phone calls with Texas Democratic Party officials and others involved in the primary here."

On Friday, the campaign tried to minimize expectations for Clinton and to change the firewall once again, by releasing an odd memo, outlining how Obama is enjoying momentum and outspending Clinton in the March 4th primary states, and then stating: "Should Senator Obama fail to score decisive victories with all of the resources and effort he is bringing to bear, the message will be clear: Democrats, the majority of whom have favored Hillary in the primary contests held to date, have their doubts about Senator Obama and are having second thoughts about him as a prospective standard-bearer."

The most ominous undertaking by the Clinton camp to date, however, also came Friday morning, when they unveiled an ad, raising the specter of nuclear attack, and harkening back to the infamous 1964 "Daisy ad" employed by Lyndon Johnson against Barry Goldwater.

"It's 3:00 am and your children are asleep," the voiceover says. "There's a phone in the White House, and it's ringing. Something is happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether someone knows the world's leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead. It's 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?"

In campaign speeches over the weekend, Clinton also hammered away on a related attack trying to conflate her own and Obama's votes regarding Iraq war funding. As she cannot escape the facts that she voted "with conviction" to allow George W. Bush to invade Iraq and that Obama was a vocal opponent to the war, Clinton claims that once Obama came to the Senate, he voted just as she did in support of the war. Only magical thinking can allow Clinton to argue this point, when she knows very well that votes to support funding for troops who were already in harm's way, and as Iraq lay in ruins, are in no way equivalent to the lack of wisdom and judgment she showed in empowering Bush to launch his preemptive war.

According to the Clinton campaign's magical thinking, it is justified to use any means necessary to tear down her opponent, including the blatant peddling of specious equivalencies and fear. I suppose it's too much to ask that they remember her husband's own words, back in 2004: "If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one is trying to make you think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears, and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope." (Of course, that was Bill Clinton 1.0 talking.)

How will Hillary Clinton feel when she snaps out of this period of magical thinking and realizes that her last ditch moves were seen by many Americans as a tragic assault on a reinvigorated democratic process, which is involving a record number of voters across the nation, and as giving ammunition to the GOP machine for their attempts to tear apart the Democratic candidate? Will she also wake up some morning and realize just how tarnished the Clinton legacy has become?

If Clinton fails to win Ohio and Texas by large margins, there is only one honorable move. It's time to bring the magical thinking to an end.

Comments

[wilhelmR]

Hillary: "In the Democratic side is either myself against McCain or if it is Obama I will leave it so wounded that he will lose. Then in in 2012 I will run again against a 75 year old and Obama, having lost the 2008, cannot run."

[kdjoins]

It wasn't magical thinking that won RI, OH, and TX, it was her hard work, determination, and leadership. Hillary has once again proven to be resilient in the face of tough challenges.

[Estev]

Yes, she's resiliant but she gained a total of 4, maybe 8, delegates at most in her "big" wins. Too little, too late Hillary. Take your negative campaign and shove it.

[superba]

Fantastic post. Thank you. Bill Clinton was the first president I actually voted for. So it's been very painful to see how low the Clinton campaign has fallen. My own unfortunate experience has been that when the facts are stated calmly, as you did above, supporters of Hillary Clinton do not hesitate to call you a misogynist, deluded or naive. And finally, in the lowest blow of all, she dragged in the specter of "national security." Do they think we've been asleep for the last seven years? They became what they beheld. It's a tragedy.

[independentNproud]

Clintonistas beware, Hillary Clinton is a fraud and the GOP will expose this if, and I mean a BIG IF here, she is selected as the nominee. Why you ask?

Her campaign is all about her experience. What experience exactly that is nobody really knows. What we do know is this.....

During her two terms in the White House as first lady, she DID NOT hold a security clearance. She DID NOT attend National Security Council meetings. She was NOT given a copy of the president"s daily intelligence briefing. She DID NOT assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.

Please people, do your homework and don't be mislead yet once again by the Clintons. Yes, they were once good. I stress the word "were" as in past tense. The future does not involve the Clintons and their dirty politics. We're tired of this. We have a mind of our own....let's just use it. Again, DO YOUR HOMEWORK and you will find Hillary Clinton is not the experienced person she claims to be.

And during one of President Bill Clinton"s major tests on terrorism, whether to bomb Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, Mrs. Clinton was barely speaking to her husband, let alone advising him, as the Lewinsky scandal sizzled.

[Purple Girl]

I found the most disturbing comment made by a pundent- Is Hillary vieing for the VP seat with Mac???
Reality (history) suggests thisis a very real possiblity.
Would all those Hillary supporters vote for Mac is she was added to his ticket- cionsidering the Majorities mis placed allegience to 'Vaginal Power' I dare say yes. Throw common sense, your memory and facts aside... We need a Girl package in th eWH any way (and anyone) we can.
Hillary with her other Cheerleader friends have been cheering (and blowing) the other Team !!!
Hillary, Nan, Diane, Barb- who are these woman, certainly not Dems and certainly not 'the female perspective' . They have chosen to play the Boys games and have become the 'boys' they must have learned th esecret handshake to get into the Clubhouse- they're getting stroked and we're getting screwed.
I'm disgusted with NOW, their blind allegience to this Corp'ist in Drag proves their lack of insight and foresight. For an Organization I have for Decades championed , I have been Betrayed!
I WAS a Hillary supporter (Bill 2x's), bu tthen she started voting in the Senate and doing Nothing on the Armed Servcies Committee (No Oversight!). It has become readily apparent this 'Public Servant' no longer cares what th ePublic wants, just the corp Agenda. she has not only Failed in her Duties she has been an accomplice to their Crimes.
Let's be Honest, over th elast 35 years we have taken far more steps back than froward. Perhaps it is becasue such progess would eliminate the need for such 'organizations' they would be irrelevant , archiac. so It seem sto be in NOW's best interest to haslt any ral progress in Equality.
The minor steps forward for woman has come from the actions of individiuals on a daily basis. the so called 'Rank and File' of NOW, I personally have had to fight tooth & nail in th eindustries I have choosen ( male Dominated) I earned my place not through NOWs help , but my own perseverance and committment. NOW is now focusing on th eLGBT population to provid etheir 'assistance' . To my LGBT countrymen/ women- Don't waste your time or money on this Organization. Woman still make only about $0.77 to a man's $1.00- a $0.02 gain from the '70's.
Hillary is ill advised to keep harping on her '35 yrs of expereince' - some of US have been Conscious ove rth elast 35 yrs and are Pissed about the blanant pandering to Multi National Corps and the repeated Smoke we've had blown up our Collective Asses.
If you've been in Gov't or the head of any Multi Nat Corp- you should not be running for any public office - you should be focusing on your Legal Defense for High Crimes against the State- WE the People.
Keep reminding US of the last 35 yrs Hill, and we'll show You how we have felt about them and those who have been Complicite!.

[LightningJoe]

There may indeed be magical thinking going on, but I see something more prosaic happening: propaganda.

Hillary Camp just wants America to think that She Is Inevitable, so they act, talk, think, and dream that she is indeed the unavoidable nominee. Heaven forbid that anyone in the campaign let in the spectre of defeat by speaking its name.

They are trying to ensure that every last press mention carries the meme of inevitable candidacy, so they've taken the obvious step of ensuring that no single thought of their own admits the possibility of failure. It's marketing, plain and simple.

----

Kill your tv, and free your mind.

[newshawk14]

I just wanted to compliment Jennifer Nix on an eloquent, well thought article, that very much reminded
me of Charlie Savage's book, "Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion
of American Democracy ", which takes complex subjects and makes them easily understandable.

[transparent]

Thank you--this is so thoughtful and well stated.

[LisainNYC]

Agree, wholeheartedly!

[quantum9leap]

Am I mad or is everyone else unable to do the math? A lead of 44 delegates out of 2466 is a roughly 2% lead. What kind of a mandate is this? Out of 100% only two out of every 100 delegates has a different choice. Just exactly what does this mean. It means that the delegate battle is relatively even,50:50 and that some difficult choices must be made by the party who in all honesty is running this primary.It becomes paramount that they,the party, select,draft,or call it what you will find a winning candidate for the general elections.
If they decide to select one of the two above they will lose approximately 1/2 of their voting stock and then where are they election wise? When are the American people going to come to their senses and learn the lessons of electoral politics? To win means just that,to win!

[LawProf]

Besides the fact that it is already a 150+, not 44, delegate lead, you're ignoring what has happened in February. Hillary lost 11 contests in a row by larger margins than Huckabee. The closest she got was 17% in Wisconsin, most were lost by 30%, or 50% or even 100% (she had so few votes in the Virgin Islands that she won no delegates).
But she won't drop out, not until she raises enough money to get her $5 million back.
And when have the Clintons ever snapped out of their magical thinking?

[nyblue]

Doesn't it bother anyone that Obama could be the candidate and would have lost NY, California, FL, TX, PA, and Ohio? Just the most populated states in the country. How is he representative of us Dems when he loses the states with people in them?

[GingerB]

Contrary to your popular belief, there are others of us out here in the USA.

And why are you giving Hillary FL, TX, PA, and OH? It's not like she won them.

[patrice37]

You list six states. Three of them haven't voted yet, and one of them has no recognized delegates. As for the other two, California and New York, if you think they're not going to vote for Obama in November, you're delusional. In the meantime, Obama just won 11 primaries in a row. Those states actually have actually voted. They have people in them, too.

[Dajo]

Jennifer Nix said,

"""If Clinton fails to win Ohio and Texas by large margins, there is only one honorable move. It's time to
bring the magical thinking to an end."""

Ok Jennifer,Lets say Hillary does just that, Wins Texas & Ohio, then she is right back in it.
When will you call upon Obama to , drop out and throw his full support to Hillary. Would you suggest he do it Tomorrow? If not , why not? Surely he must do it before the convention.
You might say that is just silly, Obama would never do that, his supporters would never forgive him if he dropped out so early. If you did indeed say that ,you would be correct.
What makes you think us Hillary supporters are any different?
We must have the same standards for both candidates.

[patrice37]

Maybe you haven't been reading this year, You clearly don't know how Democrats elect delegates . If Hillary wins Texas and Ohio, whatever "winning" might mean, she's right back in it? Well, no. She doesn't gain any delegates at all unless she gets a pretty respectable majority --- like 5 points, minimum. If she absolutely whomps Obama, she picks up a couple dozen. There's no way on earth that she closes a gap of 150-plus delegates before the convention. The standards are the same for both candidates. Somebody who can't win needs to quit. I think Jennifer Nix explains this pretty well. Or didn't you read her post?

[GingerB]

Maybe it has to do with the math.

If Hillary wins 65% of the votes in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont on March 4th

then, 65% in Wyoming on March 8th

then, 65% in Mississippi on March 11th

then, 60% in Pennsylvania on APRIL 22nd (!!!)

She would have ONE pledged delegate more than Obama. Think she can do it? I don't.

[cicero7]

READ what Ms. Nix wrote: """If Clinton fails to win Ohio and Texas by large margins, there is only one honorable move. It's time to bring the magical thinking to an end."""

She said LARGE MARGINS. If you know thing one about the way the democratic-proportional primaries work (not to mention a caucus in the evening in TX which Obama dominates) there is not chance that Hill could win "by large margins." Read THEN post.

[Estev]

Friend, it's a matter of mathematics. Even if your beloved HRC somehow eeks out wins in OH and TX, they will most likely be small victories that matter very little in the delegate count. A more likely scenario is that they split the 2 states and it's a draw in which case it's more or less a draw and Obama remains 150 or so delegates ahead. If HRC has the blowout victories she needs then yes, let's go on to PA and the other states but I don't think that there is a realistic scenario that has your candidate pulling anywhere close to even with Obama tomorrow. So, does HRC continue and try to "win" the nomination in court at the expense of the future of the Democratic party? I for one, hope this is not the case.

[Superfelo]

I will just say this: If you ask me I think it is very good thing that Hillary is accusing Barack Obama of all the things she is accusing him of; it is a good thing indeed that she is using her arsenal of attacks, and she does not care what damage she does. It is only preparing Barack Obama and us to respond, better, to the lies and attacks the Republican machine will use which will be the same.
Those who attack also serve.
Enough said.

It is time we had a real president.

Let's stand up for something.

yes, We Can!

[Dajo]

Tell Obama, "Yes we Can" have Universal Heath Care!!!

[todayslies]

Um, Hillary isn't promising "universal" health care either. Just wanted to point that out.

[fun2bfree]

Tax Records Release....this is not an Obama smear, or media bias..this is Clinton being Clinton...she refuses to release tax records while obama has released his...she refuses. except when in the spotlight on the debate on Tues when she said she was just too busy but that she really really wanted to release them...only Wednesday said no she would not release them....
To the Clinton supporters on here---that is called LYING. It is not twisting her words, or smearing her or distorting her record...it is a bald faced lie that all can see...you can't blame it on anyone other than Hillary herself...not her campaign advisors, not the mean old media, or bad old Barack, or the vast right wing conspiracy....she is a bald faced liar all on her own.
And that is why this principled voter will NEVER vote for her...I am not a Rovian...I hate Bush/Rove and all he has done...but HRC is just Rove in a dress with a supposedly more progressive agenda....sorry the ends don't justify the amoral means.....

[Blueheat1959]

I have a few questions and concerns to be addressed,. I've listened to the criticisms regarding Clinton and Obama and I wonder if any of the voters out there would prefer to have McCain as president? Would the voters actually send a Neo-Con saber rattling, militaristic elderly man in to the White House as our next president? Has it donned on anyone that McCain will most certainly Provoke an incident with the Iranians that will lead to more than just political posturing and anti-muslim hysteria? Have any of the voters thought about the additional loss of life that would be experienced by young US armed service people and the indigenous people of the area....or do they give a damn? You know, at some point we need to get beyond the adolescent nonsensical way of approaching the needed changes in this country. It is Embarrassing to watch a clip of a segment on 60 minutes and see him sincerly question whether or not Obama knows the lyrics to the National Anthem or if he is a practicing Moslem! If the majority of the electorat of this country is so Ignorant, Selfish and doggedly Misinformed....then this country will perish at our own hands...not because of a lack of competent and viable canidates. The "Magical Campaign" would be to EDUCATE the Embarassingly Ignorant, Uninformed, Misogynistic and Homophobic electorate in this country. Surely the other developed countries and the so-called "Third World Countries" are shaking their heads in collective disbelief at the smarmy and silly comments regarding Clinton and Obama. Tell me something, aren't Americans supposed to be the most educated and prosperous inhabitants in the developed world? As I see it...I think not...and it is a sad situation for us all...if McCain is elected this country the same man who joked in south carolina singing "Bomb Iran" will be the death of this country economically and will plunge us all into untold unwinnable conflicts with various countries in the Middle East.

[SouthCentralDel]

Hell no would I like McCain as Prez. But after hearing what our nat'l government can sound like without the constant spin, political one-upmanship, unsportsmanlike and just plain fraudulent behavior, it would be hard to settle with Hillary. It would almost feel like 4 more years of the Bush nastiness.

[bowserbois]

It really boils down to the meaning of "what tax records" is

[TREEFLOWER]

WHY IS HILLARY NOT BEING ASKED ABOUT HER ASSOCIATION WITH BARRY GOLDWATER, AS A "GOLDWATER GIRL," AT THE SAME TIME HE WAS DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO BLOCK PASSAGE OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION???

ALSO, WHY HAS SHE HAD HER COLLEGE THESIS SEALED? WHAT IS SHE AFRAID OF? ISN'T ANYONE CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT SHE WROTE?

THE MEDIA DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE ANY PROBLEM TALKING ABOUT OBAMA'S ASSOCIATES AND MICHELLE'S THESIS. TALK ABOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS. PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW HILLARY WAS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH A POLITICIAN WHO SOUGHT TO DENY AFRICAN AMERICANS THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS!

[gernger]

She was 16 years old living with her conservative parents.

[Dajo]

Good one gernger,

It is people like Treeflower that make me LOL.

[buske]

The mad hatters seem to believe the Democratic Party nomination is taking place in a vacuum and that the enemies of this country don't already have a well-prepared strategy and an enormous media machine that will take down Obama fast, swift and without mercy if he were to be the Democratic winner. If you haven't already noticed, let me inform you that Obama is already being attacked from many angles -- including from London-centered "news" outlets.

[JavaCityGal]

To your point, Obama is being attacked from all angles, and he's doing very well. Obama refutes his reasons/positions calmly and rationally without whining, multiple personalities or blaming others like the media. He will stand up the Republicans just as he is currently doing -- with strength and dignity. Can't say the same for Hilary.

[nyblue]

Obama being attacked at all angles? That must be a joke.