Home » Blog » Paul Rogat Loeb: How Much Damage Will Clinton Do Before She Folds...
Blog for America
Paul Rogat Loeb: How Much Damage Will Clinton Do Before She Folds?
Linked to groups: Blog For America
Paul Rogat Loeb is a regular contributor to the blog for America. Dr. Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living With Conviction in a Cynical Time.
How Much Damage Will Clinton Do Before She Folds?
By Paul Rogat Loeb
In the wake of ten straight losses, Clinton's going to need some miracles to win, and Mike Huckabee's already ahead of her in line for divine intervention. But the question is how much damage she'll do to Obama and the Democratic chances before she quits.
If the fight goes to the convention, we know the answer: Unless she totally routs Obama in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, her sole remaining path to the nomination depends on convincing the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters, and convincing the credentials committee to honor the problematic Michigan and Florida elections. So she'll have to practically destroy the party to save it, or more accurately to save herself. Assuming a possible breaking sex scandal doesn't bring down McCain, he already beats Clinton by 12 points in the the latest, while Obama defeats him by 7. If the young voters, independents, and African Americans who Obama's enlisted in droves stay home in November because they feel they’ve been betrayed, Clinton's chances would be slim to none.
But she still can do real damage to Obama with her negative attacks in the remaining primaries, particularly in swing states like Ohio. Recent match-ups show Obama a solid victor in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, and Oregon, and dead even in Ohio, while Clinton goes down to defeat in all of them. But depending on how negative she gets and how long the primary battle continues, she could cost the Democrats the election by forcing Obama to spend his time responding to an endless succession of petty attacks, and by giving the Republicans ready-made talking points, like Hillary's comment that only "one of us is ready to be commander in chief."
The potential damage is magnified if you count Clinton's surrogates. At the Youngstown, Ohio rally following Clinton's Wisconsin defeat, International Association of Machinists President Tom Buffenbarger called Obama supporters "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." That's despicable rhetoric, echoing the worst Limbaugh/Fox myths about limousine liberals, while it dismisses the majority of union members who just backed Obama in the Wisconsin and Virginia primaries, or the members of unions like SEIU, The Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers, who just endorsed him. It also happens to totally steal its language from the sleazy "latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading" anti-Howard Dean ads of the right-wing Club For Growth, that helped give us the disastrous candidacy of John Kerry.If repeated enough, though, those myths have the potential to stick. Clinton supporters have just created a new "527" political committee, which while technically independent and issue-oriented, is explicitly designed to allow Hillary supporters to evade the standard $2300 donation limits. The group aims to get contributions of $100,000 or more from as many as 100 Hillary donors, so they can pour $10 million in ads into the next round of critical races. Whether or not this is legal, and that's arguable, no other candidate has done anything remotely similar in this election. And since the ads have no checks of accountability, they'll be as nasty as their backers decide.
article continues under the fold...
Between Clinton's actions and those of her surrogates, they might just stigmatize Obama so much that some of her supporters stay home in November, instead of voting for him. They'll also encourage Republicans and independents who've been crossing over to support Obama do the same, or even vote for McCain despite his embrace of Bush's disastrous policies. I think Obama will still win, so long as his supporters do everything possible to make that happen. But Hillary's attacks will plant the seeds of doubts. And these will diminish the magnitude of Obama's likely victory just enough to make far harder for him to pass the major changes we need.
Clinton's attacks could also make a difference in down-ticket races. Right now, Obama mobilizes huge new constituencies that could elect a wave of new Democratic Senators, Congressional representatives, governors and legislators. But if Clinton manages to damage his appeal sufficiently, he will become far less of an asset even if he still wins. Plus the longer she remains in the race, the more he has to spend money responding to petty attack ads like one in Wisconsin where she accused him of avoiding debates, although he'd already participated in 18 and had two more coming up. It also means, as Tom Edsdall has pointed out, that the Democratic National Committee risks getting so starved of cash because it's all getting diverted to the nomination fights, that the DNC can't develop the critical grassroots infrastructure to implement its 50-state strategy.
Hillary may give up if she fares poorly in Ohio and Texas. Bill intimated recently that she had to win both or she was likely done. But she's talked of fighting all the way to the convention, as have her key strategists, so it's at least possible that she could keep the race in limbo until less than 10 weeks before the November election, making it far harder for Obama to focus on defeating McCain.
One solution, ironically, could come from the superdelegates. They were established originally as a conservative force in the Democratic Party, a bulwark against grassroots insurgencies like McGovern. In 1984, they actually handed the nomination to Walter Mondale, for his disastrous candidacy, despite Gary Hart's lead in elected delegates. But they also have an ostensible mandate to consider the Party's greater good, and if they acted in this fashion, they could play a key constructive role.
Suppose a critical mass of superdelegates did what 400,000 petition-signers just asked them to do in a MoveOn/Democracy for America ad that ran in USA Today—and pledged to honor the will of the voters? Suppose they announced in advance that they'd support whichever candidate had more elected delegates going into the late August convention? Suppose they also came up with a joint solution to the Michigan and Florida mess, where these states lost their delegates by violating a Democratic Party agreement on when states could hold their primaries? It would be a travesty to validate their sham elections given that the candidates couldn't even campaign in Florida, that Obama and Edwards had pulled their names from Michigan ballot, and that Clinton herself told New Hampshire Public Radio that her staying on the Michigan ballot was irrelevant because Michigan’s vote “is not going to count for anything.”
But what if the superdelegates acted now, to make clear that they will not validate those two elections as they stand, and that they'll encourage their colleagues on the Credentials Committee to do the same? As an alternative, they could urge those two states to do what the DNC has already suggested, and rerun their elections as caucuses. Yes, this would cost some money and effort, but if the experience of the states that have held them is any guide, it would also offer a major chance for the party to mobilize and engage new supporters, and it would bring participants together in a way that reminded them of the values they shared in common. If the two state parties, both dominated by Clinton supporters, still refused to go along, the superdelegates could also offer the alternative of simply seating Clinton-Obama delegates 50-50, to make it a dead wash. But they need to make clear that Clinton won't be able to pull out a last-minute victory by gaming the rules.
Facing a relatively united bloc of precisely those superdelegates that Clinton still hopes to win, I suspect she'd be far more likely to quit, and do far less damage while still in the race. Key party elders like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are already working to ensure a convention process that pulls the Party together, rather than splitting it apart. They and others might play an additional role by speaking out against destructive negative campaigning (whether by Clinton or her surrogates), and making clear that if this goes too far, she will lose their support.
Were Hillary running less of a scorched-earth campaign, it could continue onto the convention without major damage. But she's pursued this approach from the moment Obama emerged as a serious challenger, and seems only to be reaffirming it more in recent weeks. For instance, at the most recent debate, she was mostly all congeniality and smiles (excepting a few snotty comments like "change you can xerox."). The next day, her campaign followed up pushing the media to cover Obama’s receiving $200 from a former member of the destructive Vietnam-era political group, the Weathermen. (This despite Bill Clinton pardoning another Weatherman from prison as he was leaving office). All this means that if Democrats really want to end this kind of divisiveness, they'd do well to unite around Obama now. He just got the the endorsement of the 6-million member Change to Win Coalition (and individual member unions like SEIU, the United Food and Commercial Workers, UNITE/HERE, and the Teamsters). The United Steel Workers, a national social justice leader, initially endorsed John Edwards, and will make a decision at their next board meeting. It's time for the other major industrial unions and progressive organizations to commit too, or to reconsider their earlier support for Clinton.
That's also true of prominent individuals, like Edwards, who I originally supported. It's now well overdue for him to encourage his supporters to back the legitimate inheritor of his quest for change. Maybe Clinton will still make an improbable comeback, but the longer she keeps campaigning, the more attacks and divisiveness we'll see. The more party leaders speak out to prevent this from happening, the less risk that she'll create lasting damage in her desperation to hold onto a prize that's now almost certainly slipped away.
The survivor of the Democratic contest (looks more and more like Obama) will have to deal with John McCain. On an even playing field, it would be no contest, but McCain has:
- The swifties
- Rove
- No morals---none
- Diebold
- Voter supression
- The Supremes (if it comes to that)
- Racism (or sexism)
- F-E-A-R!!!!!
- The stupidity of the US electorate
Place your bets
Linda - From the previous thread. This mailer came out well before Super Tuesday -- this is why I think the outrage is manufactured. My opinion.
Click for a diary - if you're interested.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2...
To say out loud that Barack's tactics are akin to Karl Rove's is pretty bad. I've never heard Barack say this about her surrogates attacks. Again, this is my opinion.
Excuse me diarist. I think you should be asking how much damage Obama will be doing. His campaign has been playing a very divisive campaign. And now with his Right Wing campaign tactics.
Mary, I don't think calling out an attack and false mailers an attack. Obama has been sending out the republican Harry and Louise attack mailers since California and now is doing it again in Ohio, along with the false attack mailer on NAFTA.
Damn good thing she's finally speaking up about his dirty tactics.
********************************
Clinton to Obama: 'Shame on you'
(CNN) -- A visibly angry Sen. Hillary Clinton lashed out Saturday at Sen. Barack Obama over campaign literature that she said he knows is "blatantly false."
Sen. Hillary Clinton waves campaign literature she says is false. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland is behind her.
Clinton jabbed the air with her hands as she told a crowd in Cincinnati, Ohio, that two Obama mailings spread lies about her positions on universal health care and the North American Free Trade Agreement.
"Shame on you, Barack Obama," she said.
Polls show Clinton and Obama are in statistical dead heats in delegate-rich Ohio and Texas, which both hold votes March 4.
With Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland nodding in agreement behind her, Clinton accused Obama of emulating the tactics of Karl Rove, President Bush's former political director who is reviled by Democrats.
Obama "is continuing to send false and discredited mailings with information that is not true to the voters of Ohio," Clinton said. Watch Clinton demand a 'real campaign' »
One mailing says her health care proposal would force everyone to buy health insurance, regardless of ability to pay, a charge Clinton vehemently denied.
"Sen. Obama knows it is not true that my plan forces people to buy insurance even if they can't afford it," she said.
The NAFTA mailer says Clinton was a "champion" for NAFTA while first lady, but now opposes it. NAFTA was negotiated by the first President Bush and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
"I am fighting to change NAFTA," Hillary Clinton said Saturday.
"Enough with the speeches and the big rallies and then using tactics right out of Karl Rove's playbook. This is wrong, and every Democrat should be outraged," she said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/c...
McCain--the Mall-walker
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20080220_letterman_on_john_mccain_mall_walker/
Americans of a certain age may take umbrage at David Letterman’s characterizations of 71-year-old presidential candidate John McCain as a “Wal-Mart greeter,” a “mall-walker” and “the guy at the supermarket who is confused by the automatic doors.”
4. Mary....what mailer are you talking about?
As I said, Obama campaign was sending out the Harry and Louise attack mailer on Universal Health Care in California and now he is sending it again in Ohio...along with the NAFTA flier that is filled with false information.
We're talking about now. And that is what he is doing.
"Ellen Goodman had a very interesting analysis of Obama's style vs. Clinton's the other day. She said it is viewed as a measure of his strength and self-confidence that he can exhibit the "feminine" traits of governing by consensus, conciliation and teamwork, but that Hillary's exhibition of her "masculine" traits of strength and semi-hawkishness are not viewed as a strength for her."
I agree 100% with Ellen Goodman. I usually do.
I think Hillary is quite effective when she is inspiring and talking about her positive agenda. She is getting free media out of this but truly going so negative, I think it will hurt her. She should have expressed concern about this mailer about three weeks ago.
I'm trying to understand the relevance in a tedious discussion over whether Obama and/or Ron Paul are similar in candidacies or campaigns as Howard Dean, 2004.
Iowa saw those mailers Those are not new. and the truth hurts on NAFTA
normally an outrage liket that is to deflect damage control from some breaking event
Is Obama up on her in polls in Ohio or something?
"She is getting free media out of this but truly going so negative, I think it will hurt her. "----
I agree. 100%...sister mvb:)
6:47 PM EST
Samatha Powers:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article3422315.ece
From The Sunday Times
February 24, 2008
Shaping Obama’s view of the world
Samantha Power, a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, was born in Ireland, won a Pulitzer prize for her book on genocide and has played basketball with George Clooney. She is keen to preserve the special relationship with Britain
...
She was born in Ireland, lives in Massachusetts and shares the admiration of America’s royal family for the candidate they regard as the new JFK.
...
has risen to become a senior foreign policy adviser to Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the race for the Democratic nomination for the presidency.
If he continues his dazzling ascent to the White House, she could have a great deal of power and dominion over the rest of us.
Last summer Obama told her she should write a book about her life. “Barack thinks everyone with an interesting life story should write a memoir,” she teases. Power, 37, is engagingly frank, but insists: “I’m more interested in other people’s stories.”
Her Pulitzer prize-winning book on genocide first captured Obama’s attention in 2005 and he may well reward her with a trusted place in his new Camelot.
...
She is also thrilled by the impact Obama is already having on world affairs: “I have a friend who just came back from Burma last week and said all that anybody is talking about on the streets of Rangoon is Barack Obama. What is incredible is how many constituencies he can appeal to, how many boundaries he can cross effortlessly – of race, of age, of geography and of religion.”
“Obamamania”, she believes, owes much to the building of a movement by dedicated supporters. “The only way we were going to win was to have organisers who were willing to freeze their asses off in rural Iowa when it seemed like there was going to be no political payoff.
...
scroll any discussion I have with Tom cChalfonte
I have seen more Paul supporters than former or Rooney and was trying to explain what about Paul appeals to them to Tom, but it was a mistake, probably.
Linda wrote "Obama campaign was sending out the Harry and Louise attack mailer on Universal Health Care in California and now he is sending it again in Ohio...along with the NAFTA flier that is filled with false information."
Obama spokesman Bill Burton responds by defending the mailings.
“Everything in those mailers is completely accurate, unlike the discredited attacks from Hillary Clinton’s negative campaign that have been rejected in South Carolina, Wisconsin, and across America. We look forward to having a debate this Tuesday on the facts, and the facts are that Sen. Clinton was a supporter of NAFTA and the China permanent trade treaties until this campaign began. And she herself has said that under the Clinton health care plan, she would consider 'going after the wages' of Americans who don't purchase health insurance, whether they can afford it or not."
http://dyn.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/index.cfm/category/HillaryClinton
6:49 PM EST
typo- Samatha Powers:
s/b - Samantha Powers:
(btw - if Samantha shows up in Austin, TX to help campaign with Obama, and Obama takes Texas on March 4, could she be thought of as Austin Powers ?)
cC wrote "I'm trying to understand the relevance in a tedious discussion over whether Obama and/or Ron Paul are similar in candidacies or campaigns as Howard Dean, 2004."
I heard that an artist named Pricasso paints with his penis.
9. Phil. HA! If you believe what Obama has put in his NAFTA flier is correct, that is a shame.
maybe this will help clear things up
Ohio is being bombarded with another Obama attack on Hillary. I suspect he will do this for the remaining states Primaries as well, like he did with Universal Health Care for all mailer to Californians. This is a mass mailer claiming Hillary said "NAFTA was a boon for our economy". As you will see, and also note, Hillary never claimed to be pro NAFTA and Hillary has been campaigning for fair trade and was one of the very first to advise she would close the Corporate Loop Holes that are actually paying and incentive to shipping American jobs overseaas, but the paper that Obama is using for a quote clearly states it was their wording and haven't even found a quote from Hillary to suggest it.
Today, Sen. Obama will attack Hillary on NAFTA:
"You know, in the years after her husband signed NAFTA, Senator Clinton would go around talking about how great it was and how many benefits it would bring."-Obama
Sen. Obama and his campaign have consistently fabricated quotes to support this claim. Recently he falsely claimed that Hillary said that NAFTA was a "boon" to the economy. Now, Obama is resting his argument on a single paraphrase from an article written twelve years ago.
"We do not have a direct quote indicating her campaign told us she thought it was good for the economy at that time."-Newsday
"Obama's use of the citation in this way does strike us as misleading. The quote marks make it look as if Hillary said "boon," not us. It's an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try to win an office".-Newsday
Meanwhile, based on his positions in Illinois and the United States Senate, the National Journal concluded that Sen. Obama was "the most likely presidential candidate to support further trade liberalization." Sen. Obama opposed an amendment that would have prevented the weakening of laws that protect against unfair trade practices. (Hillary supported the amendment.) And Senator Obama's vote was a deciding vote, as there were exactly 60 Nays to reject the amendment.
"To prohibit weakening any law that provides safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices."
Obama (D-IL), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Sen. Obama also supports fast track authority.
http://www.senate.gov/...
Sen. Obama also misrepresents Hillary's position on trade moving forward:
"Now that she’s running for President, she says we need a time-out on trade. No one knows when this time-out will end. Maybe after the election"-Obama.
Hillary has called for a timeout on trade agreements in the first several months of her presidency to provide an opportunity to systematically review every trade agreement to ensure that it is delivering benefits to American workers." The time-out will begin when she becomes president. This is consistent with legislation she introduced in the Senate that would require study of the impact of trade agreements. She has also pledged to double the enforcement staff at the office of the United States Trade Representative and expand the Trade Adjustment Assistance program so that workers negatively affected by the global economy get the help they need.
And Hillary was the first to be discussing these law changes, as even Whoopi admitted finding out when she announced her changed vote to Hillary on the air of The View.
As always, it is better to acknowledge ones own record and listen to what they actually do say, not what someone is claiming for another. So, I leave you with these final words that Senator Obama spoke the day before the New Hampshire Primary, after he proudly declared he did support Free Trade and that he supported adding Peru to the Free Trade Agreement.
Senator Obama: "I believe in the Free Market. I believe in Capitalism. I believe in Free Trade. I am not worried about us being able to compete anywhere on earth with American workers"-Obama. Too bad, at least Hillary does.
VIDEO of Obama's comments
VIDEOSenator Obama
If Hillary is just now seeing those mailers her "handlers" have her living in a cocoon because Iowans saw them three months ago.
Oopps link for the above diary
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/17/154511/632/40/458637
Oh gee, I'm sorry Tom, you must be new. Apparently you thought the Obama campaign was going to say "Oh yes, we lied. We made false claims and even used quotes that Hillary didn't say".(sic) I know, it's just politicials or the norm thast Obama is playing in huh?
Hillary's health care plan has been reviewed and endorsed by a number of credible economists, including Paul Krugman. A spokesperson for the Obama campaign is there to defend his candidate...so he's doing his job. However, it would be foolish to assume that his remarks on the "truthiness" of the attacks in the mailer are unbiased.
She's hitting her bottom and is trying to find her way out of the darkness. Gut instinct, not surprising. Just need to put the final spur in.
6:53 PM EST
Hillary sounds like a flip-flopper. Pleasant 2 days ago and angry today. And she wonders why she hasn't caught on fire with the voters.
Linda
Hillary claims Bill's White House years as her "experience" and NAFTA was central to his new way politics
she might "get it " now that that was a serious mistake, but she hasn't been spending her years in the Senate undoing the damage to Ohio.
my guess is she is about to unload a truckload of negativity and is softening up the voters for a "well he does it too" defense, by pre-empting him
I wonder if NAFTA was a hot topic in the Clinton household the past 10 years or so. Can you imagine the fireworks it must have caused???
Clinton to Obama: 'Shame on you'
Shame on Obama?
Bob Kerrey Apologizes To Obama Over Raising Muslim "Issue"Shaheen: Did Obama sell drugs?
Hill is desperate with her hate spewing today.
Funny listening to all the pundits recently on how she wasn't prepared to go on after Super Tuesday because she figured she'd have it all wrapped up by then and now her campaign is scrambling to catch up.
You know, like Bush did after he invaded Iraq... no plan on what to do afterwards because it was going to be over with on day one!
"And she wonders why she hasn't caught on fire with the voters. "---
Actually, she is a very intelligent woman and doesn't "wonder" about that at all. Obama has her beat when it comes to charisma...period. He's going to win this primary and I believe he'll win in Ohio and Texas or come so close that it shuts down her candidacy, anyway.
I don't really understand why folks here are angsting so much about this primary....he is going to win it. Momentum like that just doesn't stop.
We should be talking about how we're going to beat McCain in the g/e. That's really the next big hurdle, imo.
"butch/bitch"
Actually, Barbie Boxer has just enough of both of those in reserve and brings them out when needed. One of the things I love about her.
6:54 PM EST
I find it comical that Hillary is plagarizing Bill with the line "shame on you". (It seems Bill was saying that same line to a female news reporter some weeks back)
Pricasso. It was ONE post on Friday night. I thought it was funny:)
I still think Clinton has the only universal health care plan of the two and is right to make it a big issue since they don't differ on as lot of policy issues.
and I don't think the outrage was fake, she might just now realize she is in a typical close primary fight where both sides throw punches
the problem is that her reaction plays into Obama's strength, he might not be above old political tricks, but her team has been defined by them, and they don't appeal to voters
when they were ordered and printed by Obama he was down double digits in Ohio, he could have just won with big events and a ground game, but since they worked in Iowa probably thought they would work in Ohio
Linda
I value your contribution coming here to defend Hillary.
Obama was exposed today as playing politics as usual (which his campaign has been doing all along).
My guess is still that the timing was on the eve of a planned negative attack by Clinton.
the issues are debatable so the next debate should be fun since Ohio will be watching now
Linda wrote "Oh gee, I'm sorry Tom, you must be new."
No, I just thought in the interest of fairness that as long as a Clinton spokesperson was weighing in on the topic, an Obama spokesman should also be heard.
and in important news on the eve of a live Sat Night Live with the new "obama"
here is more:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Last Updated: Saturday, 23 February 2008, 19:25 GMT
Printable version Lohan and Murphy dominate Razzies Lindsay Lohan and Eddie Murphy have both been crowned the worst actors of 2007 at the Golden Raspberry Awards, or Razzies, which spoof the Oscars. They each won three gold spray-painted trophies worth $4.89 (£2.48).
Murphy won three of the four worst acting categories for his comedy Norbit, which was mauled by critics.
Lohan won two worst actress Razzies for I Know Who Killed Me. The film broke records by winning eight of its nine nominations, including worst film.
This shattered a record for seven Razzie wins, previously held by Showgirls and Battlefield Earth.
Lohan also won worst screen couple for a scene in which she appears opposite herself.
cC wrote "Pricasso. It was ONE post on Friday night. I thought it was funny."
It was. I just hoped you might indulge some of us if we engage in tedious discussions at times whether you understand the relevance of it or not.
Lohan also won worst screen couple for a scene in which she appears opposite herself.
~~~~~~~~~~
Tom, you and I and our debates can't top that, can we?
I'm not too interested in debates but I think next weeks' will be filled with some fireworks. Which Hillary will show up? I think she's lookin' for a fight.
Nite all. Family time!
"Shaheen said Obama's candor on the subject would "open the door" to further questions. "It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?'" Shaheen said. "There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."-----------
Sitka, from your link. I think Shaheen is right on the money on this one. This is NOT a reason to support Hill over Barack. The Republican dirty trick machine knows no limits. If Hill won the nomination they'd probably dredge back up the Hillary is a lesbian attack.
They will use the politics of personal destruction over anyone that we run.
And here is the rest of the story about the Clintons' support of NAFTA, you know -- the rest of the story Linda in NM didn't post as usual:
"Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said in an e-mail message, “Everything in those mailers is completely accurate.”
“We look forward to having a debate this Tuesday on the facts,” he added, “and the facts are that Senator Clinton was a supporter of Nafta and the China permanent trade treaties until this campaign began.”
The issue of trade is particularly sensitive in Ohio, where many people believe that trade agreements like Nafta have cost the state thousands of jobs. The state holds its primary March 4.
Former President Bill Clinton was a vigorous supporter of Nafta. He lobbied Congress to pass legislation authorizing the agreement and signed it into law despite objections from fellow Democrats, who believed that it would cost the country jobs.
Mrs. Clinton strenuously distanced herself from that on Saturday, saying Mr. Clinton did not negotiate the agreement. “The agreement was negotiated in the Bush administration,” she said. “It was passed in the Clinton administration.”
Check it out yourself at :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/politics/24ohio.html
And here is the rest of the story about the Clintons' support of NAFTA, you know -- the rest of the story Linda in NM didn't post as usual:
"Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said in an e-mail message, “Everything in those mailers is completely accurate.”
“We look forward to having a debate this Tuesday on the facts,” he added, “and the facts are that Senator Clinton was a supporter of Nafta and the China permanent trade treaties until this campaign began.”
The issue of trade is particularly sensitive in Ohio, where many people believe that trade agreements like Nafta have cost the state thousands of jobs. The state holds its primary March 4.
Former President Bill Clinton was a vigorous supporter of Nafta. He lobbied Congress to pass legislation authorizing the agreement and signed it into law despite objections from fellow Democrats, who believed that it would cost the country jobs.
Mrs. Clinton strenuously distanced herself from that on Saturday, saying Mr. Clinton did not negotiate the agreement. “The agreement was negotiated in the Bush administration,” she said. “It was passed in the Clinton administration.”
Check it out yourself at :
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/us/politics/24ohio.htmlWhoops, excuse the double posted comment re: the Clintons' strong support of NAFTA.
And a good nice to all
Maybe tomorrow's comments will be honest, complete and fair to both Dem candidates, as they should be and we expect here.
"I just hoped you might indulge some of us if we engage in tedious discussions at times whether you understand the relevance of it or not."-----
From your perspective, Tom, what is the relevance?
mary vb
my son was washing windows today with buddies to pay for travel with his church group to do a service work break at a shelter in Seattle Easter week and said the weather has been perfect in Louisiana, sounds like if he gets lucky he could run into some there
we Democrats set up food sales to raise money when the RABRAI bike ride comes through and there are always couples on tandem bikes looking like they are having fun
cC,
Before I go, I would say to the Repubs, "Bring em' one!" This general election will be dirty by the Repugs but overwhelmingly won by Obama. He will stick to the issues and answer any attacks just as he has all through the primary.
2715 Cottage Grove Ave.
Des Moines, IA 50311
o. (515) 277-0424
f. (515) 255-9103
fallon@fallonforcongress.com
"Before I go, I would say to the Repubs, "Bring em' on!" This general election will be dirty by the Repugs but overwhelmingly won by Obama. He will stick to the issues and answer any attacks just as he has all through the primary."---
I'm with you on this:)
7pm
On behalf of the outgoing administration, I was wondering if this Pricasso dude does portraits.
4.
Linda in NM
Sat, 02/23/08
(CNN) -- A visibly angry Sen. Hillary Clinton lashed out Saturday at Sen. Barack Obama over campaign literature that she said he knows is "blatantly false."
One mailing says her health care proposal would force everyone to buy health insurance, regardless of ability to pay, a charge Clinton vehemently denied.
The NAFTA mailer says Clinton was a "champion" for NAFTA while first lady, but now opposes it. NAFTA was negotiated by the first President Bush and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So what's not true?
Pricasso just found a new gig running this blog. In a bold stroke or two, there are now multiple new threads.
Steve -- A Pricasso portrait of Putz and prick....what a fitting end;)
Just saw the Hillary tirade. Note to her:
If you think raving has an upside as a campaign tactic, at least make sure to 1.) be under a flatterng light and 2.) use the magic eye-bag reducing cream so you don't look like you've been awake, stewing, for five days straight. Lancome makes it. I'm sure they'd be happy to send you some.
She came across like a harpy. This won't make her any inroads into the male vote, or any other vote, IMO.
-- volney
New threads have now diappeared. Does Pablo P. suffer from premature something or other?
Hillary & "trade"--some facts
Submitted by Kels on Thu, 02/14/2008 - 12:58am.
Just before Iowa, I became curious as to just how much Hillary had involved herself in her husband's unexpected and peculiar penchant for vigorously pushing the economists' experiment called "free trade". Here's a summary of what I found:
If Iraq is "Hillary's big mistake", isn't China "Bill's big mistake"? Is it fair to blame the wife for the husband's errors, blame Hillary for Bill's blunders? Seems so. For the essence of Hillary's presidential pitch is: "Elect me. I was there -- been there, done that -- for the full eight years. I've got the experience". Indeed, unlike her Iraq vote, Hilllary seems prepared to admit that the Clintonian pushing of the NAFTA and China deals was in retrospect, a very large mistake, another learning experience. In this concession, Hillary would seem to give herself little other choice, than to share the blame with Bill. For, given her reliance on the "I'm experienced" pitch, what else can she say? "Yes, I was deeply involved in simply everything the administration did in those 8 years -- except of course for NAFTA and China"?
NAFTA and China are of course not minor blunders. We all know that, now. But is it fair to suggest that the remarkable damage to America's once-cherished manufacturing base could have been foreseen? Who had such good judgment, such good foresight? Anybody? As Tim Curry, MSNBC's national affairs writer, recently pointed out (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21536832/), some indeed did. The late and lamented Paul Wellstone for one: "What Wellstone knew: Among the relatively few senators (only 15) voting 'no' were liberal Democratic senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota . . .". Curry notes that Jesse Helms of North Carolina also opposed the China deal, and Curry asks: "Did Wellstone and Helms have the wisdom to foresee consequences from the China trade deal that Edwards didn’t? Or has the wheel simply turned, so that lowering trade barriers — once so popular in the Bill Clinton Era — now has become a cause for remorse because the consequences are now more apparent?"
Today's trade refection and remorse come just a little too late, in the view of at least one Iowan, former local union president Ted Johnson. A recent PBS program on "Iowa's Take on Free Trade", after noting that "On the Democratic side, candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards have pledged to renegotiate NAFTA, but Hillary Clinton seems to stop short, promising to review the trade deal.", added that "That's not enough for Ted Johnson". Johnson's succinctly-stated view: "JOHNSON: They should have reviewed it before it got signed and perhaps they should have listened to some folks who said 'hey, this is not a good deal'." (See "Iowa's Take on Free Trade"; PBS Nightly Business Report; November 7, 2007; http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/transc...)
... full post: http://www.ohiodailyblog.com/content/oba...
"Clinton promoted her husband's trade agenda for years, and friends say that she's a free-trader at heart. 'The simple fact is, nations with free-market systems do better,' she said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa. 'Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not.'
And:
"Praise for Nafta"
"At the 1998 World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, she praised corporations for mounting 'a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of Nafta.' She added: 'It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun'."
And:
"In her interview with Bloomberg, Clinton was careful to describe Nafta as having been negotiated by the administration of President George H.W. Bush 'and then pushed through Congress in the Clinton administration',"
The New York Magazine review finds itself bemused by Hillary's attempt to blame the current trade debacle on not either herself or husband Bill but on George Bush's father. After noting Hillary's argument that ”’NAFTA was inherited by the Clinton administration’, she [Hillary] informed Time magazine”, the New York review adds this:
"It’s tempting to mock this last point as a nakedly disingenuous reading of history . . .. Though Clinton did, in fact, inherit NAFTA from the Bush 41 régime, he campaigned for its passage as if his life depended on it, taking on the out-front protectionist bloc in the Democratic party at a time when his standing was far from solid—an act of considerable political courage and even greater political skill. After pushing through the deal, Clinton described it as representing a seminal decision by the country not to retreat from a world in which 'change is the only constant'."
What has proved to be not so "constant", the magazine suggests, is the once-vigorous support for "free trade" that Bill Clinton could count on, trom his "economist" friends. The fact is that these once-zealous free trade pushers are now busily jumping the "free trade" ship:
"More broadly, the consensus among top-tier economists that underpinned the support for free trade has lately been rattled by a spate of revisionism. Alan Blinder of Princeton, a former vice-chair of the Federal Reserve and a staunch Democrat, has taken to arguing that the downsides of unfettered globalization may be far greater than standard doctrine has assumed—in particular, that offshoring and outsourcing may put as many as 40 million American jobs at risk in the next two decades. The Nobel laureate Paul Samuelson has joined the chorus, as has former Clinton Treasury secretary Larry Summers, who wrote recently that pledges to retrain workers displaced in the globalized economy are 'pretty thin gruel' when it comes to allaying the fears of the middle class."
In all of this, it may be unsurprising to find Hillary rather shamelessly trying to peddle the baldly self-serving pitch, in effect: "Okay. It's true. It was all just a big, awful mistake. But don't blame me or Bill. Blame George the First." Or as New York Magazine sums up things:
"This new political context helps explain why Hillary is charting a course on trade so different from her husband’s. And Washington is only part of the story—and for her, the less important part. In crucial Democratic primary states, the anti-globalization fever is running even higher. 'She’s lurching left on economics, and it’s all about Iowa,' says one Democratic insider with no affiliation to any presidential campaign. 'They know she is badly positioned on Iraq, especially out there, where the antiwar feeling is strong. So she has to compensate somehow, and this is her way of doing it..”
The question remains: has perhaps "experience" helped Hillary here? Might she be not just tactically but also truly a belated convert to the Nader view -- now become the Nader/Blinder/Samuelson/Summers view -- of the Clinton Administration's misbegotten trade deals? Has she, in short, "learned from this mistake"? Some think not, seeing the "conversion" as but convenient, and very temporary.
In this regard, it is of interest that the record of Hillary's Senate votes had been, until recently, quite uniform:
"Sen. Clinton has voted YES for all free trade agreements presented during her tenure in Congress, except for the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) in 2005. Sen. Clinton voted to extend 'most favored nation trade status' to China despite the country's record of substantial human rights violations." See: "The 2008 Democratic Candidates on Free Trade Agreements"; Deborah White; About.com: US Liberal Politics; http://usliberals.about.com/od/2008candi... Ms. White adds what some might find a further insight: “Both Clintons are active leaders of the Democratic Leadership Council, a pro-corporate interests, centrist Democratic organization that fully supports U.S. free trade arrangements.”
3970
17.
Linda in NM
Sat, 02/23/08
... Hillary never claimed to be pro NAFTA and Hillary has been campaigning for fair trade...
============================
Appreciate what you say, and believe it, but that is Hillary's dilemma. If she wants to claim her White House tenure as "experience" she has to take that baggage with it.
Ronald Cloud wrote a neat piece on health insurance that will front at 11:59 PM.
"health care coverage is a clinically observed life or death issue.
An expanded public role in health care coverage is consistent with our nation's
founding principles of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Proud to share blogspace, however strange, with you, Ronald.
Like Billy Pilgrim, most of us are now freed from the constraints of a real timeframe.
4.
Linda in NM
Sat, 02/23/08
My mother all said, "If you dish it out you had better be able to take it". I quess the Clintons' campaign is getting it's just desserts.
all s/b always
A Southern California woman who had her medical coverage canceled as she was undergoing treatment for breast cancer was awarded more than $9 million Friday in a case against one of California's largest health insurers.
Patsy Bates, 52, a hairdresser from Lakewood (Los Angeles County), had been left with more than $129,000 in unpaid medical bills when Health Net Inc. canceled her policy in 2004. The insurer contended Bates failed to disclose a heart condition and lied about her weight when she applied for the policy in July 2003.
But arbitration judge Sam Cianchetti ordered Health Net to pay her medical bills, plus $8.4 million in punitive damages and $750,000 for emotional distress.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...
Good for her - great outcome.
By the way, the FDA approved Avastin, the anti-angiogenesis drug already approved for colorectal and lung cancer, for certain breast cancer patients in an adjuvant setting. Excellent news.
Susan...yeah you could say that. Just desserts with rancid whipped cream, just how she likes it. She serves it up well.
61.
Susan Rowe
"After pushing through the deal, Clinton described it as representing a seminal decision by the country not to retreat from a world in which 'change is the only constant'."
================
"change is the only constant"
Bill plagarized this from the Wal Mart training manual. I worked there in 1998.
maybe IT is working on "fixing" the blog (note quotation marks)
a debate on NAFTA in Ohio and Hillary thinks she wins?
Mark Penn has lost his mind.
Obama has got Bill and Hillary both on the ropes. The Clintons' campaign is using Bill a lot in Ohio.
NAFTA could have been utterly brilliant if it hadn't been subverted by the China lobby.
If we had used NAFTA/CAFTA to build the economies of our southern neighbors as we were supposed to, we wouldn't have our immigration problems now.
Presidents from Nixon onward "built" on each others' efforts to get us in the fix we're in now -- catastrophic job loss plus an uncontrollable immigration problem.
-- volney
63.
Annilow
Sat, 02/23/08
California tried to pass two bills very similar to Hillary Care. The nurses who were in SiCKO were against both. Lots of the unions were against those bills but not all. We have SB 840 coming up this year. It's single-payer. Unless it's a single-payer plan you don't want adults to be mandated. Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's plans are not single-payer. But Edwards'and Obama's plans would transition into single-payer. None of their plans were the "solution" to the over all Healthcare crisis but Obama and Edwards were the only two who were and are willing to admit that fact.
Those mailers are about the Clintons' honesty. Folks these days want to know the whole truth not just half of it.
CA HCA: http://www.healthcareforall.org/
CNA http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/
Labor Endorsers of HR 676, Universal Single Payer Health Care
As of August 3, 2007, HR 676 has been endorsed by 298 union organizations in 43 states. Endorsers include 81 Central Labor Councils and Area Labor Federations and 20 state AFL-CIOs.
The list: http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/fact...
Linda in NM
Sat, 02/23/08
Shame on you, Linda! Good job leaving out Obama's responses in the CNN article in your comment...proving yourself just as disengenuous and deceitful as Hillary
Wow...all these Hillary supporters posting on here are proving to be the fringe, rather than the main-stream---one a turnaround
GO OBAMA!!!
New thread
69.
quess s/b guess
Logging in after a very long time.
To old friends, hello. To people who did not like me then, hello as well.
I have been following the Democrat nomination process with interest (did not vote).
I am not very sure about Obama as a candidate though he is an improvement on McCain who supports this treasonous war.
Glad to see the Clintons go down in flames though. Yes, she could eke out a win in Texas and more likely in Ohio with her false outrage (I clearly remember her applauding her husband when he was pushing for NAFTA). Much like her Iraq war position. Discarded / ignored when inconvenient. Used when not. Pathetic really.
However, I am very happy to know that short of a miracle, the only way she could get the nomination is by destroying the democrats. Her latest fraudulent statements should destroy any chances of her getting the nod in 2012, should McCain prevail.
As to those proposing a Obama - Clinton ticket, I can only say that Obama, unless forced to do so, would be extremely naive to allow a Clinton in as a Veep. Given the sinister and often unexplained ends so many people inconvenient to the Clintons have come to over the years, only a dolt would put himself in a position of being the only thing separating a Clinton from power.
I am not sure if I will vote for Obama in the general election should he finally get the nod, but I wish him and his refreshingly good campaign the best anyways.
Add your comment
(to reply directly to a comment, click the reply icon for that comment)Post closed to commenting
 |
|
 |
My DFA |
|
Members |
|
Groups |
|
Events |
|
Candidates |
 |
|
Blog for America
-
No end in sight for rising health care costs
By Joe F on Jun 23, 2009 4:44 PM EDT -
Last Week's D.C. Rally
By Joe F on Jun 29, 2009 1:41 PM EDT -
Health Care Costs & the Entitlement Crisis
By SteveG on Jun 29, 2009 9:57 AM EDT -
Healthcare Reform with Sound Information Technology
By Ge Z on Jun 22, 2009 10:16 AM EDT -
Senator Conrad’s Co-Op Option vs. the Public Plan Option
By LindaB on Jun 15, 2009 11:21 AM EDT
Recent Blog Posts
-
For a better wedding
By Jason R on Jul 5, 2009 10:47 PM EDT -
Last Day to Get Your 1/2 Price Hotel Room At DemocracyFest!
By Jessica Falker on Jul 5, 2009 12:57 PM EDT -
Sunday choices
By Gerry Lykins on Jul 5, 2009 8:15 AM EDT -
Medicare for All is the solution
By LaForest Sherman on Jul 4, 2009 10:32 PM EDT -
Hello America
By Arturo on Jul 4, 2009 8:43 PM EDT
-
By Phil Specht on Feb 23, 2008 1:18 PM ESTHoward Dean is first.