May 18, 2008
Please wait, your request is processed...
civitat
Recent comments by this user
Massive Blowback To NARAL's Obama Endorsement
NARAL got it absolutely right in their endorsement. Clinton has been a real pathbreaker for women in politics, and I hope she will continue to accomplish change for all Americans. But, despite her protests, she is much less electable than Obama. The difference has nothing to do with gender or race; it has to do with Clinton's questionable ethics, her polarizing style, and her failure to see how the demographics of the Democratic electorate is evolving. It also has to do with the fact that Obama clearly has won the nomination! And Obama will accomplish more progressive change as President, for many of the same reasons. It's time to thank Senator Clinton for her extraordinary and pathbreaking campaign and to turn to the important task of electing Obama along with all of the other women who are running for state, national, and local offices. Just think what an effect Clinton, NARAL, and other organizations would have if they started campaigning for all of those women. posted 05/15/2008 at 12:13:45
Bush Compares Obama To Nazi Appeasers
McCain once again shows a startling lack of knowledge about history or foreign affairs. *Carter* negotiated the release of the Iranian hostages; they were released six minutes after Reagan was sworn in. There is substantial suspicion, in fact, that Reagan's campaign staff secretly conspired with the Iranians in fall 1980 to delay the hostages' release until after Reagan had won the election. If true, this was horrendously immoral and illegal. That suspicion has not been proven, but Reagan had no *positive* impact on release of the hostages. Carter negotiated their release and they were released just 6 minutes after Reagan took office. posted 05/15/2008 at 12:26:08
Michelle Obama Hints About Her Role As Possible First Lady
Let's not forget that Michelle Obama is as accomplished--or more so--than Hillary Clinton was when she became first lady. Michelle is now about the same age that Hillary was then. Michelle, like Hillary, is a graduate of a top college and law school. She worked for a major Chicago law firm, then did public interest work related to education and children. Most recently, Michelle has served as Vice President for Community Relations at the U of Chicago Medical Center--a position in which she actually brings health care to children and low-income families!
My prediction is that Michelle Obama will do more as first lady than Hillary Clinton did. Michelle will accomplish that because she's not trying to be her husband's co-president. Instead, she will build on her own credentials to give voice to the issues that matter to her and to achieve change on those issues. I think we're going to see a whole new type of first lady, one who will build on Hillary's accomplishments but set a whole new benchmark. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:02:25
My prediction is that Michelle Obama will do more as first lady than Hillary Clinton did. Michelle will accomplish that because she's not trying to be her husband's co-president. Instead, she will build on her own credentials to give voice to the issues that matter to her and to achieve change on those issues. I think we're going to see a whole new type of first lady, one who will build on Hillary's accomplishments but set a whole new benchmark. posted 05/10/2008 at 20:02:25
E-Mail Shows Racial Jokes by Secret Service Supervisors
I hope the press widely disseminates this, not only because it's shocking for members of such an honored agency to make such comments, but because these comments are commonplace in many workplaces. That's something that white Americans need to admit to themselves: That however shocking they find some of Rev. Wright's comments, their white friends, neighbors, and coworkers say even more shocking and racist things at times. Let's take this as an opportunity to be honest about ourselves and move to a new level of tolerance. posted 05/10/2008 at 12:33:11
Paul Krugman: Obama Ad Distorts My Column, He Should Retract It
I used to respect Krugman but he has completely twisted his views over the last two years to support Clinton whenever he can. It was extraordinary to see him admit that there was *anything* wrong with Clinton's gas tax holiday! I know very few educated people--whether they support Clinton, McCain, or Obama--who respect Krugman any more. posted 05/06/2008 at 01:36:28
Abortion Group Launches Robocall Attack On Obama In Indiana
Yet more dramatic evidence that the Republicans really want to run against Clinton in November--and that the Limbaugh "operation chaos" tactic is going at full strength. Why don't Clinton's campaign and her supporters pay attention to evidence like this? They have to face up to where some of their recent support--dating all the way back to Ohio and Texas--has been coming from. posted 05/06/2008 at 01:32:55
Actor Tom Hanks Endorses Barack Obama
Wow: Guam and Tom Hanks, all in one day! :) posted 05/03/2008 at 23:28:44
I'm Just Sayin': Open Letter to Superdelegates
You're absolutely right. I don't understand why the superdelegates don't get it. It's time to let them know, in the strongest terms, that Democratic voters won't support *them* in their reelections if they continue to show such poor judgment. posted 05/02/2008 at 01:16:41
Money Ties But Some Holes In Possible Clinton-Robocall Connection
This doesn't come near to answering all of the questions. If it's a reputable group, run by such experienced political strategists, why was it placing robo-calls that clearly violate state law? Anyone should know that it's illegal (not to mention morally questionable) to make robo-calls that don't identify the calling organization and use technology to block the caller ID.
And if this was just an innocent mistake, why did it happen in several other states--also just before those states' primaries? Maybe an innocent mistake once, but several times???
Most of all, I don't understand why the mainstream media aren't covering this story. And are the attorney generals of the various states investigating this group? Even if there's no direct Clinton tie, this group is breaking the law in a particularly reprehensible way. We send black men to prison for breaking the law. Why don't we enforce the law against groups like this? Why don't the media even discuss the issue? posted 05/01/2008 at 18:11:41
And if this was just an innocent mistake, why did it happen in several other states--also just before those states' primaries? Maybe an innocent mistake once, but several times???
Most of all, I don't understand why the mainstream media aren't covering this story. And are the attorney generals of the various states investigating this group? Even if there's no direct Clinton tie, this group is breaking the law in a particularly reprehensible way. We send black men to prison for breaking the law. Why don't we enforce the law against groups like this? Why don't the media even discuss the issue? posted 05/01/2008 at 18:11:41
Confusion Surrounding Robo-Calls in North Carolina
As someone who has worked legitimately to engage voters, I'm appalled by this. Your bio states that you are one of the nation's top political strategists, and others in your organization are equally credentialed. None of this (using the name "Lamont Williams," blocked numbers that violate the law, misleading packets sent just before primary dates) could possibly have been an innocent mistake. I hope that state and federal authorities conduct full investigations and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Newsflash to you and your organization: Voter fraud is illegal! posted 04/30/2008 at 17:32:05
Excerpts from Hillary's Interview on The O'Reilly Factor
oops, just noticed this was a joke column. This political season has been so bizarre, even the jokes seem real! posted 04/29/2008 at 21:47:12
Is she out of her mind? What was Clinton trying to accomplish here? We worry about what the rest of the world thinks of us and then we broadcast this type of garbage? posted 04/29/2008 at 21:43:09
Bill Clinton Seizes Bigger Role In Hillary's Campaign
No one seems to focus on how amazingly inappropriate this is: Bill Clinton is not just Hillary's husband, he's the Democrat to serve most recently as President. That position gives him extraordinary strength with voters and within the party. But this isn't all Bill's *personal* power to flex as he wishes; it's power that all of us gave to him when we voted ifor him n 1992 and 1996, and when we defended him for many years (and despite irresponsible behavior) against attacks.
I'm not saying that Bill Clinton should stay out of the race or endorse another candidate; that would be inhuman. But using his power to bash Obama so heavily--especially when Obama has a clear lead in the delegates--is yet another abuse of power. It's power that WE gave him; not power that belongs to him and Hillary personally. This is a striking example of how self-centered the Clintons are. And they are so focused on their own power that no one else seems to question it. In a democracy, I think it's wrong for a past-President to campaign so heavy-handedly for his own wife as a successor--especially when that campaigning includes aggressive negatives against a candidate who is most likely to become the party's nominee. What do other people think? posted 04/26/2008 at 14:19:34
I'm not saying that Bill Clinton should stay out of the race or endorse another candidate; that would be inhuman. But using his power to bash Obama so heavily--especially when Obama has a clear lead in the delegates--is yet another abuse of power. It's power that WE gave him; not power that belongs to him and Hillary personally. This is a striking example of how self-centered the Clintons are. And they are so focused on their own power that no one else seems to question it. In a democracy, I think it's wrong for a past-President to campaign so heavy-handedly for his own wife as a successor--especially when that campaigning includes aggressive negatives against a candidate who is most likely to become the party's nominee. What do other people think? posted 04/26/2008 at 14:19:34
Democrats Fear Clinton's Attacks May Cause Racial Backlash
One of the most telling differences between Clinton and Obama is this: Clinton seizes any negative she can find about Obama and pounds it into the ground, claiming that she is simply vetting his electability. Yet Obama has said nothing about all of Clinton's most vulnerable points--Bill's last-minute pardons (including one that was tied to a huge fee paid Hillary's brother), the secrecy about donors to the Clinton library, some shady fundraising practices in Hillary's campaigns (she paid the largest fine in history for a violation), and the Lewinsky scandal.
All of these are fair game for the Republicans. Remember that electing Hillary puts Bill in an office of public trust: First Man. That makes his lies under oath and everything very relevant during the general election.
I admire Obama's restraint, But Democrats cannot lose sight of the fact that we are vetting Obama's electability (which is standing up pretty well) while ignoring Hillary's substantial negatives. The public may have rummaged through her baggage before, but she hasn't lost any of it. She still carries big, big negatives that will hand the White House to the Republicans. Hillary is either intentionally trying to destroy the Democrats' chances of winning in November or acting in a wildly reckless manner with respect to the party. posted 04/26/2008 at 14:08:28
All of these are fair game for the Republicans. Remember that electing Hillary puts Bill in an office of public trust: First Man. That makes his lies under oath and everything very relevant during the general election.
I admire Obama's restraint, But Democrats cannot lose sight of the fact that we are vetting Obama's electability (which is standing up pretty well) while ignoring Hillary's substantial negatives. The public may have rummaged through her baggage before, but she hasn't lost any of it. She still carries big, big negatives that will hand the White House to the Republicans. Hillary is either intentionally trying to destroy the Democrats' chances of winning in November or acting in a wildly reckless manner with respect to the party. posted 04/26/2008 at 14:08:28
Help Us Write "The Gender Speech"
A good conversation would address the fact that women care whether people live or die. If we want our children to stop dying from poverty, poor health care, and the War in Iraq, we desperately need to elect a Democrat to the White House. Our best chance of doing that is if Clinton withdraws, enthusiastically endorses Obama, and urges all women to vote for him.
The hard fact is that Clinton cannot win in November--and that has nothing to do with gender. She is a polarizing figure, who creates antagonism. This is *not* just because of gender bias. I am a professional woman very close to her age; I know those difficulties. But people have innate personalities, and Clinton is a fighter who divides people between "us" and "them" and provokes deep antagonism.
If Clinton gets the nomination, Obama's supporters will generally support her. But she will be massacred by the right wing. The Republicans *want* Clinton to be their opponent, so they are not raising negatives about her now. Obama has been very gentle. But the rightwing will turn out in droves to oppose Hillary. The chances of her beating McCain are very, very small.
As a woman and mother I say: Our children have to stop dying. Hillary Clinton has little chance of beating McCain--even with Obama's enthusiastic support. Obama has a better chance of winning, especially if he has Clinton's support. posted 04/25/2008 at 00:39:21
The hard fact is that Clinton cannot win in November--and that has nothing to do with gender. She is a polarizing figure, who creates antagonism. This is *not* just because of gender bias. I am a professional woman very close to her age; I know those difficulties. But people have innate personalities, and Clinton is a fighter who divides people between "us" and "them" and provokes deep antagonism.
If Clinton gets the nomination, Obama's supporters will generally support her. But she will be massacred by the right wing. The Republicans *want* Clinton to be their opponent, so they are not raising negatives about her now. Obama has been very gentle. But the rightwing will turn out in droves to oppose Hillary. The chances of her beating McCain are very, very small.
As a woman and mother I say: Our children have to stop dying. Hillary Clinton has little chance of beating McCain--even with Obama's enthusiastic support. Obama has a better chance of winning, especially if he has Clinton's support. posted 04/25/2008 at 00:39:21
Bill Clinton: Obama "Played The Race Card On Me"... Listen To Audio
Oh, shut up, Bill. If another high-level Democrat played down Hillary's accomplishments by suggesting she had achieved them only because she's a woman, you and Hillary would be all over that person for their condescension and sexism. Contemporary racism works the same way as contemporary sexism. posted 04/22/2008 at 11:05:51
GOP Strategist Says Racism Would Give McCain 15% Edge on Obama
Well, duh. Most of us have understood these references to "unelectability" as referring to racism. There surely are voters who will not support a black man, just as there are voters who will not support a white woman--regardless of the qualifications of these candidates. But so what? It doesn't matter in the Democratic primary because both of our candidates have these "disadvantages," which I think will be roughly equal in a general election. Sexism is far, far from over! And how can we make any progress if we defer to voters who still act on racism or sexism? I'm glad that large portions of the electorate have gotten beyond both of those nasty biases.
If one is making a cold calculation about the potential success of a nominee, I think one has to look at this: Clinton entered the race with historically high negatives. Those have not diminished; they have increased. And her major argument in the primary, experience, won't work against McCain. And she carries a tremendous amount of baggage from the Clinton administration, everything from Monica (who we would hear about ad nauseum) to the last-minute pardons and the major donors.
I think Obama's the better candidate for the Democrats in any event, but Hillary's ability to win the general election is a real question. posted 04/22/2008 at 00:16:54
If one is making a cold calculation about the potential success of a nominee, I think one has to look at this: Clinton entered the race with historically high negatives. Those have not diminished; they have increased. And her major argument in the primary, experience, won't work against McCain. And she carries a tremendous amount of baggage from the Clinton administration, everything from Monica (who we would hear about ad nauseum) to the last-minute pardons and the major donors.
I think Obama's the better candidate for the Democrats in any event, but Hillary's ability to win the general election is a real question. posted 04/22/2008 at 00:16:54
Rendell Says College Kids "Drink The Kool-Aid" Of Obama Speeches
I'm a professor at Ohio State, the largest campus in the country. The young people I talk to here are *at least* as savvy about politics than the older voters I know. Clinton and her campaign keep demeaning whole classes of voters: Those who live in "small" states, those who live in "red" states, those who live in caucus states, African Americans, MoveOn members, ... and now young people. Get a grip! All of these voters are important. posted 04/21/2008 at 19:03:11
Bill Clinton: Hillary Would Be Winning Under GOP Primary Rules
Still more evidence that Hillary is a closet Republican! posted 04/21/2008 at 18:59:14
Hillary, Are You Freaking Kidding Me?
Hillary is willing to say anything. She reminds me of the worst lawyers I know: Those who will throw any argument at you, even if it's inconsistent with what they said before.
For some of the best Clinton hypocrisy, be sure to check out Bill Clinton's 2004 "fear versus hope" speech on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo. He urges voters to support candidates who build on hope, instead of those who instill fear. Too bad Hillary's running her fear-mongering Bin Laden ad right now! posted 04/21/2008 at 19:17:20
For some of the best Clinton hypocrisy, be sure to check out Bill Clinton's 2004 "fear versus hope" speech on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo. He urges voters to support candidates who build on hope, instead of those who instill fear. Too bad Hillary's running her fear-mongering Bin Laden ad right now! posted 04/21/2008 at 19:17:20
Top Clinton Strategist Defends Clinton Slam On Democratic Activists
The biggest "national security and foreign policy" issue that distinguishes MoveOn members is their opposition to the Iraq War. And that is where they differ from Clinton. Clinton voted for the war when it was politically expedient for her to do so. This isn't just a matter of historical interest: Thousands of American soldiers died as a result of votes by Clinton and others. Those soldiers aren't coming back.
Clinton has tried to claim that we have different information now than we had in 2003. But she had plenty of information before her vote that argued against the war; other Democrats paid attention to that information and voted "no." Clinton voted yes because, at the time, it seemed like the smart thing for a presidential candidate to do.
If activism means that we need a president who does the right thing, rather than the politically expedient thing, then I'm an activist! posted 04/20/2008 at 14:41:39
Clinton has tried to claim that we have different information now than we had in 2003. But she had plenty of information before her vote that argued against the war; other Democrats paid attention to that information and voted "no." Clinton voted yes because, at the time, it seemed like the smart thing for a presidential candidate to do.
If activism means that we need a president who does the right thing, rather than the politically expedient thing, then I'm an activist! posted 04/20/2008 at 14:41:39
Clinton Faces Steady Erosion Of Support
My problem with the Clintons is that they don't know when to fight and when to lay down arms. Health care reform failed because Hillary refused any public discussion or compromises. That didn't work in the 90s, and it's not going to work now.
When the Lewinsky scandal broke, Bill wouldn't admit that he had done anything wrong. It *is* wrong for the most powerful CEO on earth to have sex with a young intern. But Bill fought back by lying publicly and under oath. When the lies came out, he and Hillary continued to fight. They asked us to support them and we did: That was how MoveOn was born!
We saved Bill from conviction, but the American people lost more than they gained. The Lewinsky scandal and impeachment fight consumed much of the late 90s. We lost the chance to fight for things the American people needed. And with Lewinsky scandal handicapping Gore in 2000, Bush took the White House.
What if Bill had admitted his fault and resigned? What if Hillary had stood by him in that decision, rather than the one to stay in the White House at all costs? Gore would have become President and continued work we needed. He probably would have won election in 2000.
Good leaders know that there's a time to fight, and a time to work with the other side. And they know that there's a time to admit your mistakes. The Clintons don't seem to make those distinctions. posted 04/19/2008 at 22:03:47
When the Lewinsky scandal broke, Bill wouldn't admit that he had done anything wrong. It *is* wrong for the most powerful CEO on earth to have sex with a young intern. But Bill fought back by lying publicly and under oath. When the lies came out, he and Hillary continued to fight. They asked us to support them and we did: That was how MoveOn was born!
We saved Bill from conviction, but the American people lost more than they gained. The Lewinsky scandal and impeachment fight consumed much of the late 90s. We lost the chance to fight for things the American people needed. And with Lewinsky scandal handicapping Gore in 2000, Bush took the White House.
What if Bill had admitted his fault and resigned? What if Hillary had stood by him in that decision, rather than the one to stay in the White House at all costs? Gore would have become President and continued work we needed. He probably would have won election in 2000.
Good leaders know that there's a time to fight, and a time to work with the other side. And they know that there's a time to admit your mistakes. The Clintons don't seem to make those distinctions. posted 04/19/2008 at 22:03:47
Clinton Backer Distributes Essay On How GOP Would Link Obama To '70s Radicals
Of course this will be the Republican line of attack. They will take the same approach against Clinton, if she gets the nomination. And there is much more damaging material about Clinton: pictures of her as an anti-war protester in the sixties, work for the most radical law firm in America (a firm that defended the Black Panthers). The whole point of the Obama campaign is that there are (finally!) enough people in the United States who are wise to the Republican ways and refuse to be manipulated any more. The purported links between Obama and Ayers, Marx, and Communism are ridiculous.
It will be interesting to see how far the Republicans stoop: I suspect there will be an extraordinary display invoking racism and all sorts of scare tactics. If they win, then we all deserve the president we get. But I place my bets on the American people this time around: Obama will win in the fall. posted 04/19/2008 at 01:25:10
It will be interesting to see how far the Republicans stoop: I suspect there will be an extraordinary display invoking racism and all sorts of scare tactics. If they win, then we all deserve the president we get. But I place my bets on the American people this time around: Obama will win in the fall. posted 04/19/2008 at 01:25:10
Hillary Clinton Slams MoveOn With Karl Rove's Lies
According to the Post article linked here, Hillary condemned Rove's remarks when he falsely accused MoveOn of opposing the invasion of Afghanistan: "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) called Rove's remarks 'appalling' and 'saddening.'" Still more hypocrisy from the Senator from NY! posted 04/19/2008 at 01:30:49
Clinton Slams Democratic Activists At Private Fundraiser
One of the funniest parts of this is that, as the article notes, MoveOn started as a group of activists resisting impeachment of Bill Clinton! Hillary loved activism then. How can any Democrat bash activists? Since when is "activism" a bad word in politics? Is Hillary saying that it's better for the political process to be run by lobbyists, insiders, and wealthy people? Sure sounds like it. posted 04/18/2008 at 20:39:12
Dean: I Need Superdelegates To Make A Decision "Now"
Absolutely the superdelegates need to start committing now. Among other things, they each like a little press attention when they commit. We don't have 300 days between now and the convention! To get this done by June 15, we need the to start committing at a rate of about 6 per day. posted 04/18/2008 at 00:40:46
Obama Going Negative? Mailer Hits Clinton On Trade
Great mailer--and absolutely essential to set the record straight on Clinton. The press hasn't been doing enough to push her on this. Clinton's positions on NAFTA and trade clearly have changed with the political tides. Next she's going to claim with a straight face that she voted against the Iraq War. posted 04/17/2008 at 16:05:50
Ayers And Obama: What Is Their Relationship?
This is ridiculous. And as a purely practical matter, the Republicans have *much* more dirt on Hillary Clinton's radical associations than anyone can find on Obama. Have we forgotten that Hillary attended the Black Panther trials in New Haven while she was in law school? Or that she worked for the most radical law firm in the country (in San Francisco, no less)? That firm defended the Black Panthers and other radicals. Have we forgotten that Hillary was a strident anti-war protester during the sixties? I respect all of those things, but if Democrats are going to worry about negative associations, Hillary's negatives overwhelm Obama's.
Or let's consider an association that I do consider fair game for the Republicans--it's something that worries me as a Democrat. The position of "First Person" is one of public trust. Hillary would put into that position someone who, as the world's most powerful CEO, had sex in the workplace with a young intern. He then lied about it repeatedly to the public and lied under oath. He has been disbarred from the legal profession. It seems to me that this is a much more worrisome association than who lives in Obama's neighborhood or once contributed $200 to a state race! posted 04/17/2008 at 12:52:59
Or let's consider an association that I do consider fair game for the Republicans--it's something that worries me as a Democrat. The position of "First Person" is one of public trust. Hillary would put into that position someone who, as the world's most powerful CEO, had sex in the workplace with a young intern. He then lied about it repeatedly to the public and lied under oath. He has been disbarred from the legal profession. It seems to me that this is a much more worrisome association than who lives in Obama's neighborhood or once contributed $200 to a state race! posted 04/17/2008 at 12:52:59
Worst. Debate. Ever.
Boycott ABC News. Don't watch their news, local or national. Don't click to their website. Don't link to their webpages. Don't watch Stephanopolous or Gibson; don't link to columns or interviews by them. These folks have shown that they think we are all blithering idiots. We're not. We know now that ABC doesn't know what news is, so we won't miss anything. Take action, people! posted 04/16/2008 at 23:39:04
The ABC Debate: A Shameful Night for the U.S. Media
You're right--this was shameful. And how could they possibly use a top advisor from the Clinton administration--someone who worked closely with Hillary in both campaigns--as a "neutral" questioner? Not to mention the visible shushing of applause for Obama while allowing it for Clinton. I watched this debate in shock, thinking that the people at ABC News had lost their minds.
Obama handily won the debate, showing that he is broad minded enough to rise above the worst efforts of the media. But it was a farce, not a debate. posted 04/16/2008 at 22:37:52
Obama handily won the debate, showing that he is broad minded enough to rise above the worst efforts of the media. But it was a farce, not a debate. posted 04/16/2008 at 22:37:52
No More Debate: Why Clinton Must Bow Out
The math and logic are impeccable. I especially appreciate the analysis of poll numbers versus McCain: That's quite illuminating. Clinton is pretty clear that she will never give up. It's time for people to start bombarding the superdelegates with these analyses. The only way to bring this race to an end is for the superdelegates to start committing. And the irony is: If they speak up *now* and start committing to Obama, then one of the upcoming prirmaries will put Obama over the top. The election will look *more* democratic if the superdelegates commit sooner rather than later. posted 04/17/2008 at 23:31:12
Clinton emphatically says Obama can win White House
Does Clinton wear a flag pin? I don't recall seeing one on her. I think this is a stupid issue, but why doesn't anyone ever ask Clinton? posted 04/16/2008 at 21:32:14
How is it that ABC has a chief advisor from the Clinton administration moderating this debate? How can Stephanopoulus possibly be a neutral questioner? ABC News doesn't have any commentators who served outside the Clinton administration? posted 04/16/2008 at 21:06:56
Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em"
Was George Stephanopoulos at this meeting? If not, he would have attended many other meetings with Hillary in which this type of issue would have been discussed. In light of his questioning of Obama during last night's debate--and the importance he clearly attaches to this type of issue--someone needs to ask Stephanopoulos if he heard this comment or if he ever heard one like it. posted 04/18/2008 at 00:34:33
Was George Stephanopoulos at this meeting? It seems logical that he would have been. In the farcical debate he moderated last night, he hounded Obama about his "bitterness" comments. But Stephanopoulos asked Clinton nothing about these more damning words. Even if Stephanopoulos missed that particular meeting, he almost certainly heard similar things by Clinton over the years. Having purported to be a neutral moderator and journalist, I think someone should examine him about the times he's heard Clinton diss working class voters. posted 04/17/2008 at 02:42:44
Clinton's campaign has never heard of Benjamin Barber? I thought she knew something about foreign policy and civic engagement. Barber wrote the famous book "Jihad v. McWorld." I sure hope some of Clinton's staff members have read it, because it's an important book about how the United States can fight terrorism. And Barber is one of the most prominent experts on civic engagement. Unless the Clinton campaign has no interest in voters, they must be familiar with this work!
The real point, of course, is that Hillary said "screw" the working class. I'm not surprised; she has dissed lots of people over time. posted 04/16/2008 at 21:25:37
The real point, of course, is that Hillary said "screw" the working class. I'm not surprised; she has dissed lots of people over time. posted 04/16/2008 at 21:25:37
Bill Clinton Suggests Young Voters Too Easily Fooled
Oh, that's fun: The Clinton campaign is dissing young voters! I'm 52, and I'm plenty savvy. But I also respect people with fresh perspectives, including those who are younger than me.
The Clinton campaign is backward-looking; that's why Hillary will lose in November if she gets the nomination. I live in Columbus, Ohio--ground zero for the 2004 election. Kerry used the traditional playbook in Ohio and he lost the state, thus losing the presidency. He didn't understand 30-40 yr-old white collar voters in Ohio and other states--a *huge* part of the electorate--and neither does Clinton.
Wake up, Democrats, and don't diss people under 50! posted 04/16/2008 at 00:13:00
The Clinton campaign is backward-looking; that's why Hillary will lose in November if she gets the nomination. I live in Columbus, Ohio--ground zero for the 2004 election. Kerry used the traditional playbook in Ohio and he lost the state, thus losing the presidency. He didn't understand 30-40 yr-old white collar voters in Ohio and other states--a *huge* part of the electorate--and neither does Clinton.
Wake up, Democrats, and don't diss people under 50! posted 04/16/2008 at 00:13:00
The Real Feminist Thing To Do is Acknowledge Hillary's Failures as a Candidate and Move On
Very astute comments! I agree entirely--middle-aged feminist that I am--and I hope other feminists will heed your column as well. posted 04/15/2008 at 23:25:20
Michelle Obama's College Roommate: "I Was Horrified" To Live With A Black Person
Wonderful story--just the type of discussion that Obama tried to encourage with his speech on race. I hope this story makes it to the very top of every list! posted 04/15/2008 at 21:59:57
Obama Would "Immediately Review" Potential Of Crimes In Bush White House
Beautifully put, Obama. posted 04/15/2008 at 01:13:04
Where are Dem "Leaders" While Barack Twists and Hillary Burns the Party Down?
Absolutely! I'm going to start keeping track of these mealy-mouthed "leaders" so I know who NOT to support in the future. I'll be giving my dollars and energy only to those who are willing to show some personal integrity on behalf of the party. posted 04/15/2008 at 23:30:34
Lieberman: Good Question To Ask If Obama Is A Marxist
I lost most respect for Lieberman a long time ago, but now I have none. posted 04/15/2008 at 01:10:56
Bill Clinton Claims To See Nonexistent "I'm Not Bitter" Signs
Classically, classically Clinton. Hillary imagines sniper fire, Bill imagines signs. Hillary claims that she never supported NAFTA, Bill claims that he never...well, never mind. Must be a few more of those late night moments that happened, um, in the morning. posted 04/14/2008 at 22:05:12
I Was There: What Obama Really Said About Pennsylvania
I really appreciate your comments. Even without hearing the rest of Obama's comments--just from the initial portions quoted by Fowler--I thought that she and other critics were missing the whole point. Obama was saying something intelligent about how voters feel. Your further elaboration makes that even more clear. I agree entirely that this is the type of quality we want in a president.
My only addition to your post is that I think it is *wonderful* that he calls home to his kids. What a great leader to have in the White House. posted 04/15/2008 at 01:09:48
My only addition to your post is that I think it is *wonderful* that he calls home to his kids. What a great leader to have in the White House. posted 04/15/2008 at 01:09:48
Noteworthy Political Scientist Says Clinton Was For Characterization Of Working-Class Voters Before She Was Against It
You know what I'm bitter about? I'm bitter that, after voting twice for Bill Clinton, we lost all opportunity for decent, progressive change because he couldn't keep his hands off a 20-year-old intern. The Lewinsky scandal completely absorbed the second Clinton administration and prevented the kinds of change I voted for. The scandal also contributed immeasurably to Gore's defeat in 2000 and our subsequent woes under 8 years of W.
Hilllary worked tirelessly to fight impeachment and keep Bill in the White House. Why? Did it really benefit the American people to put government on hold while we heard about nothing but Bill Clinton's sex life? Did it help women to know that it's ok for the world's most powerful CEO to have sex with an intern, lie about it under oath, and then keep his job? What if Clinton had gracefully stepped down right away and let Gore take over? We could have had some productive years, and Gore probably would have won reelection in 2000.
Bill and Hillary Clinton chose to "fight for Bill's presidency." But it wasn't "his" presidency; it was the voters' presidency. And we lost out big time. That's what I'm bitter about. Nor was this some private family matter. I don't care how much sex Bill Clinton has outside of the workplace. But Hillary was the chief strategist working to keep Bill in the White House--despite the tremendous costs to the American people. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:46:25
Hilllary worked tirelessly to fight impeachment and keep Bill in the White House. Why? Did it really benefit the American people to put government on hold while we heard about nothing but Bill Clinton's sex life? Did it help women to know that it's ok for the world's most powerful CEO to have sex with an intern, lie about it under oath, and then keep his job? What if Clinton had gracefully stepped down right away and let Gore take over? We could have had some productive years, and Gore probably would have won reelection in 2000.
Bill and Hillary Clinton chose to "fight for Bill's presidency." But it wasn't "his" presidency; it was the voters' presidency. And we lost out big time. That's what I'm bitter about. Nor was this some private family matter. I don't care how much sex Bill Clinton has outside of the workplace. But Hillary was the chief strategist working to keep Bill in the White House--despite the tremendous costs to the American people. posted 04/13/2008 at 19:46:25
Clinton Becomes A Gun Lover
What kind of role model does this set for kids? Clinton drinks way too much; we should be showing kids (and adults) that there are better ways to have fun and cope with pressure. And shooting poor innocent ducks? That's a good thing? Most ducks have better manners than politicians. Hillary has more personalities and outfits than the animals at Build-A-Bear. This week it's "hunting Hillary" and "heavy drinking Hillary." What next? posted 04/13/2008 at 00:21:32
Clinton Pollster: Obama Comments "Fair Game" For Attack Ads
If this is a problem, it's a much bigger problem for Clinton. She has a long history of saying inartful things that people find condescending. Remember the "I could have stayed home and baked cookies" comment? Or earlier in this campaign, when she expressed horror that the people in Iowa were as backwards as those in Mississippi for never electing a woman to statewide office? Or her numerous comments about states that don't count?
The question of inartful comments that come back to haunt a candidate should be a minor factor, if any, in a superdelegate's decision. But to the extent it's a factor, Obama scores much better overall than Clinton on this issue. posted 04/12/2008 at 18:18:38
The question of inartful comments that come back to haunt a candidate should be a minor factor, if any, in a superdelegate's decision. But to the extent it's a factor, Obama scores much better overall than Clinton on this issue. posted 04/12/2008 at 18:18:38
David Brody: Obama Comments No Big Deal
I agree with Brody. The most important parts of Obama's original comments were (1) people in small towns suffered economic setbacks during *both* the Clinton and Bush administrations, and (2) they--along with almost everyone else in America--feel that America isn't listening to them. It's understandable that Clinton would ignore those points and try to distract attention by focusing on the other parts. But why are so many in the mainstream press ignoring these other parts of Obama's comments?
It's not press bias for Clinton or against Obama; it's something much more insidious. If the press can identify portions of a candidate's words that might cause indignation--or if another candidate does so--the press loves to report on that. Discussion of more serious points, like why both Democratic and Republican administrations left the working class behind, or why voters feel that government doesn't listen, seem more boring and get overlooked. Political news today seems like the movie star magazines my grandmother used to read--lots of gossip, innuendo, and pictures, not much content. posted 04/12/2008 at 18:28:44
It's not press bias for Clinton or against Obama; it's something much more insidious. If the press can identify portions of a candidate's words that might cause indignation--or if another candidate does so--the press loves to report on that. Discussion of more serious points, like why both Democratic and Republican administrations left the working class behind, or why voters feel that government doesn't listen, seem more boring and get overlooked. Political news today seems like the movie star magazines my grandmother used to read--lots of gossip, innuendo, and pictures, not much content. posted 04/12/2008 at 18:28:44
Obama 'Small Town' Comments Draw Fire, Support
Clinton uses much stronger, populist language on the campaign trail than Obama does; she deliberately appeals to the economic bitterness of working class voters. Her standard stump speech rails about how big companies have been hurting the little people and they're all mad as heck. So now she's attacking Obama for saying that working class voters are bitter? When she deliberately plays on that bitterness? I wish Clinton would focus on her positives rather than picking these fights. posted 04/12/2008 at 00:56:59
Don't Be Fooled: Obama Is Actually Leading Hillary By 1-2 Million Votes
Excellent column! I've been wondering how the caucus votes should be accounted for in any calculation about popular vote. And of course those votes should count. Caucuses, just like elections, are open to all voters (or to all voters from that party, depending on the state). These are people who are willing to take *more* time than those who go to polls to discuss the candidates and state their views.
And caucuses satisfy the "one person, one vote" principle just as well as elections at polls do: Any voter can come to a caucus and cast a vote. Each vote counts as one vote for a candidate. In any state, a minority of voters participate in primary elections--and a disgracefully small percentage participate in the general election. Yet these votes bind all citizens because everyone had the chance to participate. It's the same with caucuses.
There's nothing in the caucus system, moreover, that inherently favored Obama. In fact, Clinton had the initial advantage going into this campaign because she was the party insider. Caucuses and polls are just two ways of choosing delegates to the national convention. The voters who take the time to participate in *either* system should count as part of the popular vote tally. posted 04/12/2008 at 01:21:11
And caucuses satisfy the "one person, one vote" principle just as well as elections at polls do: Any voter can come to a caucus and cast a vote. Each vote counts as one vote for a candidate. In any state, a minority of voters participate in primary elections--and a disgracefully small percentage participate in the general election. Yet these votes bind all citizens because everyone had the chance to participate. It's the same with caucuses.
There's nothing in the caucus system, moreover, that inherently favored Obama. In fact, Clinton had the initial advantage going into this campaign because she was the party insider. Caucuses and polls are just two ways of choosing delegates to the national convention. The voters who take the time to participate in *either* system should count as part of the popular vote tally. posted 04/12/2008 at 01:21:11
Inside Clinton's Elton John Fundraiser: Singer Amazed By "Misogynistic Attitudes" Of Some In USA
I've seen plenty of women suffer from true misogyny in the workplace. The Clinton campaign's invocation of this issue demeans the hardships that those women face. There have been some sexist comments and attitudes about Hillary, but there have been plenty of racist comments and attitudes about Obama. I'm supporting Obama because of his leadership abilities and message, not because of his gender or face. And I'm one of those 50-something, female, lifelong Democrats who is supposed to be in Clinton's core. Let's leave the claims of misogyny to the women who are really suffering discrimination in the workplace. They don't apply to a political candidate who had plenty of advantages and money, but has lost votes based on her Iraq vote, her misstatements, her willingness to campaign negatively, and her peculiar statements on what is "democratic." I'm still trying to figure out what's democratic about urging pledged delegates to disregard the will of the people who elected them. posted 04/10/2008 at 00:21:54
Clinton Blasts Media Double Standard
As a professional woman who has observed plenty of double standards (against women, against minorities, against older people...) over the years, I am getting really angry about Clinton's use of this line. It demeans all of the people who truly have suffered from double standards. I see no double standard in the media's treatment of Clinton and Obama. There has been harsh scrutiny of both candidates. The bare fact is that Clinton engages in more negative behavior than Obama and the media can't ignore those actions.
During the last week, Clinton has started directly urging pledged Obama delegates for to break their pledges and vote for her. That looks like "playing ugly" to me. Obama is not doing things like that. And there's nothing ambiguous or disputed about Clinton's actions; she openly asked pledged delegates in North Dakota to switch their votes, and seemed to take glee in doing so. It's a statement of fact that Clinton *is* playing ugly. The fact that she's doing so suggests that she sees this as the only way to win. Unless she likes playing ugly just for the heck of it? posted 04/09/2008 at 00:16:24
During the last week, Clinton has started directly urging pledged Obama delegates for to break their pledges and vote for her. That looks like "playing ugly" to me. Obama is not doing things like that. And there's nothing ambiguous or disputed about Clinton's actions; she openly asked pledged delegates in North Dakota to switch their votes, and seemed to take glee in doing so. It's a statement of fact that Clinton *is* playing ugly. The fact that she's doing so suggests that she sees this as the only way to win. Unless she likes playing ugly just for the heck of it? posted 04/09/2008 at 00:16:24
McCain Told Me 100 Years
I was at this town hall meeting and completely agree with the questioner's account. (I also remember the questioner and his "Ernest Hemingway" appearance!) I attended the townhall because I was interested in McCain and wanted to hear what he would say. I was impressed by his demeanor and many of his remarks during the forum. But I heard his "100 years" comment and was shocked by it. It was clear to all of us in the room that McCain did not mean he would simply maintain peacetime bases in Iraq: He meant that he would keep fighting in Iraq for 100 years if necessary. It was a serious remark and people in the room took it seriously. Some agreed and some disagreed. McCain, like any candidate, can change his views; I think deliberation and reconsideration are good things in a politician. But to claim that others are lying about what he said is immoral--it is the very worst of what politics has become. posted 04/07/2008 at 19:38:39
Report: McCain's Profane Tirade At His Wife
And let's not forget McCain's "joke" at a Republican fundraiser, in which he managed to insult the First Lady, the Attorney General, and the teenaged daughter of then President Clinton. The joke was also sexist and anti-gay. "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?" McCain asked. "Because Janet Reno is her father." Statements like this--and the one ugly cursing of his wife--should be disqualifying. These comments are so much more disturbing than reports about what Obama's pastor said. It's time to focus on the presumptive Republican nominee's own words. posted 04/07/2008 at 17:58:45
An Issue of Legitimacy and Democracy
If the popular vote is the most democratic way to elect a candidate, then why do superdelegates have any role at all? I think both caucuses, elections, and deliberations by superdelegates all have an appropriate role in selecting a candidate. But Clinton supporters seem to be very enthusiastic about superdelegate decisions while dismissing caucuses. I think that "disses" ordinary citizens and the discussions they have. posted 04/07/2008 at 01:07:17
SNL Returns: Clintons, Dodd And Christopher Walken's Tongue
Yup, in the tank for Clinton. Like the Clintons' press release, they try to distract the viewer from the real news in the tax returns: the $15 million Bill earned from Ron Burkle. Several tax analysts and economists have already said that even amounts of the payments reflect a salary or retainer like arrangement, not income from a partnership. So what was he paid to do? Seems to me that inquiry about Burkle--the key stuff that the Clintons *did* hide--would have been much funnier. And curious, isn't it, that SNL didn't think the Bosnia lie was funny.
At least SNL is honest that Hillary will never do anything for the good of the party--and she will never be gracious in withdrawing! posted 04/06/2008 at 12:35:41
At least SNL is honest that Hillary will never do anything for the good of the party--and she will never be gracious in withdrawing! posted 04/06/2008 at 12:35:41
Hillary Clinton: I Started Criticizing Iraq War Before Obama
What is she talking about? She criticized the war before Obama's 2002 speech? Was she for it before or after she was against it? I can't wait to hear how her staff explains this one. posted 04/06/2008 at 01:29:47
Clinton Under Fire Over False Story Of Health Care Horror
Uh, this isn't just a lie--Clinton has committed actionable slander. Relaying a false story about an identifiable private patient and hospital, without checking the facts, is called slander. Clinton got this story second-hand from a sheriff, who said he heard it second-hand from some unidentified members of the patient's family. The sheriff was admittedly vague on details. Rather than checking the facts, Clinton pumped up the story and retold it repeatedly as truth. That qualifies at least as negligence--and probably as reckless disregard--with respect to the reputations of this hospital and patient. Our society, unfortunately, tends to think poor people are lazy or incompetent. So by calling this woman a minimum-wage uninsured worker who couldn't get medical care for her baby, when she was really a restaurant manager with insurance and regular obstetric care, demeans the woman. And to think Clinton claims that members of the press unfairly attack her reputation! posted 04/05/2008 at 16:44:43
Hillary Clinton With Jay Leno On Tonight Show: Enters To "Rocky" Theme, Jokes About Sniper Fire
I think it's insulting to members of the armed forces that Clinton first makes up accounts of sniper fire and then jokes about it. Being subject to sniper attack is no joke! I'm disturbed, not only by Clinton's lies, but by her tendency to say things that are so dismissive of others. First there was staying home to bake cookies, then there was the backwardness of states like Mississippi, now there are jokes about sniper fire. And how many war zones did she visit? Is she suggesting here that she confused Bosnia with some other war zone? I'm willing to bet that Clinton was never under sniper fire anywhere! posted 04/03/2008 at 22:58:36
Obama Risks Alienating Clinton Women and Blue-Collar Supporters
The "I'm not a quitter" attitude appeals to some voters, but it worries me. What does this mean with respect to Iraq? If elected, will the "Americans don't quit" attitude sway Clinton to stay longer in Iraq? In general, I worry about leaders with this attitude--it suggests that they're less receptive to new information.
I applaud Clinton for staying in the race, but I don't like the fact that she's stressing her "I never quit" attitude. George W Bush has also stressed the fact that he doesn't quit. posted 04/02/2008 at 20:03:59
I applaud Clinton for staying in the race, but I don't like the fact that she's stressing her "I never quit" attitude. George W Bush has also stressed the fact that he doesn't quit. posted 04/02/2008 at 20:03:59
Clinton Vows To Stay In Race Until Convention
The "legitimacy" of Florida and Michigan is a red herring; it's Clinton that is making voters there feel disenfranchised. Those two states created primaries that they knew would not count toward the delegate counts. The other 48 states were able to comply with the rules--why not those two?
It's impossible to change the rules of an election after the votes are cast. If the votes from Florida and Michigan are counted now, the voters who stayed at work (why take off time to vote in an election that doesn't count?) are disenfranchised.
And it's both expensive and difficult to re-run elections. The chances that these elections could have been re-run without the results being challenged by Clinton herself are small to non-existent. It's hard enough for the US to run good elections when they're planned months in advance!
One thing we can be sure of: If Cinton had won the nomination by Super Tuesday, as she always assumed, we would never have heard anything about Florida and Michigan. posted 03/30/2008 at 00:31:45
It's impossible to change the rules of an election after the votes are cast. If the votes from Florida and Michigan are counted now, the voters who stayed at work (why take off time to vote in an election that doesn't count?) are disenfranchised.
And it's both expensive and difficult to re-run elections. The chances that these elections could have been re-run without the results being challenged by Clinton herself are small to non-existent. It's hard enough for the US to run good elections when they're planned months in advance!
One thing we can be sure of: If Cinton had won the nomination by Super Tuesday, as she always assumed, we would never have heard anything about Florida and Michigan. posted 03/30/2008 at 00:31:45
Obama Should Think Big -- and Seat Michigan and Florida
It's not crazy, and I agree it would have desirable effects for Obama. But seating these delegates undermines one of the most basic democratic principles: You can't change the rules of an election after the polls have closed. People in Michigan and Florida have said that they didn't take time off from work to vote in an election that didn't count. How can we now change the rules to diss those voters?
The truly crazy thing about the Michigan and Florida situation is this: If a candidate in another country argued that the state should change the rules after an election was over, we would either laugh ourselves silly or bomb them as despots. It's hard to believe that Clinton keeps pushing this "change the rules after the election" position without more people noting how completely undemocratic it is. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:22:17
The truly crazy thing about the Michigan and Florida situation is this: If a candidate in another country argued that the state should change the rules after an election was over, we would either laugh ourselves silly or bomb them as despots. It's hard to believe that Clinton keeps pushing this "change the rules after the election" position without more people noting how completely undemocratic it is. posted 03/31/2008 at 00:22:17
Hillary And Bill: We Aren't Going Anywhere
You're so right! I knew there was something scary about this photo as soon as I saw it. posted 03/28/2008 at 23:15:34
The Fear Factor
I agree entirely! I have just sent a note to Nancy Pelosi saying that, if the superdelegates start showing some backbone, I will donate as heavily as I possibly can to democratic candidates across the country. I'm not a big donor, but I'm one of millions who is tired of the Democrats losing close elections they should win. The idea that the superdelegates need to wait until all the votes are in is completely lame. Hillary Clinton got plenty of superdelegates to announce their support of her before *anyone* voted. If the superdelegates would speak up now, it probably wouldn't be enough to put any candidate over the top. But if they start voicing their true consciences (which I suspect will not reflect what Hillary wants to hear), then the *voters* in the remaining primaries would get to put a candidate over the top. Wouldn't that be nice? posted 03/29/2008 at 01:24:05
Clinton Camp: Obama Falsely Claims He Doesn't Take Oil Money
These contributions clearly are from individual workers, not from the companies. Everyone who gives to a presidential campaign has to disclose their employer. So the Clinton campaign is counting the line workers at Exxon who have given to Obama as "oil company" donations. Clinton knows this: she also receives donations from individuals who work for companies. Those of us who are still employed in this economy tend to work for *someone*! The very amount of the contributions makes their source clear. Clinton says Obama received $8,400 from "Exxon-Mobil" last month. But Exxon nets $10 BILLION dollars in profits per quarter. If they were contributing to Obama, don't you think they could put up a little more cash than that?
Clinton's attack isn't just dishonest, it's disrespectful to the individuals who are contributing to Obama's campaign as well as her own. posted 03/29/2008 at 02:07:40
Clinton's attack isn't just dishonest, it's disrespectful to the individuals who are contributing to Obama's campaign as well as her own. posted 03/29/2008 at 02:07:40
Dean Says Attacks Getting Too Personal
Howard: Why don't you ask Bill Clinton to stop endorsing John McCain? Just as you're assuring us that you've talked to the campaigns about making things less bitter, we hear news that Clinton once again is praising McCain. How can he possibly praise a candidate who doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shiites, who jokes about bombing Iran, and who has no health plan for Americans? Something is terribly wrong here. And why should the superdelegates wait until June? They could speak now, and then the voters would have the final say. It seems to me that solves a lot of problems. Let the superdelegates start speaking their consciences now: That's what conscience is all about. But it seems to me that their consciences would include things like expressing serious reservations about a candidate who--along with her campaign--keeps tearing down the other Democrat while praising the Republican nominee. Is that what we want for the general campaign? posted 03/28/2008 at 23:25:06
Carville Unloads: Richardson Misled, Promised He'd Back Hillary
This is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton is arguing publicly that even "pledged" delegates can support whichever candidate they choose. And yet her supporters are arguing that Richardson couldn't change his mind after discussing the matter privately? This type of personal attack on a citizen is tragic. I have lost much of my respect for Clinton during the last few months. If people like Carville are in her White House, it would be a scary place. posted 03/28/2008 at 00:47:36
The New York Times on Obama and Deval -- Assume Nothing, Question Everything
The NY Times is so pro-Clinton that it is almost funny. Emhasis on almost. posted 03/28/2008 at 00:58:24
Clinton Superdelegates In Washington Wavering
I agree that these superdelegates--as well as all of the others--should be thinking hard about this election. Real people's lives are at stake here. If McCain wins in November, real people continue going without health care and jobs. Real soldiers keep dying in Iraq. Clinton has become increasingly defiant that she won't quit--and she claims that the race is good for the Democratic party. But can she cite a single situation in which a bitter, protracted primary has been good for the Democrats? She's ignoring both history and common sense--and betraying the very people she claims to represent by setting the Democrats up for a loss in November.
Ironically, I agree with Clinton that the superdelegates should vote their consciences: Of course they should. More important, they should begin speaking their consciences now. I'm not sure about the superdelegates, but my conscience tells me: the Democrats lost close elections that they should have won in both 2000 and 2004; no Democrat should count on any easy win this year; the candidate with the most primary votes and delegates is the one that most Democrats favor; the candidate with the higher positivity and trustworthiness ratings among the public as a whole is most likely to win in November. The Republicans are going to savage Hillary Clinton; a large number of voters already say they distrust her--that's only going to get worse, not better. posted 03/28/2008 at 23:07:40
Ironically, I agree with Clinton that the superdelegates should vote their consciences: Of course they should. More important, they should begin speaking their consciences now. I'm not sure about the superdelegates, but my conscience tells me: the Democrats lost close elections that they should have won in both 2000 and 2004; no Democrat should count on any easy win this year; the candidate with the most primary votes and delegates is the one that most Democrats favor; the candidate with the higher positivity and trustworthiness ratings among the public as a whole is most likely to win in November. The Republicans are going to savage Hillary Clinton; a large number of voters already say they distrust her--that's only going to get worse, not better. posted 03/28/2008 at 23:07:40
Pastor Of Clinton's Former Church: Don't Use Wright To Polarize
Why *hasn't* the media paid any attention to Snyder's comments? I'm appalled at the way that the mainstream media has replayed the Wright sound bites over and over, without any attempt to look at the full sermons, much less the full impact of the pastor and his church. And now it appears that the media haven't even paid attention to what other respected ministers are saying. Unbelievable. posted 03/26/2008 at 01:01:17
Obama Camp Mocks Clinton: Next She'll Want NCAA Bracket To Decide Race
It's particularly silly for Clinton's campaign to suggest looking at electoral votes because that's exactly what the Democrat's proportional allocation scheme tried to avoid! If the Democrats used a winner-take-all approach to state primaries, as the Republicans do in some states, that would track the electoral college. So by urging this, Clinton is arguing that Democrats should reverse a fundamental principle of their primary system. Some gall! posted 03/26/2008 at 00:59:06
"Obama's Test" or Ours?
Absolutely! And look at the overwhelming support Obama draws from younger voters. As Democrats, we need to weigh those views heavily. The young voters are the ones least wedded to the classic divisions that have made it so difficult to govern effectively. And they have grown up in the complex, high technology, global world: They understand the nuances of this world and how to navigate it. We need a leader with the same qualities. Viva la future! posted 03/25/2008 at 17:51:34
Clinton Camp Denounces Obama Iowa Supporter for Lewinsky Comments
I'm sorry but I don't see this comment as tacky. Hillary has used the Lewinsky affair to her advantage. In one of the key debates before the Ohio/Texas votes, for example, she answered a question posed to both candidates about responding to challenges by giving a knowing laugh and saying "everyone knows I've faced some challenges in my personal life." Her campaign replayed that snippet to great effect afterwards, thinking that it humanized her for voters. If Hillary raises the issue and plays upon it, the issue can't be out of bounds for others to discuss.
The first lady/man, moreover, holds an important position of public trust. Just look at how influential Hillary says she was as first lady! That influence will be even greater if the "first spouse" is a former president. I think the public *should* consider Bill Clinton's character and the Lewinsky affair, just as they would consider the character of any potential first lady. If Michelle Obama, who holds an executive position at the University of Chicago Medical Center, had seduced an intern working for her, then lied about it under oath to a grand jury, I am quite certain that would end Obama's presidential campaign. Why doesn't this apply to Bill Clinton? posted 03/25/2008 at 13:03:20
The first lady/man, moreover, holds an important position of public trust. Just look at how influential Hillary says she was as first lady! That influence will be even greater if the "first spouse" is a former president. I think the public *should* consider Bill Clinton's character and the Lewinsky affair, just as they would consider the character of any potential first lady. If Michelle Obama, who holds an executive position at the University of Chicago Medical Center, had seduced an intern working for her, then lied about it under oath to a grand jury, I am quite certain that would end Obama's presidential campaign. Why doesn't this apply to Bill Clinton? posted 03/25/2008 at 13:03:20
A Letter to Howard
Absolutely right! Politics will always be imperfect, but Obama has an honesty, thoughtfulness, and ability to inspire that are remarkable. I'm a professor on a large university campus (in that purplest of places, Columbus, Ohio) and I'm particularly struck by the enthusiasm that under-30 voters feel for Obama. These young voters aren't naive--they're actually more sophisticated than most older voters I talk to. The youngest generation of voters sees the nuances in all of our challenges, and they respond to Obama as the candidate who can best help us navigate those complex issues, rather than dispensing the same old, rigid formulas. posted 03/25/2008 at 00:34:00
Michigan, Florida, and the L-word
Obama is the principled Democrat on these issues. The most basic principle of election fairness is that you can't change the rules during--much less after--an election. Clinton is playing on the public's naivete about the difficulties of re-doing an election. Statewide primaries aren't elementary school elections. You can't print up a few paper ballots, hand them out to voters, and collect the ballots in cardboard boxes. The people who actually run elections in Michigan and Florida didn't think it was remotely possible to plan new elections in this short timeframe. *Bad* elections, which is what hurry-up re-done elections are, destroy legitimacy. Clinton has spent her life in politics; she clearly knows how unrealistic it is to re-do these primaries. By claiming they could be re-done, or that votes should be counted when millions of people failed to go to the polls because they were told their votes wouldn't count, Clinton is acting in one of the least principled ways I have ever seen. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I don't think I'll be able to vote for such an unprinciple candidate if she gets the nomination. I don't like McCain's principles, but at least he has some! posted 03/24/2008 at 00:32:50
Why Am I So Afraid
This is one of the more tasteless columns I have read. Is the sexual innuendo (beaver and stallion for goodness sakes) intentional? If I, a female lawyer of Hillary's generation, ever run for office, save me from feminist friends who call me a "beaver." More important, this is a story line that doesn't fit the facts. Hillary is incredibly hard working when it comes to campaigning and responding to attacks (like those related to Bill's sex scandals). The hard facts are that she has accomplished relatively little of substance in her public life: Health care reform failed miserably, and she has passed little legislation in the Senate. Per year in public life, Obama has accomplished more than Hillary Clinton. If he's a "stallion," he's one who has born plenty of burdens and finished plenty of races. Hillary''s failure to accomplish more, finally, is not due to her gender. Yes, there is plenty of sexism in the world. But what about Madeline Albright, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor, Elizabeth Dole, Nancy Pelosi, Condoleeza Rice, and hundreds more? These women have different political views and records, but they are all much more accomplished than Hillary Clinton. As feminists, we should be looking to women who have accomplished *real* change--not to someone like Clinton who has spent much of her life flinging mud back and forth. I can't wait to vote for a female President some day, but it will have to be one of the many, many women with better potential to lead. Meanwhile, Obama is a terrific candidate. If Democrats don't want to lose the November election, it's time to leave Hillary's mud-slinging behind. posted 03/23/2008 at 18:44:34
