Campaign Hits Back on Power/Iraq [Updated: "Monstergate"]
By NoQuarter on March 7, 2008 at 4:00 PM in Barack Obama, Foreign affairs, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power
Via The Page/Time magazine, statements from Gen. Wesley Clark, former State Dept. official James Rubin, and Howard Wolfson (with more coming soon following press phone call — I’ll update as it’s available) on the resignation of Obama adviser Samantha Power (and her interview is reaired tonight on BBCAmerica’s “BBC World News America,” which is far and away my favo(u)rite hour-long news program — it’s on at 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. PST):
Clinton spokesman Wolfson calls Power’s comments on Iraq “troubling and extraordinary.”
Gen. Wesley Clark: “I’m quite concerned about what we heard from the Obama campaign because I’m not sure where it leads us….”
Former State Dept. official James Rubin: In Obama campaign “it’s amateur hour on making foreign policy.” …
Here’s Sen. Obama, in his own words, on the quality of his foreign policy advisers — voters will no doubt trust his judgment:
Obama: voters can trust his judgment when selecting advisers that will shape his administration’s foreign policy. The New York Times reported, “Obama has implored voters to consider his judgment in foreign policy…that judgment, he said, would be carried over to selecting people to fill his administration. He said his views were shaped by his foreign policy advisers.” [New York Times, 11/2/07]
There are more sage Obama comments below, along with a fine piece in today’s New York magazine Intelligencer on “Monstergate”:
Obama turns to advisers when formulating foreign policy positions. When asked by the New York Times, “When you formulate your position for where we go from here in Iraq, which experts to you consult with? What informs your judgment and assessment of the next steps?” Obama replied, “Well, we have a pretty wide circle of advisers. We talk to everybody from the usual suspects in Washington – various foreign policy experts – to mid-rank military officers, many of whom have served in Iraq, to higher ranking officers like General Scott Gration who flew repeated combat missions and has helped to advise us on a range of these issues and people like Richard Danzig, who is one of our key foreign policy advisers. So it’s a pretty wide circle. [New York Times, 11/1/07
] Obama ‘answered that he would surround himself with competent people.’ A voted in New Hampshire “asked how he would choose the staff and advisers who would help him make decisions. Obama answered that he would surround himself with competent people with integrity and independence _ like Abraham Lincoln, he said. He pointed out that Lincoln also was a former Illinois legislator who faced great skepticism about his experience. ”I guess that was a leap of faith, too,” Obama said.” [AP, 8/23/07]
Now, the New York magazine commentary today, “Heilemann: Can Obama Handle the Awakened Media Beast?“:
So what to make of Monstergate? On the surface, the campaign controversy du jour could hardly be a more straightforward story. … This morning, as word of the incendiary indiscretion spread (the story led the Today show) and the fever mounted, a number of congressional Clinton backers demanded that Power resign from the campaign. “It’s really a test for Obama,” said Representative Nita Lowey of New York, and she was right. …
But Monstergate, I think, reflects something deeper: the fact that many of the people around Obama have grown accustomed to, shall we say, a forgiving national press corps. Retroactive declarations of off-the-recordness happen all the time. Whether the journalist confronted with one chooses to let it slide or be a hard-ass is a matter of discretion. How much do you like the source? How much do you need the source? It’s fair to say that many people in Obama’s circle believe that Clinton is in fact a monster. Many have said something similar to reporters. And this was not the first time one of them slipped up on attribution. But until now, the press, as part of a broader pattern of kid-gloves treatment of Obama, has largely chosen to let those mistakes pass. And that has bred a certain sloppiness — one that, in the case of Power, has now come back to bite them.
This sloppiness is not confined to dealing with the press. Much has been written about the case of Obama’s economic guru, Austan Goolsbee, and the Canadians, but it’s worth revisiting in the context of Monstergate. In telling the Canucks to pay no attention to his boss’ saber-rattling on NAFTA, Goolsbee was being candid and stating the plain truth: Nobody who knows Obama believes for a second that he is anything but a staunch free trader; they know that he has no intention of trashing the trade treaty. But Goolsbee was also being sloppy. And so was the campaign in its ludicrously transparent, transparently ludicrous efforts to mislead the press about what occurred. (The Canadians contacted Goolsbee not in his capacity as Obama’s guy on economics but merely as a University of Chicago academic? As Bill Clinton might put it, Give me a break!) The whole imbroglio fairly reeked of an operation that had become accustomed — too accustomed for its own good — to a sleepy, besotted press corps.
By now, of course, it’s clear to anyone with two eyes in his head that the kid-gloves days are over for Obama. …
[...]
Few campaigns I’ve ever covered have been run with as much skill and discipline as Obama’s has. His chief strategist, David Axelrod, handles the press with aplomb and savvy. Robert Gibbs, his communications czar, is one tough cookie. But the rest of Obama’s adjutants — and the candidate himself — had better get with the program. The Media Beast, after months of blissful slumber, is now awake and as grouchy as an undercaffeinated grizzly bear. And the Clinton campaign has no intention of letting it return to sleep. …
Barack Obama had better be seeking advice from his criminal attorneys as this Rezko trial looks UGLY!
.”
Bush used this same comparison to justify his boneheaded moves in regard to the Constitution: Well, Lincoln abolished habeas corpus…
As if Bush, or Obama can even begin to approach Lincoln’s genius, and two, Lincoln’s decision was highly questionable, but the fatheads in both camps don’t understand why, “it just looks good to compare Bush to Lincoln, the stupid public will never know. Besides, it’s about how the public feels, not what they think.” Ah, said like a true mediocre ad man…
I swear, has Obama ever had an original thought, ever?
I don’t expect much from Bush, and that right wing, but, lord, to see Obama’s people just as stupid, yikes!
Yikes! This should be of great concern to all of us. Part of being experienced is knowing who are the best people with whom to consult and consort. Not good signs for Obama so far.
This, btw, was one of Lincoln’s greatest strengths.
Donuts to dollars neither Obama’s or Bush’s camp understands the greater abstract as to why.
The Charlatan from Chicago doesn’t need advisors. He already has a consigliore.
consigliore = Mafia speak. Right hand man, lieutenant, as in The Godfather the Don has a consigliore.
“I’m calling Tony for back-up. He’s my consigliore- he’ll take care of things.”
Now Susan you sure Obama said Abraham Lincoln and not the cat in the hat and he just got confused by the big hats? After all he appears to be color blind on 5 occassions when he pressed the wrong button when voting, according to his own words!
Ha ha ha ha That is frickin Hillaryous!
Obama head-hunted Power, and she’s supposedly his big expert on foreign policy. He’s presented no plan on exiting Iraq and now it turns out he’s planning to wait until he’s president because he can’t get any inside information? That’s why he didn’t hold meeting on Afghanistan, to keep himself from knowing more? Hillary has laid out her plan and drawn her lines - no occupation, no permanent bases, cancel no bid contracts and open them to international investors so they’ll have a financial stake, negotiate with Europe and Iraq’s neighbors but don’t depend on their help, she’ll get us out regardless of what they promise or don’t promise, ban private armies, and accept the likelihood of an uptick in violence, with the understanding that while we are seen to be occupier, either with military or with private armies protecting spoils of war, we will continue to be targets and the violence won’t end. When we’re not there the violence will come to an end. She’s taken the most positive and more specific position on exiting Iraq. In contrast Obama has only said he’d bring out our military and now it seems he’s not so committed even to that? He’s cosponsored a bill to legalize private armies, and she’s cosponsored bills to ban them. And she has all those retired military generals and admirals backing her? I’d think if Obama wanted to know more he could ask her.
Here is Hillary Clinton’s issue statement on ending the war in Iraq:
Ending the War in Iraq
Here is Barack Obama’s.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
They’re exactly the same. Immediate withdrawal of combat troops. UN representatives brokering peace between rival factions. Diplomatic efforts with Iraq’s neighbours to help shore up Iraq’s borders. Humanitarian aid efforts aimed at both government and non government entities. They’re exactly the same.
And BOTH have equal, unsurprising, contrary votes and comments on these commitments.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both voted to continue funding of the war. Hillary Clinton voted against the banning of cluster bomb use in civilian areas, Barack Obama has said he wouldn’t rule out the use of private armies. Hillary Clinton has deep financial ties to arms manufacturers. And BOTH have similarly hawkish advisors.
I doubt the rhetoric of BOTH candidates when the record shows the opposite.
Ahhhh, fond memories of 1968 and Nixon’s “Secret Plan” to end the war in Viet Nam.
Living atop my upper lip contuinuously since Tricky Dicky made the, “Secret Plan,” statement is a lush, now-white Guards moustache. I swore that morning (It was Morning, where I was) that I wouldn’t shave my upper lip until that sorry sumbitch ended the war.
Lyin’ sack o’crap…
I thought my associating Senator Hope-a-Dope’s dumbassed spoutings with Herr Nixon would have been singularly perjorative of me.
Nice to know I’m not alone in this observation.
Since Obama’s huge losses on Super Tuesday 2, he is trying to mount another character attack against Hillary by calling into question her experience. This is a huge mistake on his part for many reasons. First and foremost is the fact that he will easily lose a side by side comparison of their resumes. Hillary lived in the White House for 8 years with the President of the United States. She knows from that experience everything there is to know and expect about the job of being President. She has met, spoken with and knows personally most of the leaders of the free world, past and present. And as mentioned, she took part in the Northern Ireland peace talks, Kosovo and Chinese civil rights issues.
But the really big mistake Obama has made by opening up this attack is that now his resume is fair game, and there is nothing in it that you would say even remotely qualifies him to be President. And, this is the best part of all. If Obama continues to press his latest attack on Hillary’s character, all she has to do is say the following, and it’s bye-bye Obama:
“Senator Obama has, after his recent losses, been calling my experience into question. I will gladly allow the American people to compare our two resumes side by side. One thing that will stand out, amongst a host of others, is that all my achievements are my own. Senator Obama can’t say the same, and he knows this”.
I’m referring of course to the fact that Obama’s record in the Illinois Senate was abysmal, until some party fixer decided to fluff it and make him a star. He has no record of accomplishment for his first two years in office, other than voting “present’ and pressing the wrong button repeatedly. Then in his last year in office, Obama was given credit for everyone else’s work, many of whom aren’t too happy about it.
In other words, what little record there is of Obama’s accomplishments in Illinois, they aren’t even his own. They are the work of other people, who’s names had been crossed out and Obama’s inserted. Another huge blow to Obama’s authenticity, just like how he plagiarized the theme and most of the speeches from Deval Patrick’s campaign.
Obama is a poseur, a fraud.
Speaking of, is Michelle Obama’s resume available?
Michelle Belle has an interesting resume. On Wallmart Board, on City Planning and Landmark Board that got their mansion for underprice in Kenwood in Chicago. Not to speak of taking from the Rezko’s for slice of property at sweetheart deal price. I know there’s more. Belle says if Hillary is nominated she doesn’t think she’d vote for her. Nice?
Google.
OxyCon -
I think HRC should use you on the campaign! Wow!
One of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who “strongly” supports telecomm immunity. John Brennan is a former CIA official and the current chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance. In a new National Journal interview, Brennan makes it clear that he agrees with the Bush administration on the issue of immunity:
:
I think telecom immunity is a disgrace.
Will all comers now feel free to violate the Constitution simply because some ko0k president, and his even ko0kier vice president,(and his boy, togo,) asked, SPYING on the American people, at the behest of a paranoid criminal? What happened to checks and balances, WHY ARE THEY INCLUDED?
Speaking of critical reasoning, why did the founding fathers include the fourth amendment, and what effect does it gross violation have on the function, and structure of democracy?
We are here, right now, arguing about Obama, to keep a grossly unqualified and corrupt man out of the white house, to stop a foamy elite from foisting on us their latest neurosis, the same as they did with the disaster Bush.
We can only do this because we feel free to speak out, because it is our Constitutional right, and in doing so, we keep this nation, and out national security, strong.
To frighten the public away from the right to criticize powerful figures is to kill this nation, just ask Putin, or the Chinese.
No one gets a free ride, we all obey the law, including the rich and powerful. If we delve into a two tiered society, where a kook like Addington, or Rove can spy on anyone he chooses for any reason he chooses, using the apparatus of defense to suppress domestic political opposition, we’re fucked.
If there is one thing I have learned over the past 5 years, it’s the value of the constitution, and necessity to protect it every step of the way, to insure the survival of this nation.
Do we all see how stupid Bush and Cheney and Obama are, how incapable they are of being President, always at the beck and call of someone else, never acting in the best interests of the nation, or the public?
Imagine if they were able to intimidate us all into silence, this country would have fallen, already, or we would have a terrorist war internally, along the lines of Iraq, fighting violently for our freedoms, rather than peacefully..
Our peaecful freedom of speech, and thought, acts as the antibiotic on the infection.
Wow! Powerful and well said.
Thank you.
I cringe when I see Rockefeller sell out the 4th amnedment for $25,000 dollars, telecom PAC money.
THAT will be your legacy, Jay, in this disaster of an adminstration, when history is written…
For shame!
I agree. He does come cheap.
I keeping getting email from Rockerfeller with his entire family - including the latest grandchild. Prolific anyway.
He is from the same family that funded Hitler in WWII. What do you expect from a closet Fascist?
Legacy - hmmm - he is such an empty suit - its hard for me to believe he is solidly here on planet earth. Can ghost like Apparitions have a legacy?
One of Obama’s advisers on intelligence and foreign policy advisers, however, is someone who “strongly” supports telecomm immunity. John
Mr. Murder,
And? We’re just getting rid of Stepford lock-step junta.
You want another one?
What exactly has the Jr senator from Illinios said on this topic? How has he voted? What campaign donations has he recieved from these Telecoms?
October 18, 2007, 7:18PM
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2007/10/obama_comes_out_against_telecom_immunity_deal.php
The faces of Obama.
Larry; perhaps you would comment on the larger context here?
The Power interview is aired tonight on “BBC World News America” — my favorite news program — that’s on BBCAmerica, which most of you surely get on your cable/satellite system. Check your BBCAmerica schedule.
Damn. Obama’s Bush? No, he’s Ken Starr?
It’s obvious by now if Hillary Clinton can’t win the nomination she’s going to make sure McCain wins the presidency. She doesn’t care what happens to the country or the Democratic party. This is a fact: she’s pissed off a lot of people I know who were planning to vote for her or Obama. Anyone but a Republican. Now? They’ll probably sit out.
I have no idea what the hell you people are doing. At least Republicans don’t eat their own.
This whole thing makes me think Hillary Clinton is a self-centered, power hungry person who is not to be trusted. And her people are looking and acting like Rove and the Republicans. Do you want the Republicans to win?
Are you working for the GOP?
And before you say it, I am not associated with Obama or anyone else.
Artmann11,
I don’t think you need to work for the GOP to criticize either candidate.
I love the argument that Hillary wants McCain to win thereby destroying the country and the Democratic party. I think it’s silly but I love it.
Heck, if she’s that good and can pull that off by herself, maybe she should be president.
She could certainly take on Iran, and Iraq, that’s for sure.
She’d make a great general.
I see the usual right wing Clinton hate lines. Please provide a brief description of the intent of the other candidates in running for comparison so I can determine her relative level of evilness. Please provide a link to a site that shows some of the destruction that is occurring in the country. I haven’t yet witnessed it. If Clinton takes Obama down, that means he’s weak. IMHO
Good to know that when Obama goes dwn in flames against Mccain (as he will if he gets nominated), that’s going to be Hillary Clinton’s fault, too. Let me guess, she should have convinced him to step aside somehow?
BTW the reason McCain will win is that Obama has been attacking Bill Clinton for months and alienating most of our major voting groups, who are deeply fed up with this campaign and this party. I agree with you that we shouldn’t be eating our own, I just wish someone told Obama before he brought this party to its knees.
I know that the following comment may be a bit off topic, but it relates somewhat to how men like John Kerry can be blindly supporting a neophyte like Obama and claiming he is the best candidate with absolutely no foreign policy experience, or it seems the intellectual curiosity to hold hearings pre-presidential run as a means by which to earn some credentials.
With respect to John Kerry, I know that I recently read an interview Bill Bradley gave, regarding his support of Obama. His argument was that we need to get lobbying money out of D.C. and that the Clinton’s have not been forthright regarding where monies for Bill Clinton’s Library have come from. [Mind you these are his words and not mine!] Bradley of course never tells you that he had one of the worst reputations in the Senate for “bundling” campaign contributions. So, getting back to John Kerry, I wonder if some of the reason he is supporting Obama so loudly could be because the Heinz company may be giving “bundled” campaign funds to Obama’s campaign. It might be something for someone far better than I to investigate.
Eurogirl, did you read Fleaflicker’s post just below? He pretty much wipes the floor with Bill Bradley.
Here: “Only the Finest Minds.”
He also takes down Arianna HuffandPuffington
Thanks Susan:
By the way I would recommend to anyone who really wants to know who the real Arianna Huffington is, to read Vanity Fair reporter Maureen Orth’s book “The Importance of Being Famous”. There is a whole chapter devoted to Arianna and it is none too flattering.
HuffandPuffington LOL! I needed a good laugh.
I think this type of situation is what Clinton and Edwards warned Obama about during the debates. They warned him not to be naive about what scrutiny he would receive. I think he dismissed their concerns because he was still the darling of the press.
I do believe that Obama is basically a decent person. But he’s set himself up as darn near perfect and by extension the people around him. That’s a standard no one, not even Hillary, can live up to.
The major difference I see between Hillary and Obama is that she’s aware of her flaws, knows she can’t please everyone, and is willing to admit as much to voters.
I take no joy in the problems Obama’s camp is having. I do believe a more seasoned (can’t use experience since that’s become a bad word) person would have seen some of this coming. The Rezko situtation comes to mind.
To be fair, Hillary has stumbled too. Her answers to criticism sometimes came too late. Sometimes she came across as defensive or harsh. I think she learned from that and has learned to project a more relaxed, and self-deprecating, persona.
I don’t doubt Obama’s intelligence or willingness to learn. I do doubt that he could cope with the absolute mess, domestic and foreign, left behind by the current administration.
Candy,
Edwards should have warned Hillary because she’s a liar, not aware of her flaws and takes the public for fools.
We know that isn’t true!!
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-experiencemar07,0,51719.story
Hillary because she’s a liar, not aware of her flaws and takes the public for fools.
Edwards n’ Mudcat said awhile back if you want to peddle race and hate “we don’t want your vote.”
We know that isn’t true!!
Speak for yourself please. Please tell me in your heart of hearts what fear drives you toward the sun?
Teak,
Hill is saying she brokered an agreement to open the border to Macedonia.
She lied.
The article clearly stated that the border was open before she and Sinbad arrived.
What fear drives me toward the sun??
You remind me of him.
Icarus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus
Actually, that statement doesn’t prove anything. Many agreements are agreed to well in advance of arriving.
ChrisXP
Window shopping is for intellectually poor…Cee is in a Labyrinth of her own design. Not that advance teams do much. eh?
C’mon Chris,
You know darn well that Hillary had no role in negotiating jack!
Shit! Monica could say she was giving him advice. Could she claim a role? NO!
“Edwards should have warned Hillary because she’s a liar, not aware of her flaws and takes the public for fools.”
Ah, I smell some unity! Is she the kind of liar who pretends to be a saint when he’s a dirty old school Chicago pol, the kind who talks a lot of bs about positivity and New Politics while trashing his opponents with a smarmy smirk? Gosh, you’d better stop making these comments, Im sure Obama would disapprove, he’s all about our better angels (and with all the Republican talking points he’s mouthed about the Clintons, he’s never accused them of murder, so I give him mad props).
Dewar,
Stop telling your candidate and her beaten down husband to stop begging for a unity ticket with Obama.
They are a negative drag he doesn’t need.
Actually she is being nice, offering Barach a bone.. He will pack up his toys and leave when he LOSES the nomination.. And he can take the Kool-Aid drinkers with him..
Bama O’Reilly took the bait, I thought it was the funniest thing, “she’s asking ME to be VP?”
Whose gotcha yer nose? !
lol.
They must have been very angry.
lol.
Right! Like the Govt. didn’t open up its borders AND KEEP THEM OPEN TO REFUGEES AS SHE STATED because of the imminent visit and interest. It was the very day before!
Nobody but Cee/Shoephone/Shurin/Bulbous Nebbish/CK (her many personalities) and Obama supporters would think that was merely coincidental.
Comparing Obama to Bush or Ken Starr? Complimenting McCain? Saying Obama doesn’t have the experience but McCain and her do?
Sorry dude, she’s learned how to take people down. Even if it damages the party’s unity. Republicans are laughing their asses off.
We’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I’ve seen a lot of campaigns. This is child’s play. But if Obama’s surrogates want to go back in time and bring up Whitewater then turnabout is fair play. It was Ken Starr that pushed the Whitewater investigation.
If Obama wins the nomination I don’t think Hillary has brought up anything that the Republicans themselves wouldn’t use. They have an excellent opposition research team. No one has to give them ideas. Remember John McCain’s black love child? His mental instability as a result of his capture in Vietnam? They did that to one of their own.
I do wish that both candidates would turn down the rhetoric. But I’ve read about presidential campaigns back to Jefferson. This fight for the nomination is no worse than past contests.
If the party’s in disarray, and I don’t agree that it is, one person didn’t cause that.
The prevailing theme, up to now, has been that Obama supporters would refuse to vote for Hillary. That theme was floated by Obama. He expressed doubts that his supporters could be won over by the Clinton camp.
I don’t want to hijack this thread so I’ll leave it there. Peace.
We are all entitled to our opinions.
I, for one, happen to think McCain wants the same thing Hillary and Obama which is what they feel is right for our Country.
That McCain becomes president doesn’t not mean the ruin of America. Do I want him running the country, no. But a man who risked his life for his country and endured years of torture in its defense, gets the benefit of doubt from me. I trust McCain loves this Country even while I don’t trust his Republican politics.
Mr. Obama has had ample opportunity to be the man he says he is. With a few humble gestures and a little less “show,” he could have put Hillary away months ago. His charm and popularity would have forgiven him just about anything had he risked looking weak to Hillary while refusing to allow others to use race to bash Bill Clinton (for one example) even if true! Especially if true! It would have shown a lot of courage and character even if he didn’t mean it. Especially if he didn’t mean it!
And this is one reason the party is splintering. Had Mr. Obama charmed the rest of us, we wouldn’t be having this issue. I think those disappointed should be angry at Obama for failing to win so many of the rest of us over.
Had he taken a different tact, the very Democrats so vehemently opposing him today (who would/will vote for McCain instead of Obama) would have been softer targets to win over by now.
And I feel to always come back full circle to what is becoming a clear fundamental truth; Obama is naive.
Obama is connected to Auchi, Saddam’s’ bagman.
Where is the disconnect here, it is not a rational gesture to ignore the greater implications. I’m not speaking of anyone specifically, but to put a man like Obama in the Presidency is to enable another Bush, with grave implications for American security, militarily, economically, and politically.
Auchi, and men like him, need to control. They are similiar to the mafia, John Gotti, say, their hands in illegal arms trading, drug trading, bribery, money laundering, the whole nine yards. And this man would have direct access to the President. Auchi, in Britian, consulted with Tony Blair about Iraq, he pays to play, and with Obama’s consent, he now has a foot in the door of American politics. Auchi and the others like him want to dictate policy, they think like Saddam. He represents the most vile of terrorists, Saddam gassed the kurds, had rape rooms, remember? Does this set up a situation for Obama to be blackmailed? Even as a Senator, this is an issue.
As a singular man, no army in the world can protect you when saddam’s baathists, or others, threaten to harm you, or your family, even the former Lebanese PM, with all the protection in the world, was murdered. Someone told me once “safety is an illusion,” and he was right. So why would obama accept money, and even more, from a man who would most likely strong arm him, on policy, a man who thinks like some Afghani warlord, a law unto himself? Did Obama already help Auchi obtain a visa, which had been denied by state, due to Auchi’s bribery conviction in France? This is a decent man, a man who enables Saddam the kurd killer’s former bagman?
I can’t even begin to justify any conversation without this fact being acknowledged.
Secondly, maybe Clinton is the superior candidate, period. Maybe she’s smarter, has superior advisers, PICKED superior advisers, is simply outplaying the corrupt and narcissistic Obama.
I see people give Obama credit for intellectualism he doesn’t possess, yet the Clinton’s have stayed right on top of this, due to their tenacity, and intellect, yet Obama suffered a set back only because he didn’t eat a healthy breakfast.Yeah, that’s it, he didn’t eat a healthy breakfast.
What’s the problem, here? He makes lousy choices, he’s not qualified to be President, he doesnt have the goods, he’s not SMART enough.
Hold him responsible.
Simon,
I don’t know about you, but I had a very strong gut reaction to Obama right off the bat.
I agree with your opinion. And back to naive. I believe he makes bad choices because politics is not academia or a course you can crash for.
In this sense, I have always thought Hillary was the superior candidate. It is not enough to know what needs to be done. In government, it is not enough. You must know how to get it done. Anyone who has done government work knows that what a monstrosity government bureaucracy is.
And that is just reading the syllabus. It only gets complicated from there.
It is not enough to hire advisors.
What makes someone think it’s OK to deal with Saddam hussein’s former money launder, his partner in crime?
Auhci and Saddam tried to assassinate the Iraqi PM in the fifties.
Aren’t YOU horrified by anything connected to a man who gassed the Kurds, did you SEE those pictures? You have to go into an active state of dissociated denial to deal with a man like that, I mean, WTH?
Obama thinks this is OK?
“The Chicago Way?”
What, an ignorant provincialism?
This is morally repulsive, and it still matters.
YOU wouldn’t make that choice, I wouldn’t make that choice.
Maybe they think it’s like the movies…
>>> I don’t know about you, but I had a very strong gut reaction to Obama right off the bat.
See? That’s why we have twelve people on juries. So that common sense can prevail.
Doesn’t take a Nestor to sniff out a hustler on the make.
If these comments will destroy Obama, than I hope it happens now. These are mild compared to what the Republicans will throw out there. He can’t answer these - well, he needs to exit the race for the sake of the Democratic Party.
.
It was my impression the Republicans thought Obama would have the nomination captured by now, with their support.
They would have then used Rezko to destroy Obama, and any chance at a democratic presidency. This, AFTER Bush.
Good thing Clinton has so far prevailed.
Alexei,
Thom Hartmann said the attacks have hurt Hillary. I agree with him.
This from the old school democrats who can’t win a war, or an election.
Right, right.
Thanks for playing , Cee.
You should see the flip side, Cheney’s denial.
I think, at the very least, I could get through to someone like Feingold about the threat men like Auchi represent to America.
And I could get through to Feingold how to fight him.
Cheney thinks torture wins, and it doesn’t, it allows an enemy to keep you, and your army, in a circle.
Cheney isn’t SMART enough to understand why, neither is his crew, a chaotic little head, still impressed with the republican organization, even though they still had to STEAL the elections to gain the presidency, even while owning the weakest American press, ever.
Get it?
And here we are, losing, to the world.
Do you think wars solve themselves?
No, they don’t.
Cheney is DUMB.
She is making all the Republican’s attack ads they’ll ever need. If Obama wins the nomination will Republicans quote Clinton? How much damage can she do to Obama?
How badly does she want to be president? What is she willing to do?
The answer, I’m afraid, is anything.
Her last statements were outrageous.
I think you protest too much - Obama follower. He has done much more damage attacking universal health care.
Does anyone feel like they are being forced to live in an alternate universe? Certain supporters are incapable of discussing a certain candidate without talking about Clinton.
If he can’t win on his own merits, he’s weak.
Rezko & Auchi.
On behalf of the world, thank you.
Nadhmi Auchi, exposed in America.
Just ask MI-6.
They spy.
This is probably the smartest thing I’ve seen Pelosi do.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi urged both leading Democratic presidential candidates to cease their bickering, warning that the escalating rhetoric could hurt the party’s chances in November.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/07/BADGVG0PL.DTL
Hey JoeySky, are you one of those internet operatives the Republicans have sent out to all the Democratic leaning websites? Just curious.
It’s a shame that Nancy didn’t direct her admonition to the Obama camp that has gone clearly over the line. Instead she acts as if the Hillary campaign is doing things equally abhorrent.
She would gain my respect if she called a spade a spade. And no racial slander inference was intended.
Pelosi is an Obama backer (just likes to stay in the closet and appear to be above the fray). She knows that Obama has been hurt by his own missteps and only wants to change the subject to protect her pick, Obama.
Is the truth about Obama and Auchi republican, you would prefer a corrupt government, more danger to American security?
You have your head up your ass.
I have no love for republican ops cheating to elect another republican, unfairly, but to think any democrat, even a corrupt one on an Arab string, another Bush, is preferable to McCain is silly.
AND MCCAIN HAS NOT BEEN VETTED, YET.
Why the hell don’t you put the welfare of the country first, or aren’t you smart enough to get it?
(Which also explains why Obama’s cretins can’t win, LOOK at this strategy of attack, oh, brother, Karl Rove flushed this last time he took a shit).
Think of this group of morons having to decide course in Iraq.
Do you know how stupid you look, just by your inability to correctly assess what is happening here?
But you are proving to all of us WHY obama shouldn’t be elected, every time you, and the others, try to troll.
American security is not an Obama priority, he doesnt even understand it, and neither do you.
Neither does Pelosi.
Nor Bush, nor Cheney.
Do you think it happens by itself?
You really don’t want to let on to others your intellectual weaknesses, people play your head in ways you can’t understand.
I realize the syntax is irregular, perhaps you should learn to read poetry.
Of the table Pelosi….errr.
Do you think she was referencing the Obama’s hispanic memo? or the SC memo? or the health care smear? Dem for a day campaign? maybe she was thinking of the new piece Obama is running in Miss? I wonder if she noticed the tone of Obama’s speech writer in an interview…..[The result was a speech with a light touch on the most striking point about Obama's victory: the historic nature of a black candidate's win in the almost entirely white state of Iowa. "The first line was simply, 'They said this day would never come'," says Favreau. "Even when we do speeches to African-American crowds, it's hinted at and it's understood. It's not hammered over the head."] Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Do you think she meant the attitude at the Democratic Party dinner in Canton where, even though Clinton was the speaker, there was a strong pro-Obama presence (and something short of a sold-out hall). Clinton seems to have been reasonably well-received, and her supporters mostly left when she finished, prompting, one blogger reports, the minister who spoke for Obama to remark, “This is a new form of white flight, isn’t it?” Hardy, har, har.
Do you think she might have wanted Obama’s supporters to be able to name one accomplishment of Obama’s so that they could demonstrate his leadership ability on issues?
I wonder if she suggested that Obama just drop out, he’s tearing the party and country apart.
Is Obama starting to lose the AA vote, AA support, even in terms of smaller trends?
Nancy Pelosi is an idiot. Democrats elected a majority and we got stuck with Reid and Pelosi’s Kumbaya!
If she can’t take the heat she needs to get the hell out of the kitchen. It’s painful to look at her strained smiling face.
Equally abhorrent? Not in my opinion. Praising McCain as some kind of an insult to Obama is ridiculous. Gary Hart had it right at Huffington.
Breaking the Final Rule
Gary Hart
Posted March 7, 2008
It will come as a surprise to many people that there are rules in politics. Most of those rules are unwritten and are based on common understandings, acceptable practices, and the best interest of the political party a candidate seeks to lead. One of those rules is this: Do not provide ammunition to the opposition party that can be used to destroy your party’s nominee. This is a hyper-truth where the presidential contest is concerned.
By saying that only she and John McCain are qualified to lead the country, particularly in times of crisis, Hillary Clinton has broken that rule, severely damaged the Democratic candidate who may well be the party’s nominee, and, perhaps most ominously, revealed the unlimited lengths to which she will go to achieve power. She has essentially said that the Democratic party deserves to lose unless it nominates her.
As a veteran of red telephone ads and “where’s the beef” cleverness, I am keenly aware that sharp elbows get thrown by those trailing in the fourth quarter (and sometimes even earlier). “Politics ain’t beanbag,” is the old slogan. But that does not mean that it must also be rule-or-ruin, me-first-and-only-me, my way or the highway. That is not politics. That is raw, unrestrained ambition for power that cannot accept the will of the voters.
Senator Obama is right to say the issue is judgment not years in Washington. If Mrs. Clinton loses the nomination, her failure will be traced to the date she voted to empower George W. Bush to invade Iraq. That is not the kind of judgment, or wisdom, required by the leader answering the phone in the night. For her now to claim that Senator Obama is not qualified to answer the crisis phone is the height of irony if not chutzpah, and calls into question whether her primary loyalty is to the Democratic party and