The Daily Five -- Goolsbee Gate Continues

Excellent reply from Obama.

Bsides being a rerun, Hillary's ad was just weird. The ad's telling me '3 am' and there's Hillary in a suit and pearls? New York may be The City that Never Sleeps, but come on...does she really want to play into the stereotype that's she's a plastic robot? Wrong image.

Mostly her ad reminds me to vote for the person most capable of preventing a crisis from developing in the first place - not waiting until it reaches the 3 am red phone stage. That would be Obama.

Posted by Tom J | February 29, 2008 7:18 PM

What wasn't predictable about the response is that Obama hit back so fast and so hard after already chewing out Hillary earlier in the day. Wish we had that in 2004.

And your analysis of the Goolsbee situation is spot on. He's a fairly conservative type. Look, we are going to want to revisit some aspects of the NAFTA deal. We aren't going to pull out of it completely.

Posted by John M. | February 29, 2008 7:30 PM

I think that this type of negative attack add may end up hurting Obama.

Posted by toobie | February 29, 2008 7:32 PM

obama's judgment in opposing the Iraq war doesn't impress me. He was a state senator from one of the most liberal anti-war districts in Illinois. His district is essentially a one-party district.. whoever wins the Democratic primary wins the election.

When OBAMA did start running STATEWIDE.. with Illinois having many more rural conservative districts.....at a time when the war was still popular and even a plurality of Democrats supported it, he changed his rhetoric.

The real question is, how would Obama have voted if he was a senator of a state that had been the prime target of a terrorist attack just a year before?

"We don't know" is the correct answer, but something tells me he would have voted exactly like Senator Clinton.

Posted by obamaoverrated | February 29, 2008 7:43 PM

This is Obama's chief economic advisor. Canada was in an uproar about his Ohio anti-Nafta pandering and that's just what it was.
Shame on your Ambinder, you are just spinning.

Posted by linda | February 29, 2008 7:44 PM

No way this hurts Obama. The one fear is that he is weak and won't act. He had this thing out I didn't realize it was the Obama video when hardball was playing it. I was like "Hillary didn't oppose the war".

The one takeaway I have since Obama has become the front runner is that if you attack Obama, it will get thrown back in your face as soon as he hears about it, and directly from him. The one thing he needs to do is stop reading prepared remarks for this to be truly effective.

Brian
http://www.politicalinaction.com

Posted by Brian | February 29, 2008 7:45 PM

"We don't know" is in fact the correct answer, but my gut tells me exactly the opposite.

The Iraq war had nothing to do with 9-11, and Obama recognized that from the beginning. He would have been (and was) more interested in pursuing the perpetrators of 9-11 and not taken his eye off the ball.

Posted by Curtis | February 29, 2008 7:52 PM

That response ad is ANYTHING BUT predictable. When was the last time you've seen a rapid response team work so quickly and so effectively. The man absolutely will not allow his opponents to smear him or lose a single news cycle.

THAT is the story going into the general against a sophisticated attack machine.

Posted by Chris | February 29, 2008 7:58 PM

I agree with Chris.

I was surprised at how quickly the Obama camp responded. They had this add up before the 5 o'clock news cycle started.

It gives you a great feeling to support a candidate who is on the ball and responds quickly to the Clinton attack ads.

Posted by Phil | February 29, 2008 8:21 PM

Ambinder's opening, says it all: "To the best I can gather..."
Even his twisted pretzel spin version is bad enough. "I didn't call them, they called me" is the denial?? I'm a Canadian, and CTV is no Drudge. If the MSM weren't completely in the Obama bag, we wouldn't have to crawl over to this link to get the news.

Posted by r baron | February 29, 2008 8:23 PM

The ad is extremely predictable (but I agree, it's effective).

It's Obama's only argument on national security: he was against the war.

Well that's great, but it's not enough.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 8:34 PM

It's safe to say that if he'd had a vote, Obama would've voted against the Iraq war authorization, following the lead of Ted Kennedy --and that of Illinois's senior senator Dick Durbin, who will be reelected by double digits in November.

Posted by A clue for the clueless | February 29, 2008 8:36 PM

Marc, labeling this as Goolsbee-gate rather than Obama's NAFTA-gate won't diminish this story.

Obama's campaign is delusional if they think that stonewalling will make it go away. If you're not up to speed on the NAFTA-gate stuff here's something to look at to bring yourself up to speed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGRzRKfgnjc

And this from the National Review, the question that still needs to be asked of Obama (if we can get a reporter with enough courage to ask it):

Obama's Catch-22: Either He's Lying Or He Has An Insane, Out of Control Adviser

***

While I suppose it's possible for Barack Obama to have not known that his senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee was telling the Canadian government, it is rather disconcerting to see him denying that any conversation took place so emphatically, now that both the Canadian consulate and Goolsbee are no longer denying the conversation.

***

Obama: I don't have to clarify it, the Canadian Embassy already clarified it by saying that the story is not true. Our office has said the story is not true. It's important for viewers to understand that it was not true.

***

If Obama did know that he was speaking to the Canadians, he just let out a blatant lie on par with, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

See the full article at:
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/

Got a moment for fun?
http://vet4hill.googlepages.com/catch22.htm

Posted by vet4hill | February 29, 2008 8:43 PM

A clue:

It's safe to say that if he'd had a vote, Obama would've voted against the Iraq war authorization

Why is that safe to say? Every other Senator who was thinking about running for president at the voted for that resolution. Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and yes, Clinton. Kennedy and Durbin do not belong in that category for obvious reasons. Had Obama been in a similar position as Clinton I'm not sure what political consideration he would have given the vote. It's certainly easier to make an anti-war speech before an anti-war rally when you are an Illinois state senator, than it is to cast a responsible vote when you are a United States senator.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 8:49 PM

Tim K. wrote:
The ad is extremely predictable (but I agree, it's effective).

It's Obama's only argument on national security: he was against the war.

Well that's great, but it's not enough.
______________________________________

Tim,
Go to Matt's blog and listen to Clinton's advisers answer John Dickerson's question about what "tests" Clinton has experienced in the foreign policy arena. I swear I could hear a pin drop. Guess your candidate doesn't have an argument at all.

Posted by Rontrel | February 29, 2008 8:56 PM

"obamaoverated", watch this video and tell me Obama's opposition to the war was "empty rhetoric".

As I've said before, it's not the fact that he opposed it, per se, that makes me believe he'd be the best commander in chief. It's his logic for doing so. I saw other, better interviews while living in Chicago where he went into more detail, but this is the only video I can find. Nonetheless, I think it gets the point across:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyLrvMkz_Kw

Posted by TH | February 29, 2008 9:01 PM

On this NAFTA business, does anyone know how it's actually playing in Ohio? Seems to me that it would only hurt him if Ohioans thought he was really planning on a substantial renegotiation of NAFTA. I suspect (and have read news reports that suggest) they know they are being pandered to, and merely expect a passing politician to show their anti-NAFTA viewpoint some respect and understanding. Which is what both Obama and Clinton have done, and McCain refused to do in MI.

Posted by CG | February 29, 2008 9:02 PM

Tim, I would suggest you relisten to the add. Then you couldn't, and be honest, say that is Obama's only argument.

Posted by john | February 29, 2008 9:02 PM

Rontrel:

I listened to most of the conference call, so I'm well aware.

The argument on foreign policy is that Barack Obama was a state legislator only 3.5 years ago. He doesn't have the experience to be commander-in-chief. Since this is a Democratic primary, it would be a bit too harsh to put it that way.

The question I have is how has Obama been tested in his life? At all? We know Hillary has been tested and she is still standing.

Sorry, but just being a black man isn't enough of a test.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 9:03 PM

Who's going to ask why CTV intially reported contact being made with Canadian Ambassador Micheal Wilson and have since altered their story to contact being made with Canadian Consulate General in Chicago Georges Rioux? So far, CTV is the only one who's been caught with a glaring inconsistency.
There's a reason why this non-story is going nowhere and it's because mere hearsay means diddly squat in the real world.

Posted by Arrow | February 29, 2008 9:06 PM

I love how people think Obama is going to be able to re-open NAFTA and make a few little changes.

There is no doubt that it would unleash a tsunami and years and years of demand.

The Canadian government is still angry about a soft wood lumber dispute. They also happen to be America's number #1 energy supplier, which is covered under a sweetheart deal. Want gas to go up another $ a gallon?

The "threat" of opting out to get the Canadian PM to the table, when he has publically said that re-opening NAFTA would be a mistake, is laughable. Its the equivalent of Obama shooting his own country in the foot.

Of course, the reality of diplomacy that is conducted in the real world has always escaped Obama. He's the guy who never held a hearing on NATO and doesn't know that Canada has 2,500 troops on the front lines in Afghanistan.

Anyway, he's not president yet but he's managed to annoy the heck out of both Pakistan and now Canada.

Posted by Jesse | February 29, 2008 9:11 PM

Jesse:

Don't worry ... I'm sure he'll just go to Ottawa and make a speech to the House of Commons, and everyone will be so inspired he'll get what he wants.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 9:15 PM

I would also like to know when Sen. McCain has been tested by a foreign policy crisis.

Posted by Steve V | February 29, 2008 9:22 PM

Please read this piece straight from Canada just so you guys can get a handle of what you're getting into by trying to run with this.
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2008/02/sourcing-a-cros.html

Posted by Arrow | February 29, 2008 9:26 PM

Tim K,

"We know Hillary has been tested and she is still standing."

This is such a fellatious argument.

1) Neither BHO nor HRC have had a bare knuckle electoral contest before, until now. HRC, my Senator, waltzed to both wins in my state.

2) People who argue that HRC has been "vetted" "tested" et cetera really ignore a glaring inconsistency: She has never had to endure a political knock while standing on her own two feet, with her name on the ballot, before this race.

Unlike HRC, BHO isnt claiming foreign policy experience, war time experience, executive experience. He's laying out his vision for America, like Reagan did, and people are responding.

If you want to know why so many Americans are rejecting HRC, its not because people think she is a bad person, its because they realize the narrative she is weaving is not real.

Being the wife of a serial adulterer, and having your family's name dragged through mud while your husband gets re-elected does not qualify HRC to claim all this "experience."

It wasnt on the strength of her record, or her political skill, that Bill got 8 years in the WH.

Posted by enough | February 29, 2008 9:35 PM

Tim K,

i really like how your criticism of Obama's Iraq position is so absurd. it makes it easy for me to refute it.

Obama outlined in his "big speech" on the matter exactly WHY he thought Iraq was going to be a huge blunder, and guess what; all of the reasons he outlined turned out to be true. the war in Iraq HAS mired us indefinitely in highly complex and delicate Middle Eastern politics, it HAS subtracted from our ability to hold down and rebuild Afghanistan (you know, where Al Qaeda was based), and it HAS cost a tremendous amount of money and lives (both American and Iraqi). he said this while Hillary Clinton and John McCain were both publicly speaking out in favour of the war.

now, if you want to argue that the Iraq is going to eventually be seen as a huge success, you're perfectly within your logical rights to do so. but to ascribe additional, unnecessary motivations when the motivations in front of you are demonstrably true is a simple violation of Occam's Razor. Obama showed the correct judgment at the time, while Clinton and McCain did not. that's an unfortunate fact you're going to have to live with.

Posted by BA | February 29, 2008 9:39 PM

That Obama response ad is fantastic. Give Plouffe and Co. at Obama HQ credit for knowing how to shut Hillary's campaign up. Not taking sides here, but any mention of Iraq and HRC is bound to score big points.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | February 29, 2008 9:40 PM

and, sadly, HRC's campaign has been a spectacular example of mismanagement. the ONLY reason Penn hasn't been fired yet is because the "process" stories from that would be fatal to her campaign.

Tell me: how can she say she's got all this experience, that she'd be ready on day one, when she couldnt see this coming or oversee preparation to win this nomination. She, literally, had every single resource at her disposal.

And dont give me "media bias" argument BS. for over a year, the media said this was her race.

Nobody in the media questioned her experience claims; they just swalled it and regurgitated it back as scripture.

IT TOOK THE MEDIA OVER A YEAR TO ASK HRC WHAT FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE HAS SHE HAD.

Posted by enough | February 29, 2008 9:41 PM

It's not just liberal senators who voted against the war in Iraq. So did Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who at the time was chair of the intelligence committee. He said there was no basis for the administration's claims that Iraq constituted an imminent threat -- and that there were other groups, including Hamas and Hezbollah, which posed a far more immediate danger than Iraq. Clinton never even bothered to read the National Intelligence Estimate, before she voted to give George Bush a blank check for an optional, speculative war. That's not the kind of good judgment we need in the White House!

Posted by TKD | February 29, 2008 9:51 PM

enough:

Clearly you don't know *enough* about the Clintons political history if you don't think she's been involved in bare-knuckle political fights. Unless you mean to imply that only candidates participate in tough political fights, in which case Bob Shrum, Karl Rove, James Carville, Paul Begala, David Axlerod, Mary Matalin, and the dozens and dozens of other well-known professional pols who have never run for office have no political experience. Hillary Clinton was Bill Clinton's chief political ally, adviser, strategist and defender for over 20 years through four gubernatorial campaigns, a presidential nomination and two presidential elections. Not to mention all her contributions to public policy in Arkansas and for the country, also has direct experience on the armed services committee and serving out a FULL TERM in the US senate before running for president.

Barack Obama has the thinnest resume of any presidential nominee I can think of. He was state legislator for 8 years and a US senator for 2 years before running for president. He doesn't even have the kind of experience in a supporting role that would supplement that kind of experience.

JFK was criticized as inexperienced, but at least he was a WWII veteran who served 14 years in the Congress including 8 years in the Senate.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 9:53 PM

Typically non-responsive response from Obama. As when he responded the other day with his "I've got news for John McCain" rejoinder that obviously wasn't news at all, but rather the same backwards-looking self-serving recitation of his history on the Iraq issue ca. 2002-3. The Clinton ad, of which I'm no great fan, refers to a crisis. Obama responds by referring to an issue that was debated for many months, and which gave him plenty of time to take the same position as other left-liberals. In both cases - the McCain criticism and the rather less credible Clinton attack - Obama seems to hope that voters won't notice that he's conceding the point being argued against his own credibility. So far, he's been able to get away with that kind of thing, but only his partisans believe he had a very good week overall, especially on foreign policy.

Posted by CK MacLeod | February 29, 2008 10:00 PM

Last fall I was an Iowan who was on the fence between Obama and Hillary. I watched Larry Kudlow interview Goolsbee. Seeing Austan more than hold his own on a panel of Republican Supply Siders was very impressive.
I have no idea how "liberal" he is, but if you listen to the guy he simply makes sense.

Posted by Steve K | February 29, 2008 10:01 PM

Tim K - have you ever stopped to ask what Hillary has ever done, except lie for Bill, pander to Republicans, and screw up healthcare? Her record is a joke. 35 years of failure, dishonesty and compromise! Pathetic. Real democrats don't need this sort of gutless surrender worm, and we don't need her pretence of experience.

Posted by Tim J | February 29, 2008 10:04 PM

CK MacLeod:

Totally agree with you. I don't think it is the right attack coming from Senator Clinton. I think to be successful one has to have unassailable experience in national security. It will be a far more effective attack coming from John McCain, and I'm sure their ad will be tougher.

I think Hillary should focus on her being a fighter. She should focus on the fact (and it is a fact) that the agenda that Democrats want to see implemented will be very difficult to accomplish in the face of an onslaught of attacks from the other side and opposition from vested interests.

Some people here have such an irrational hatred of Hillary that sometimes I feel like this is an NRA or Christian Evangelical blog. But if some of you gave it some actual thought you'd realize that the Republicans wouldn't have spent 16 years ferociously attacking and demonizing somebody they are not afraid of.

I wouldn't take Republicans at their word that they would prefer to take on the "polarizing" Hillary Clinton. Anybody who knows anything about politics should know that you praise the people you want to run against, and you attack the people you fear. That way the other party nominates the person you want to run against.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 10:12 PM

"The Canadian government is still angry about a soft wood lumber dispute. They also happen to be America's number #1 energy supplier, which is covered under a sweetheart deal. Want gas to go up another $ a gallon?"

O RLY?? Seriously, tell us all about that subsidized oil Canada is selling us, or how they're so willing to cut off their proverbial noses, just to cause us some pain at the pump.

(In case you can't tell, dear readers, a "sweetheart deal" on Canadian energy is a steaming, doughy pantload.)

Posted by karl | February 29, 2008 10:16 PM

The 75% number IS off for pledged delegates, but due to proportional representation, she will have to win 75% of the remaining VOTES to get that kind of delegate split.

Remember, a lot of these CDs are 5 delegate deals where you need over 70% to change it from a 3-2 edge to a 4-1 edge. To change a 6 delegate district from 4-2 to 5-1 you need over 75% of the votes, and so forth.

It is REALLY hard to make a comeback in pledged delegates. So Plouffe may have misspoken, but after March 4 comes in tied or Obama gains, he is right, she is going to have to win 75% of the votes.

Posted by Sean | February 29, 2008 10:20 PM

Obama has represented himself as the change from the politics of the past. How on earth is it okay for him to tell the people in the U.S. that he would opt out of NAFTA. And criticize Clinton for being a NAFTA supporter thru his mailings and then have his economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee reassure the Canadians that his statements about NAFTA are campaign rhetoric?

Posted by Tex | February 29, 2008 10:24 PM

karl,

I will kindly tell you about the subsidized oil. Under NAFTA agreements the Canadians have to sell energy to the US at the same price they do to Canadian citizens - meaning that the Candians have to strike a reasonable balance between having cheap energy for themselves and making money on exports to Americans. Remove that provisio and Canadians gladly enjoy cheap energy and just ship the rest over to China at full price. America ends up looking for more expensive energy some place else.

arrow,

your source is a CBC blogger. That's the Canadian equivalent of PBS. CTV is the biggest private broadcaster and CBC is the biggest public. CBC loves to attack both the government and CTV on a regular basis. Take anything they say on this matter with a grain of salt.

Posted by Jesse | February 29, 2008 10:34 PM

Tim J,

How can you describe Hillary as having 35 years of failure?

Here is a woman who chose to love a man despite his many dalliances with other women and although she could not herself sexually sate his every need, she was strong enough of character to not let it affect their MUTUAL drive to help the American people. Even in the face of inscrutable odds when the right wingers tried to destroy not only her husband but her in the face of an oral sex scandal did she once wilt.

This woman then used the sympathy garnered from this incident and parlayed it into a Senate seat in the biggest and most important state in the Union. This shows fierce determination to me.

She then parlayed this seat along with her husbands name to become the first real viable female candidate to run for president of the United States. Failure? I think not.

Hillary Clinton likely answered most of the 3am calls while Bill was out philandering and its this type of experience that we need in the White House. This is not failure, this is tried and tested experience the country can count on, whether 50% of the primary voters realize it not. Luckily for us... the automatic delegates know this.

Posted by Fred Agbot | February 29, 2008 10:37 PM

Personally, I want a president who has had 35 years of successes and failures.

We learn from our failures not successes.

Posted by Tim K | February 29, 2008 10:41 PM

Like a lot of Canadians, I`m not too impressed with the pandering, but neither am I too shocked or too worried by Clinton or Obama stumping about NAFTA. The fact of the matter is that most Canadians are far more comfortable with Democrats on policy and values, but also know that Democrats tend to be more protectionist. Nobody thinks that NAFTA is going to disappear, though, and stiffer safety or labour regulations would make little difference to us anyway. I don`t think we have much to learn on these issues from our neighbours to the south, and such a change would tend to help Mexican workers.

Though the Republicans are supposed to be more doctrinaire free traders, under Bush they pulled a completely bogus "hidden subsidy" stunt on our softwood lumber that cost billions to the industry, despite consistent international rulings favouring Canada. This was cynical, bad faith trade relations of the kind only Bush`s government would contemplate. So frankly, give us a US government that we can negotiate with and then trust to keep its word, not the dishonest, unilateral goons who have run your country (into the ground) for the past two terms.

But, if I`m wrong and the Dems really do pull the plug on NAFTA, then Obama`s reconcentration on Afghanistan will have to do without Canada, which has suffered TWICE the casualties as the Americans on a per capita basis.

Posted by Estrien | February 29, 2008 10:45 PM

Rontel - what is Matt's blog website address?

Posted by Phil | February 29, 2008 10:49 PM

Every other Senator who was thinking about running for president at the voted for that resolution. Kerry, Edwards, Dodd, Biden, and yes, Clinton

Tim, you do realize that you're basically admitting that Clinton is *directly* responsible for the deaths of tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people because she was trying to do the politically expedient thing, right?

Are you really sure you want to say that?

easier to make an anti-war speech before an anti-war rally when you are an Illinois state senator, than it is to cast a responsible vote when you are a United States senator.

Are you saying that Clinton's vote was a responsible one?

Posted by justinb | February 29, 2008 10:52 PM

Tim K - Though I'm confident you and I differ politically, I'll see your agreement regarding the Clinton ad and Obama's pseudo-response - and raise you one more. I also think that Democrats may be making a huge mistake if they've concluded that Obama is more electable than Clinton.

Where I disagree with you is when you suggest that conservatives generally secretly believe that Obama is less electable, and have been engaging in misdirection when they stated that Hillary would be easier to rally against. That really is how things looked to a lot of people before Obama's vulnerabilities became better known - though I think there was also some pleasure taken in ridiculing Hillary, our familiar conservative nemesis. Many observers have begun to see - conservative, liberal, and in between - that the Democrats, like potentially the country, would be taking a huge risk with a "phenomenal" figure like Obama.

You guys might have been able to grind it out with Hillary, for all of her problems and apparent weaknesses. You might still win with Obama - once he's nominated, it's in the lap of the gods - but you might also be staking what looked some pretty good chances on a desperately under-qualified, largely un-tested and un-vetted figure whose program, background, and movement backers are far to the left of the American mainstream (even if that mainstream is itself tilted a bit further left than a few years ago).

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 1, 2008 12:10 AM

CK MacLeod,

What evidence do you have that Obama's backers are "far to the left of the American mainstream?"

He is attracting an extraordinary number of Independents, and my 82-year old Republican mother is planning to vote for him, with zero lobbying on my part. Obama is a centrist, and so are his supporters.

Name for me anything "far left" about Obama or his supporters....

Posted by cajun | March 1, 2008 12:28 AM

Obama is probably the LEAST qualified candidate to ever get the nomination for either party, presuming he does. That fact will not go away no matter how much window dressing, press accolades, feel good speeches and messianic demeanor accompanies his candidacy. The bar for the general election is higher, and Obama's record as a very partisan, liberal senator will be much more in focus. Despite his speeches, Obama's meager accomplishments in the Senate don't include any of the "bigger tent" ideas he is trying to sell. Right now he is riding the big wave, but not everyone will be going all the way to the beach.

Posted by george | March 1, 2008 12:40 AM

CK:

I agree with basically everything you've said there (although I'm also confident we disagree ideologically). On further reflection, I doubt there is any one consensus among Republicans and conservatives of who is a tougher general election opponent would be - I'm sure there are arguments on both sides in those circles. My suspicion is that Republican strategists are the last to underestimate Hillary Clinton as an opponent. I know from interviews I've seen with President Bush that there is a grudging respect there for Hillary for her ability to persevere (and for all the negative things that can be said about the President, he does know his politics).

To try to be as objective as possible in assessing Clinton and Obama, I tend to agree with the school of thought that compares their candidacies to blue chip vs. venture stocks. One has a relatively narrow trading range and is more durability in the face of new information to investors. The other has the potential to grow markedly, but also the tendency to collapse eventually. There isn't much that can be said about Clinton that could win over her detractors, or turn off her supporters. I think Clinton is a safe bet for a narrow win, and that Obama could win larger or lose easily.

As I reflect on Clinton's campaign I think there miscalculation was in thinking their main obstacles would be moving to the center, showing she had enough relevant experience and to pass the Commander-in-Chief threshold. I think any objective observer would conclude that the verdict is in all of those and it is positive. She presented as the most moderate Democrat in the race, is the overwhelming favorite of Democratic voters who value experience over change, and I don't think anyone doubts she is tough enough or strong enough to order military action if required. In short, I think she was running a general election strategy from the start and that's why she is losing. That, and they failed to both anticipate Obama's challenge and cripple him last summer when they had the chance.

Thoughts?

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 12:42 AM

"Hillary Clinton was Bill Clinton's chief political ally, adviser, strategist and defender for over 20 years through four gubernatorial campaigns, a presidential nomination and two presidential elections."

Tim,

Who says this? You? Bill?

I've read Bill Clinton autobiography; she doesn't come off like any grand strategy wizard there.

I've seen the documentary film "The War Room" many times. Hillary is not there right along side Carville, Begalla, Steph., etc.

With all due respect, your claim sounds like 11th bull to me. And it's even slightly insulting that you say it like everyone should automatically agree with it. You do understand that you are making claims Hillary supporters on TV don't even make?

Posted by Raindog | March 1, 2008 1:09 AM

"Barack Obama has the thinnest resume of any presidential nominee I can think of. He was state legislator for 8 years and a US senator for 2 years before running for president. He doesn't even have the kind of experience in a supporting role that would supplement that kind of experience."

Have we not been through this before Tim? In modern American history, the person with the least experience usually wins. (Maybe because they have less of a record to be attacked on, I don't know.) But with this being a fact, why is HRC a better candidate?

Posted by Raindog | March 1, 2008 1:15 AM

"I wouldn't take Republicans at their word that they would prefer to take on the "polarizing" Hillary Clinton. Anybody who knows anything about politics should know that you praise the people you want to run against, and you attack the people you fear. That way the other party nominates the person you want to run against."

Tim,

Don’t you think this sounds the slightest bit pompous to you? No disrespect intended, but exactly how many political campaigns have you won that you can start lecturing people on grand political strategy? Do you at least have a college degree in poli sci?

Posted by Raindog | March 1, 2008 1:20 AM

When I hear Dems attack NAFTA and free trade I get the same embarrassed feeling I get when Repubs attack evolution. Repubs have problems with Bio 101, but Dems need an Econ 101 refresher.

I just don't understand. This is a solved problem. Free trade is good. Only cranks think otherwise. Sure you can always find some fringe PhD to say otherwise, but the Repubs can always find a stray Bio PhD who doesn't believe in evolution, too.

This is too important an issue for the Dems to get reactionary on.

Posted by jim | March 1, 2008 1:20 AM

"Some people here have such an irrational hatred of Hillary that sometimes I feel like this is an NRA or Christian Evangelical blog. But if some of you gave it some actual thought you'd realize that the Republicans wouldn't have spent 16 years ferociously attacking and demonizing somebody they are not afraid of."

Tim,

I won’t talk about “irrational support” of a candidate.

I will say this though. It's not about hating Hillary with me. It's about seeing her as a FAR weaker candidate and fearing another 4-8 years of GOP rule. It’s about suffering through 4-8 years of President John McCain. And have no doubt, it will be President John McCain if Hillary somehow gets the nod and starts spewing her 35 years of experience bullsh*t against a man who has been in Congress for over 20 years.....and only after spending years being tortured in a POW camp. And just because Obama is too PC to call Hillary on her “Co-Presidency” bit doesn’t mean the GOP hate-machine won’t. The only way to win in November is to change the dynamic, from experience to judgment. Only Obama can do that. I truly believe this. If I thought Hillary was stronger, if I thought her experience argument would work, I would be supporting her.

The GOP does hate her though. But they attack her because they enjoy it. It’s really just that simple.

Posted by Raindog | March 1, 2008 1:30 AM

All Canada had to do, beginning when softwood lumber first became an issue back in 1982, was change policies so that the price of logging rights on government-owned land was set by auction, instead of by bureaucrats, and there wouldn't have ever been any question of subsidies.

You see, the only possible purpose of using an administrative procedure to set the price is to allow sales of the rights at below market value. Nobody will buy the rights if the price is set above what the rights are worth, so the fact that they were sold indicates they weren't priced too high. An auction will set it at the market price every time, by definition, without any guesswork. So the only reason for choosing to use a bureaucrat-set price instead of an auction can be to set the price below market value.

This is why a NAFTA panel ruled in 2003 that Canadian softwood lumber was unquestionably subsidized. The Canadian price procedure can have no innocent purpose.

But, the cute thing about this subsidy method is that without any of the rights being sold at a market price, it is impossible to determine what the market price would be for the trees, and so impossible to measure the magnitude of the subsidy. We know the price administratively set is at or below value of the trees because they were sold; we can't know if they were subsidized at under 1% or over 99% or anywhere in between.

So, in 2006, another NAFTA panel ruled the subsidy was under 1%. How did they reach that determination? They pulled it out of thin air. Oh, there were all sorts of technical arguments, but the economic impossibility of determining market value by technical analysis instead of comparison with a free market price is well-established. If they had come out and said it was subsidized by 20%, then the U.S. counter-tariffs would have been ruled legal; and the fact is nobody knows or can know if the panel was right or wrong when it said it was less than 1%, or could show that the panel was wrong if it had set the value at 20%.

The facts are, any competent economist will tell you that Canadian softwood lumber is subsidized, and at the same time that nobody knows or can know by how much. Which means Canada is certainly in the wrong, but since the U.S. cannot show that any level of retaliation isn't excessive, the U.S. can't do squat about it.

Posted by Feller of Canadian Rhetoric Trees | March 1, 2008 1:35 AM

"Under NAFTA agreements the Canadians have to sell energy to the US at the same price they do to Canadian citizens - meaning that the Candians have to strike a reasonable balance between having cheap energy for themselves and making money on exports to Americans."

Believe it or not, Canada is a market economy (I know, I know, it's hard to tell with all that-booga booga!-socialized medicine). This isn't Iran or Venezuela where gas costs fifteen cents a gallon.

We pay what Canadian citizens pay for energy because we're all paying the market price.

Posted by karl | March 1, 2008 1:45 AM

Raindog:

We've been through this before. Read Carl Berstein's book "A Woman in Charge." He's a very well respected journalist and the book as gotten very favorable reviews. And if you've caught him providing his analysis on CNN, he can be pretty tough on Hillary and Bill.

I understand how you feel about the 35 years of experience line, because I can relate. If I have to hear even one more time about Obama's superior "judgment" in foreign policy based exclusively on a speech he made more than five years ago... well, I may as well grin and bare it because I have a feeling it will continue to be his prime argument on national security.

If Clinton were nominated she clearly would run on the banner of change. Any Democrat would. They wouldn't try to trump John McCain's experience on national security. The reason they tried it on Barack Obama is because he IS inexperienced. It hasn't worked because they misjudged just how much Democrats value 'change' over 'experience' after 8 years of George Bush. Also because they didn't go after Obama when they really had the chance last summer, when I think it could have knocked him out.

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 2:07 AM

*Carl Bernstein

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 2:09 AM

She presented as the most moderate Democrat in the race, is the overwhelming favorite of Democratic voters who value experience over change, and I don't think anyone doubts she is tough enough or strong enough to order military action if required.

Tim, you ask for further thoughts, and since you strike me as a leftish kind of guy open to conversation, I'm going to offer you some of mine.

I highlighted the above passage from your post because I think your word choice is exactly right, and also revelatory. She presented as a moderate, but she never, or hardly ever, really ran as one.

Unlike her husband, who in the ideologically more expansive Democratic Party of 1992 was able to establish significant political distance to the (electable) right of his rivals, Hillary never made any consistent effort to distinguish herself on substance, except to claim that she had more of it. On Iraq and defense generally, it was always "me, too, only more so." Ditto on health care, and now on trade. Where she has pushed her differences, it's as often been to Obama's left: on economics, with her ARM moratorium and other intervention proposals; on social issues, she briefly flirted with the impossible task of getting to Barack's left on choice.

On illegal immigration, she gaffed on driver's licenses, and then was prevented from moving productively to Obama's right on the issue because she was doing so well with Latinos, and apparently lacked faith that she would recover losses among them from anywhere else. About the only "hot" issue I can think of on which she has stood firmly and consistently to Obama's right is this "meet the dictators" thing that he's locked himself into. Here at least she adopted a pose of responsibility, but she never demonstrated, at least in my observation, what real world policy difference or result of any note her more conservative approach would lead to. Why couldn't she choose one meaningful issue - FISA, say - to set herself apart as her party's responsible grown-up?

Political junkies might find other points of difference, but to the mass of voters, and certainly to those of us on the "outside," it came down to two ideological twins, but one of them with a lot more personal appeal. Aside from Obama's considerable talents, must of the latter derived from his trumps-all we-are-the-ones post-racial racialism, something she couldn't touch or counter, especially since her front-runner's "experience" argument conflicted with some "feminist change agent" message she might theoretically have highlighted.

And I think, of course, she should have escalated her attacks on Obama very early, even at the risk of looking "mean." Obviously, she should have taken the threat a lot more seriously a lot earlier. There's an argument at least that she could and should have starkly warned the party, the country, and even him about his hubris and its dangers many months ago.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 1, 2008 2:12 AM

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 29, 2008

Canada Threatens to Disrupt US Gas Flow If NAFTA Cancelled
More NAFTA backlash...
Canada Plays the Oil Card.
Canada threatened to disrupt America's priveleged access to Canada's massive oil and gas reserves after Hillary and Obama vowed to withdraw the US from NAFTA.
The Globe and Mail reported today.

Well, that didn't take long for the chickens to come home and roost. This is what happens when you shoot from the hip without thinking about the consequences and this just for starters. OJT for both Clinton and Obama, in time of war do we really need the risk.

Posted by ronnor | March 1, 2008 2:21 AM

Karl, there are all kinds of controls on what utility companies can charge. Rate hikes need to be approved by regulatory boards and are often set by the provinces. Many provinces actually have public utilities, other have a private free market system.

The fact remains though that but for NAFTA most of the premiers would be heavily subsidizing energy prices. This WOULD be Iran/Venezeula in many of the provinces.

Seriously though, you can continue this Anti-Canada bluster all you want. China would gladly pay more than the US for our energy. The only reason we sell to the US is because they are our friends and allies. If Obama wants to throw all that away he can...

Posted by Jesse | March 1, 2008 2:24 AM

CK:

Well I do disagree with you there. If you look at Hillary's record in the Senate it has been quite moderate both on style and substance. She has consistently drawn criticism from the so-called "netroots" or activist left-wing bloggers. She has been criticized by them for her Iraq War vote, for being too business-friendly, and for voting to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization (Kyl-Lieberman). Clinton has also been substantially more bipartisan than Obama. Not only does she have a (relatively) more conservative voting record, but she has worked with Lindsay Graham, Newt Gingrich, and Tom Daley; All are notable for playing roles in the partisan battles of the 90's, including impeachment and the endless witch-hunt against her and her and President Clinton.

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 2:25 AM

CK:

Just to add, I agree her campaign should have gone after Obama after his ill-advised remarks over Pakistan. Together with his promise to meet unconditionally with rogue leaders, I think they could have made the case that Obama wasn't "up to the job" of being president... using negative ads if required. I think they should have constantly reminded voters that he was only a state legislator 2.5 years earlier.

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 2:30 AM

Obama AND Clinton are full">full">http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2008/02/hypocrisy-alert-clinton-obama-nafta.html">full of crap on NAFTA. Not just Canada, but Mexico has adopted more International Labor Organization protocols than the U.S. And, both candidates said, when asked, they couldn’t mention a single environmental issue against Mexico under NAFTA’s (albeit quite weak) environmental standards.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | March 1, 2008 2:31 AM

Let me try that again, on the URL:

Obama AND Clinton are full of crap on NAFTA. Not just Canada, but Mexico has adopted more International Labor Organization protocols than the U.S. And, both candidates said, when asked, they couldn’t mention a single environmental issue against Mexico under NAFTA’s (albeit quite weak) environmental standards.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | March 1, 2008 2:34 AM

Obama's Opposition To The War = Ignorant.

Think about it. A state senator back in Illinois with zero classified information, no briefings from the military, and not privy to any of the hearings or discussions on the issue of war with Iraq.

His decision to oppose the war was uninformed - it was ignorant, not in the sense that it was wrong or right but in the sense that it was a total guess and proves nothing about his judgement.

This arguement that someone who took a guess and got lucky has more foriegn policy judgement than someone who supported the war like Joe Biden - someone who looked at all the information and camed to an informed decision - is laughable. Being wrong isn't the same thing as being stupid.

Taking a guess and getting lucky doesn't qualify you to be president.

Posted by Jesse | March 1, 2008 2:42 AM

"Obama is a centrist, and so are his supporters."

LOL thanks for the laugh, cajun. You extreme lefties always think you're moderates.

Posted by CM | March 1, 2008 2:43 AM

Jesse:

I agree. I wrote a short essay in school before the war arguing against invading Iraq due to my doubts about WMD or links to Al Qaeda, and because I thought it might result in destabilizing the country and ethnic violence.

Does that mean I can say I have the judgment to be the next president?

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 2:51 AM

Tim - I agree completely that Hillary had the credentials to run to the center.

Her vote in favor of Authorizing Use of Military Force is probably the clearest example, and very typical of her problem. I take her at her word that she- like Reid, and Biden, and Edwards - voted in favor because they thought it was the right thing to do. Like them and the rest of her party except Lieberman (and possibly a few others known only to their spouses), she fled in the opposite direction as soon as opinion on the war soured. Whether or not you believe her explanations of her vote, she has severed all connections to it, and her every gesticulation from the back of the anti-war bandwagon emphasizes the contradiction between her current position and her actual vote, while reinforcing Obama's own argument about his supposed superior judgment.

A lot of us thought she really had moved away from her own leftish roots and was determined to prove she was a moderate over her time in the Senate. How she's chosen to run in the Democratic primaries - politically, not atmospherically - is something else entirely, as I tried to outline in my previous post. That she's allowed Obama to persuade the anyone that he's the post-partisan uniter and that she's the divisive partisan tells you just how badly her campaign has miscalculated, and how destructively it's squandered not just her years of careful preparation for the run, but also her direct connection to the last period of successful Democratic presidential electioneering and governance.

The last also helps explain what a risk Obama represents for the Democrats. To me, right now, it looks like overreaching, just as his very candidacy has all along looked like overreaching to me.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 1, 2008 3:08 AM

Tim K: "Does that mean I can say I have the judgment to be the next president?"

Don't sell yourself short. At the very least it means you have better judgment than Hillary.

Jesse: "Think about it. A state senator back in Illinois with zero classified information, no briefings from the military, and not privy to any of the hearings or discussions on the issue of war with Iraq."

Ah, so it was the classified information, the briefings, and the hearings that are at fault, not Hillary's judgment! Brilliant!

Posted by Jer | March 1, 2008 3:19 AM

The Iraq war had nothing to do with 9-11, and Obama recognized that from the beginning.

Then Obama is not very wise.

He would have been (and was) more interested in pursuing the perpetrators of 9-11 and not taken his eye off the ball.

Naive and simple-minded. There is a triangle of 1) rogue nation states 2) who seek WMDs 3) to hand off to terrorist orgs for proxy attacks against the West. To be effective, we must attack all three legs. You can either act pre-emptively or retaliate against millions of innocents [Tehran?] afterwards. Hope [tm] and Change [tm] are not enough.

Posted by Fen | March 1, 2008 3:23 AM

Justinb,
I don't see what is wrong with the war vote. It's easy for us to say now knowing that there is no WMD in Iraq. But in pre2003, there was a high probability that Iraq had WMD. Even Saddam Hussein claimed that he had to make the appearance as though he had WMD. Clinton was in the Senate Intelligence Committee and have seen confidential information that the public cannot access. Besides that she and Carl Levin of Michigan has gotten assurance from the Bush Administration that there will not be any preemptive war. You have to remember that the democrats who voted for the war as well as many Repubs thought that there will just be another bombardment of Iraq just like what was done under Bill Clinton and not a full scale invasion.

It was not the democrats who are responsible for the thousands of death. You have to remember that Obama voted to fund the war continously while have stated that he would have voted the same way if he's at the Senate during the Iraq war.

Posted by StevenT | March 1, 2008 3:28 AM

So did Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who at the time was chair of the intelligence committee. He said there was no basis for the administration's claims that Iraq constituted an imminent threat

The administration said "we cannot afford to wait UNTIL Iraq is an imminent threat". I don't know where you get your news from, but somebody's been feeding you with a shovel.

Are are those opposed to the liberation of Iraq this ignorant?

Posted by Fen | March 1, 2008 3:30 AM

So did Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), who at the time was chair of the intelligence committee. He said there was no basis for the administration's claims that Iraq constituted an imminent threat

The administration said "we cannot afford to wait UNTIL Iraq is an imminent threat". I don't know where you get your news from, but somebody's been feeding you with a shovel.

Are all those opposed to the liberation of Iraq this ignorant?

Posted by Fen | March 1, 2008 3:30 AM

CK:

I agree it looks like overreaching for the Democrats this time, and it is definitely overreaching on his part.

Democrats seem to be buying this idea that Barack Obama will somehow be able to inspire the whole country into embracing his agenda - or at the very least a clear, sustained majority. One thing that may partially explain this is the political polarization that has steadily developed over the past twenty or thirty years. A 2003 book called "The Two Americas" by former Clinton and Gore pollster Stan Greenberg was one work that highlighted the ideological divide. Americans seem less and less willing to entertain views they do not espouse and give the other side an honest hearing. They increasingly gather their information from media that reflect back their already-existing opinions: right-wing talk radio, FOX news, left-wing bloggers, the Huffington Post, the Daily Show... there are countless examples of this narrowcasting on both the Left and the Right. I'm not sure if any studies have been done, but I wouldn't be surprised if it has become less likely to have couples of different party affiliations.

Just maybe, this is why more liberal Americans are able to believe that most Americans think the way they do. Just as in the early Bush years many conservatives probably fooled themselves into thinking the country was united in their direction. People simply don't expose themselves to the clear divisions that exist over public policy, so what's created are two parallel echo-chambers.

I think this could be a repeat of 1976. With a dispirited and discredited Republican party in shambles, a relatively inexperienced Democrat runs an anti-Washington campaign for the presidency to restore Americans' faith in their politics and trust in their government. We all know how that turned out.

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 3:33 AM

It's easy for us to say now knowing that there is no WMD in Iraq.

No. We don't know with certainty that there were no WMD stockpiles in Iraq when we went in. We DO know that Saddam had WMD programs and was seeking the ability to restart them after sanctions were lifted.

Its like the NIE on Iran. If you read the fine print, you'd know that Iran hasn't actually stoppped its nuke program.

Posted by Fen | March 1, 2008 3:34 AM

Fen: "There is a triangle of 1) rogue nation states 2) who seek WMDs 3) to hand off to terrorist orgs for proxy attacks against the West. To be effective, we must attack all three legs"

Ah, and what does 9-11 have to do with any of that? I'm having a hard time connecting the dots back from a non-state terrorist group, armed with valid visas and box cutters, recruited from the population of one of our closest middle east allies.

"You can either act pre-emptively or retaliate against millions of innocents [Tehran?] afterwards."

Tehran, or Baghdad? How's that preemptive action working out? Avoided retaliating against millions of innocents yet? Only 600 thousand? Cheer up, then! There's still at least 400 thousand to go!

Posted by Jer | March 1, 2008 3:37 AM

Dems gone off the deep end.

Hey - let's improve the US's position with her allies after that meanie GW Bush ruined everything. Hey, I know - let's cancel a trade agreement that took years of work to put in place, and has been a huge success. I'm sure Canada an Mexico will haev no problem with that. And the rest of the world will have no problem on the USA going back on their word. It'll instill condfidence in other agreements that the US is party to. U-huh.

Here's teh Dem platform, as far as I can tell:

1) Socialized medecine.
2) Withdraw troops from Iraq - scr#w the consequences. Just cant' get over the fact that they didn't get their way. Wow - talk about rearview mirror decision making. They refuse to make deicsions based on what is going on *TODAY*. Fighting the past.
3) Raise taxes on "the rich".
4) Kill NAFTA.

Wow.

I truly hope the Dems win the WH, and both houses of Congress. I am convinced that after 2 years of these incompetent jokers in power, the Republicans would sweep back to power for the next few decades - again. (Witness how well Pelosi has done so far).

Best of luck, America. You're going to need it.

Posted by slick | March 1, 2008 3:43 AM

StephenT: "But in pre2003, there was a high probability that Iraq had WMD."

No, actually, there was 0% probability that Iraq had WMD. If you're on Lets Make A Deal, and Monty Hall has had a bad day, and he puts nothing behind either Door #1 or Door #2, you have a 0% chance of winning the car. Not 50/50.

"Clinton was in the Senate Intelligence Committee and have seen confidential information that the public cannot access."

That is not beyond dispute. According to some reports, Hillary may not have even read the Iraq NIE before making that fateful vote.

"Besides that she and Carl Levin of Michigan has gotten assurance from the Bush Administration that there will not be any preemptive war."

And this is where the argument about the candidates' relative quality of judgment enters the picture.

Posted by Jer | March 1, 2008 3:44 AM

Tim K: "I think this could be a repeat of 1976. With a dispirited and discredited Republican party in shambles, a relatively inexperienced Democrat runs an anti-Washington campaign for the presidency to restore Americans' faith in their politics and trust in their government. We all know how that turned out."

Contrarily, this could also be a repeat of 1992. Running against a experienced legislator and veteran with decades of relevant experience, a young candidate with no national executive or legislative experience runs on a campaign of hope and change. We all know how that turned out.

Posted by Jer | March 1, 2008 3:55 AM

Jer:

Yes we do... victory followed by a relentless campaign to ruin the credibility and reputation of the elected president through lies, innuendo, rumor mongering, endless litigation, and partisan investigations.

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 4:01 AM

Austan Goolsbee committed an unpardonable sin - he told the truth.

WHich just proves teh poitn that Obama is as full of it as most other politicians, and that the anti-NAFTA rheotirc is just pandering.

Now tell me again how he's so different?

Posted by slick | March 1, 2008 4:13 AM

Oh please, slick. Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq in a cautious, responsible fashion. His health care plan doesn't share the weaknesses of socialized medicine in other countries in terms of lowering competitiveness; indeed his chief health care advisor wrote a book about the advantages of market health care. Obama will restore taxes to their previous level so we stop running gigantic deficits every year and can do something to help the poor. And a couple NAFTA provisions will be tweaked, nothing all that big.

Are we really going to deal with this kind of drive-by idiocy for the next 8 months? What an annoyance.

Posted by John M. | March 1, 2008 4:19 AM

And Goolsbee reassured a friend of his that we won't do anything rash or hasty, which we won't. Ambinder's analysis is dead on. But feel free to continue making things up.

Posted by John M. | March 1, 2008 4:21 AM

Tim K:

Well, if the Republicans are going to be mean to us, no matter if we nominate Clinton or Carter, well, maybe we shouldn't try to get elected. It hardly seems worth it.

Posted by Jer | March 1, 2008 4:24 AM

"Oh please, slick. Obama will withdraw troops from Iraq in a cautious, responsible fashion"

lol. John, First, I don't believe he would withdraw a singificant number of troops. Second, it is not the job of the POTUS to micromanage the troop levels.

This is all fantasy baseball. If Obama wins teh Presidency, what he will actually do and/or be able to accomplish wont' be anything like what he is talking about today. Haven't we learned that already? I can understand that kind of naivete from kids, btu as adults, we know better - right? We've seen this movie countless times.

"His health care plan doesn't share the weaknesses of socialized medicine in other countries in terms of lowering competitiveness; "

Oh, I see. It's *MAGIC* socialized medecine. Why didn't you say so?

"Obama will restore taxes to their previous level so we stop running gigantic deficits every year and can do something to help the poor. "

Right. Your knowledge of socialized medecine is only outdone by your knowledge of economics.

And then you insult me. Because anyone who doesn't see things your way, MUST be stupid. How nice for you.

Because it's impossible that I see something you don't. Absolutely impossible. You must be right.

Posted by slick | March 1, 2008 4:43 AM

"And Goolsbee reassured a friend of his that we won't do anything rash or hasty, which we won't. Ambinder's analysis is dead on. But feel free to continue making things up.
"

Even if Obama became POTUS, and even if he could convince enough members of congress to go along with this insanity, the repercussions from Canada and Mexico (as well as the US's other trading partners) would be ENORMOUS. Stock market? Timberrrrr...

There are a few things that bother me about this.

1) Obama and Clinton are pandering to the left. They know damn well they aren't going to do anything about NAFTA. They are lying. Period. And the lefties - liek you - lap it up. It'll be fun if Obama does win how angry the left is going to be when they realize he doesn't walk on water, and that various realities will prevent him from doing anything close to what he is talking about now (regardless of whether or not he truly wants to make said changes). One big Hillarycare.

Oh - if only the world were so simple. Campaign promises are fantasies. Nothing more. Whoever gets elected POTUS very quickly realizes how limited they are. It's easy to talk in a debate or on the campaign trail. But once YOU are the guy or girl in power - all bets are off. Reality hits home. We've seen this time and time again. There's no reason to believe it will be different the next time.

2) I find it incredibly unethical and insulting to even suggest breaking your word on NAFTA. Do Americans not stand for anything anymore? Does your word mean nothing? Shame on you. Do you think you can just renegotiate or change an agreement merely because it suits you? Was it not a Democrat in the Whitehouse who approved of NAFTA? Have you no honour, sir?

I don't care if it's a single sentence. It is totally unethical to even suggest such a thing. I woudl expect it from Clinton. But I thought Obama was an honourable guy. Oh well.

Posted by slick | March 1, 2008 4:58 AM

Why won't the MSM follow up with Obama and Hillary on this? Because they know they're both lying, and dont' want to hurt their fellow lefty's chances of gaining the WH.

The story here isn't Goolsbee and the CTV.
The story is about what they BOTH said at the debate re: NAFTA.

SEN. CLINTON: "So what I have said is that we need to have a plan to fix NAFTA. I would immediately have a trade timeout, and I would take that time to try to fix NAFTA by making it clear that we'll have core labor and environmental standards in the agreement."

WTF? A "trade timeout"??? Only a f'n liberal could say something that stupid! lmao. And this woman actually thinks she could be President? She thinks like a child. How long would this "trade timeout" be, Hillary? Would you put Canada in the corner if it didn't want to go along with you?This one statement alone disqualifies her from being POTUS.

SEN. OBAMA: "In her campaign for Senate, she said that NAFTA, on balance, had been good for New York and good for America. I disagree with that. I think that it did not have the labor standards and environmental standards that were required in order to not just be good for Wall Street but also be good for Main Street".

Stunning ignorance. Quite surprising coming from a guy as smart as Obama.

Yes, Barack, the problem is "labor standards" and "environmental standards" - not global macroeconomic realities.

The mascot of the Democratic party whould be the TURTLE. All they want is for America to hide in it's shell.

Posted by slick | March 1, 2008 5:13 AM

The elephant in the room is that both of these candidates are intellectual lightweights with nothing of substance on their resumes. Hillary thinks that because she (possibly) slept with a president once she is qualified to dictate every aspect of the healthcare system and can put our trade partners in "timeout" as if they are unruly children.

Obama wants to punish our friends and reward our enemies. The military is just cringing that a guy ignorant enough to run around talking about "air-raiding villages" in Afghanistan and bombing a nuclear armed ally (which has control of our only supply line to the Afghan theater) has a chance to be commander-in-chief.

The weakness of both these candidates is that they rely on a suppine and compliant press. Hillary's campaign crumpled like one of those paper mache puppets that are so popular at anti-war rallies once the press decided they weren't going to carry water for her anymore. Obama is just as vulnerable but the mainstream media will circle the wagons around him until the election is over. The Ambinder piece above where he makes excuses for Obama that the candidate doesn't even make for himself is evidence enough of that. The "first black president" story is just too juicy to pass up whether the guy is qualified or not.

Posted by BenFranklin | March 1, 2008 8:18 AM

BA - Obama outlined in his "big speech" on the matter exactly WHY he thought Iraq was going to be a huge blunder, and guess what; all of the reasons he outlined turned out to be true. the war in Iraq HAS mired us indefinitely in highly complex and delicate Middle Eastern politics, it HAS subtracted from our ability to hold down and rebuild Afghanistan (you know, where Al Qaeda was based), and it HAS cost a tremendous amount of money and lives (both American and Iraqi). he said this while Hillary Clinton and John McCain were both publicly speaking out in favour of the war.
now, if you want to argue that the Iraq is going to eventually be seen as a huge success, you're perfectly within your logical rights to do so.

BA, the problem is that the same arguement can be made by any moron at the start of ANY war they seek others to oppose.

Anti-FDR guy named O'Barney -"I'm here in Chicago rising, yes rising, as the Man I Am - to oppose any action against Germany. We can negotiate. We do not want this unecessary war and we can probably get them to back down.

Look, it was Japanese torpedo bombers that attacked us, not all Japanese, and certainly not Germany. Any effort against Germany will distract us from the real task of finding the torpedo bombers and bringing them to justice. War in Europe, a morass of nations that peace has never come to, will only embolden Jewish Soviets to come West! All of East Europe, even Germany itself could fall to the Soviets and mire us in Europe for 50 years or more. It will cost us a tremendous loss of money and lives...not a small amount of 50,000 dead like the Great War, but almost as many as perished in the Civil War. My great O'Barney mind has allowed me to see this in a way that no mere ordinary leader can.
And because I am Great, you will see the reputation of this speech grow and grow...because I will be right on the war and time will show: And I will sit down without any precondition and negotiate with any foreign leader, even Hitler, even Stalin, and show them to the Light by the force of my pure goodness and powers of persuasion.

1. Going after Germany will distract us and stop us from trying to bring the torpedo bombers and those Japanese troops we provoked into attacking IndoChina, Singapore, and the Philippines to their ACLU Defense Team in a proper civilian Court. We could have Germany completely defeated and the Soviets invading half of Europe before the 1st US boot is on Japanese soil searching for the torpedo bombers! Mark My Words. The Wisdom and Judgment of Myself, the O'Barney, is infallible!

2. Going After Germany will cost us many lost lives treasure. Innocent Nazi civilians as well as Americans. Knowing this makes me so smart you should worship Me, O'Barney, as the Great Leader just 2 years out of Illinois legislature and make me your next President...because I have heard from many though I am too modest to admit it - I am the next Lincoln to come to DC from Springfield.

3. Other politicians will support War, say that internal matters in Germany and tales of awful things justify us going in. They do not, and even though I am in the most isolationist, pro-German District within a thousand miles, I applaude myself for having the profound courage of my convictions to oppose War with Germany. And you should to as the legend of my judgment and courage is carefully cultivated by my worshippers.

See, BA, anyone can do it.

Try it. Pretend you are an ambitious politician in a heavily Loyalist era opposing the Revolution because:

1. It will kill lots of innocent people.
2. The Indians attacked us, not the Brits.
3. The Revolution will be a quagmire going on many years and troops might suffer for lack of commitment and perfect equipment.
4. Even if we win, we will have failed because we will have slavery in America and no free health isurance. An America, you wealthy connected wife brisks about - as nuthin' to be proud of.

Posted by chris ford | March 1, 2008 8:40 AM

> This is why John McCain's campaign may hire
> senior -- as well as junior -- staff -- and
> soonish: getting endorsed yesterday by John
> Hagee earned him lots of tsuris and a wasted
> news day, and forced this apology:
>
> "Yesterday, Pastor John Hagee endorsed my
> candidacy for president in San Antonio, Texas.
> However, in no way did I intend for his
> endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with
> all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously
> do not.
>
> "I am hopeful that Catholics, Protestants and
> all people of faith who share my vision for the
> future of America will respond to our message of
> defending innocent life, traditional marriage,
> and compassion for the most vulnerable in our
> society."

WHERE is McCain's apology here? Did he ever say that he regret it? or he is sorry? Marc, stop spreading lies and come clean here.

If press has any "real journalist" they should ask same question to McCain.. does McCain denounce Hagee's past anti-Catholic remarks and rejects his support?

PRESS, DO YOU HAVE BALLS TO ASK THIS TO McCAIN?
------------------------------------------------

Posted by DoubleTalkExpress | March 1, 2008 10:38 AM

"You can either act pre-emptively or retaliate against millions of innocents [Tehran?] afterwards."

Tehran, or Baghdad?

Tehran. I'm talking about a nuclear retaliatory strike. Thats the "courage" of the Left: allow a western city to be nuked, 10s of millions incinerated, then respond by incinerating millions of innocents in Tehran. Why not prevent that instead?

How's that preemptive action working out?

Saddam is dead and will never threaten our interests, Al Queda has shown their ass to fellow muslims in Iraq and has been marginalized, the new tactics of the surge are working, an arab democracy is slowly standing up and presenting itself as a model for brutalized arabs seeking an alternative to jihad. Sea change in the Middle East, cascading to the arab street.

Obama's plan would have been to capture/kill OBL instead [unless he fled into Iran]. Does he think that would have defeated Al Queda or radical Islam? Its not tactically sound, so I can only guess that his logic is based on a need for revenge. Emotional, shortsighted, dangerous.

We're at war with radical Islam. In a race against WMD proliferation paired with suicide bombers. And Obama's first foreign policy move is to break a treaty with our warfighting ally Canada? Obama: I just don't understand, the ways of the world today

Posted by Fen | March 1, 2008 11:00 AM

Re: obama's judgment in opposing the Iraq war doesn't impress me. He was a state senator from one of the most liberal anti-war districts in Illinois. His district is essentially a one-party district.. whoever wins the Democratic primary wins the election.

No kidding - 90% of the Congressional Black Caucus opposed the war resolution, so the notion that Obama was a heroic iconoclast, rather than an utterly predictable and conventional urban lib, is a bit thin.

Posted by Tom Maguire | March 1, 2008 11:20 AM

Dear chris ford,

Hitler declared war on the US on December 10, 1941, not the other way around, so it doesn`t really matter what either "O`Barney" or FDR thought.

Thought you would like to know that, even if it damages your analogy a teensy bit.

Posted by Estrien | March 1, 2008 11:32 AM

Consider the following:

by the last day of 2007 the Obama campaign had 385K donors (since its inception early last year).

by the last day of Jan. 2008 it had 625K donors, i.e. it added 240K.

by the last day of Feb. 2008 it had 1025K donors, i.e. it had added 400K.

In Jan., 625K donors raised $36 million for the campaign.

Now if the amount of money raised is proportional to the size of the donor base, then 1025K donors should raise $60 million.

Now get this: for the past two months, the donor base has expanded 66% percent per month.

So if that trend continues, here is what the March results should look like:

1,700K donors

And that would mean: $100 million.

Posted by lampwick | March 1, 2008 11:36 AM

I think this could be a repeat of 1976. With a dispirited and discredited Republican party in shambles, a relatively inexperienced Democrat runs an anti-Washington campaign for the presidency to restore Americans' faith in their politics and trust in their government. We all know how that turned out.
Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 3:33 AM

Actually, one of the most enjoyable things about this year for political junkies is that it really isn't like any other previous election in the modern era, but combines aspects of many.

The Republican Party of 2008 isn't what a lot of us were led to hope for a few years ago - a durable long-term governing majority - but it's not in "a shambles" comparable to '76, when in a few very short years it had gone from an historical landslide victory to Watergate, the Nixon pardon, and other catastrophes. Ford was famously polling 25 points down against Carter at the time of the Republican Convention. After relentlessly seeking to make the election about Carter's inexperience, and after having to survive some of the most famous mis-steps in presidential campaign history, Ford lost by only 2 points. (In order to avoid unnecessary political noise, I'll refrain from speculating about how an Obama Administration might compare to a Carter Administration.)

Also, don't buy the hype about primary turnout figures. Ds have done well exciting their base, but Democrats almost always turn out in much heavier numbers in the primaries. In '88, for instance, with contested races on both sides following a two-term presidency, D primary turnout almost doubled R turnout. Anyway, the primary and general electorates are two different animals - even in an "explosive," hotly contested year like this one, the former will account for a fraction of the latter.

BTW, on the turnout issue, if Obama's the candidate, the real R trench soldiers will GOTV bigtime, especially once they've learned more about how Obama handled the Illinois version of the Born Alive Act. Unless he's got much better arguments explaining himself than he's given so far, I think this might turn out to be the real poison pill for him, and not just with hardcore evangelical activists - potentially much bigger in real practical, electoral terms than Rezko or Wright or Ayres or NAFTA or meet-the-dictators or scary Michelle or wacky Obamamaniacs, though in the usual way it might remain largely under the mainstream media radar. In a prior post I linked to a rightwing take on this issue, after having been challenged to give an example of an Obama far-leftism, but apparently including a link in a post here can get you caught up in a decision queue along with spam. If you're unfamiliar with the article and how pro-lifers plan to address it, you can Google up the details pretty easily (try Obama Born Alive Act and read the Terence Jeffrey article that comes up - that is, if you're not worried about sullying your eyeballs with an article from HUMAN EVENTS.)

Anyway, there are good arguments to be made comparing our present circumstances to many prior elections, and for arguing that it's not really quite like any other. I think it's got bits and pieces of many prior elections, but it's really shaping up to be its own thing - which doesn't mean that in the end it won't shake out according to familiar factors.

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 1, 2008 12:17 PM

Fen: "Tehran. I'm talking about a nuclear retaliatory strike. Thats the "courage" of the Left: allow a western city to be nuked, 10s of millions incinerated, then respond by incinerating millions of innocents in Tehran. Why not prevent that instead?"

I see. Why not just cut out the middleman and kill millions of innocents before the nuclear retaliatory strike! Pass the savings on to the American taxpayer!

"Obama's plan would have been to capture/kill OBL instead [unless he fled into Iran]. Does he think that would have defeated Al Queda or radical Islam? Its not tactically sound..."

So, the proper response to an attack on America by OBL and AQ is to invade a country which had nothing to do with that attack, depose its despot, and spend six years, 3 trillion dollars, and 3 thousand American lives policing the broken remains, all while creating a Texas-sized terrorist training camp. Brilliant! What are you doing, wasting your time posting these ideas on the internet? You're needed in the War Room!

"We're at war with radical Islam."

Well, we've got a War on Drugs and a War on Terror going already. And now we have a War on Radical Islam? Perhaps we should limit ourselves to only 1 or 2 "Wars on nebulous concepts" at a time. Come back to this whole "On Drugs" war after we've licked Terror and Islam. Because, who knows? Maybe we'll need to start a War on Militant Secularism or a War on Tanks. We've got to keep our eye on the ball.

Posted by Jer | March 1, 2008 12:22 PM

chris ford: "BA, the problem is that the same arguement can be made by any moron at the start of ANY war they seek others to oppose."

The problem with this line of argument is that "any moron" can do the opposite: support a war based on the thinnest of evidence, sold through fear and revenge, when swept up in a deceitful maelstrom of manufactured public fervor.

Except that one of those morons was proven correct, and the other proven wrong. Somehow, I think the line, "He may have been right, but he doesn't deserve to be!" will ring hollow.

Posted by Jer | March 1, 2008 12:36 PM

Seriously though, you can continue this Anti-Canada bluster all you want. China would gladly pay more than the US for our energy. The only reason we sell to the US is because they are our friends and allies. If Obama wants to throw all that away he can...

Jesse, you're a sport for continuing this conversation. I appreciate it. But your comprehension of market economies and international energy markets appears to be limited at best, or more likely, you're being intentionally obtuse to make a political point.

Here's what happens when the Chinese start "gladly" paying more for energy ... oh, wait, they won't, because THAT'S HOW MARKETS WORK. Why pay more for Canadian energy when there's an extremely liquid and robust worldwide market for all manner of energy products? This isn't 1970 and OPEC isn't posting prices anymore. And these days, energy and particularly oil prices aren't as demand-driven as they used to be-these days its all about supply and excess supply capabilities are rapidly dwindling.

The United States is, and will remain, the dominant world economy and energy consumer for the foreseeable future. There is nothing that anyone-not even the president of the US-can do to "throw that away." Canada will remain an important trading partner-in fact the MOST important trading partner-of the United States for a long time to come, and those sweet, sweet oil sands of Alberta will have a lot to do with that.

Posted by karl | March 1, 2008 12:54 PM

One other thing I should have mentioned. While the global energy market is extremely liquid, there are good reasons to think that Canada isn't going to start selling all its energy to China or that they're going to ignore the voracious consumer of energy to their south. There are many dozens of billions of dollars of energy infrastructure-pipelines, terminals, shipping facilities, and refineries-designed to put that Canadian energy into the American market. Could it be sold to China? Sure. As easily as to the US? No chance in hell.

Posted by karl | March 1, 2008 1:04 PM

Thank you, karl, for injecting a bit of market sense into this latest bit of hyperventilation.

Posted by Jer | March 1, 2008 1:28 PM

CK:

Fair point. History never really repeats itself exactly, does it.

"There is a new mood in America. We have been shaken by a tragic war abroad and by scandals and broken promises at home ...

...Americans reject the view that we must be reconciled to failures and mediocrity ...

...It is now time for healing. We want to have faith again. We want to be proud again. We want the truth again. It is time for people to run the government, not the other way around...

...It is time for American to move and to speak not with a boasting and belligerence but with a quiet strength, to depend in world affairs not merely on the size of an arsenal, but on the nobility of ideas...

... It is time for us to take a new look at our government, to strip away the secrecy, to expose the unwarranted pressure of lobbyists, to eliminate waste... I recognize the difficulty, but if I'm elected it's going to be done. And you can depend on it! ...

... We can have an American President who does not govern with negativism and fear of the future ...

-excerpts from Jimmy Carter's 1976 DNC speech accepting the Democratic nomination for president

Does that sound as familiar to you as it does to me? The irony is that a phrase like "a different kind of politics" is about as wedded to the usual politics as one could get. There is a long tradition of politicians running against establishment Washington in order to get a gig.

The "politics of hope" is simply a triumph of hope over experience.

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 1:51 PM

Actually Karl your understanding of the markets is all theoretrical and doesn't take into account the complex geopolitics involved. A lot of the world's energy markets aren't fluid at all. Many oil producing nations have heavy sanctions on them. Right now you're either selling to the Americans or the Chinese. Burma, Iran, and Sudan are selling to the Chinese in return for security council protection. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, on the other hand, get US military support.

The price of a steady stream of oil is much higher than the dollar price in barrels on the market would indicate.

And while it is true that the pipelines and infrastructure are heading towards the US (and owned by many US companies) there is also a lot of infrastucture on the pacific coast. Port expansion is recieving heavy investment to increase trade with China and India via BC.

As you know, BC has its own fledgling oil sands and Alberta is next door. The Chinese have been itching to build a pipeline straight for the coast for a few years now.

Of course, until now most of their investment and infrastructure projects have been blocked in favour of our friends to the south. That is, as I have said, unless Obama throws our trade relationship into doubt even more.

Canadians have been trying to diversify their trading relationships for awhile now to protect ourselves against a US downturn. Obama re-opening NAFTA would just add further reason to speed up the process.

Posted by Jesse | March 1, 2008 2:25 PM

Yes, Tim - the Carter speech is traditional stuff, almost boilerplate that could easily be adapted for either a D or an R with at most only minor adjustments. Both Obama and McCain have used versions of it - as had Reagan and GWB in their time - but Obama may get a bit more traction because so many of his supporters haven't ever heard it (or have had much other experience) before.

Let me rush to say, however, that I fully accept that full-fledged grown-up leftists and others can come to support Obama with their eyes wide open, and even if they're worried that he's more likely to end up like McGovern than Carter just on the question of winning. I'd strongly disagree with such a decision, and to me there is an undeniable "madness of crowds" quality to the Obama phenomenon, but I'm not trying to suggest that the Obama campaign is the same as a tulip, a hula hoop, a pet rock, or an Internet IPO.

I have to wonder, have you yourself firmly decided to support Obama against McCain, if that's the match-up?

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 1, 2008 2:43 PM

Hello, Marc, commenters-

"Lampwick" above makes a very erudite argument about the formidable Obama fundraising machine, and the staggering numbers which it has been hauling in for the candidate...

HRC's campaign, battling the deluge of over a million unique donors, has now hauled out The Joker and Colonel Jessup on the virtual cyberstump, endorsing their candidate - take a look:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/01/jack-nicholson-films-ad-f_n_89356.html

Hat tip to Yahoo! News - who put this on their front page...

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | March 1, 2008 3:11 PM

Well although I follow US politics very closely and politics in general, I'm actually a Canadian. So obviously I wouldn't be able to vote either way.

If I could vote I would hold my nose and vote for Obama, with reservations. For me the issue of the Supreme Court would compel me to vote for a Democrat almost no matter what. I'm sure a lot of conservatives can relate to that view as well, approaching the issue from the opposite idealogical bent. I can say, however, that I have a more favorable opinion of John McCain as a person, and his character and political style, than of Barack Obama. Although we would disagree on many, many things I believe he is a man of conviction who would rather lose an election than sell his country short on critical issues of national security. I also find him much more humble and genuinely self-effacing than Obama.

Now a question for you. What do you think will become of Hillary Clinton if/when she loses this race? Do you think she'll resign for the Senate? Do you think she'll run for president in 4 or 8 years? Do you think she'll make a play for Senate Majority leader? What do you think?

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 3:13 PM

Someone above called Obama's antiwar stance in 2002 ignorant, because he didn't have all those terrific top secret briefings.

I guess the 40% or so citizens who also saw quite clearly the careening war wagon Bush was recklessly whip-driving means we were all ignorant too.

Or maybe we just didn't have any political consequences to consider, nor a good team against which to test our ideas.

We just thought for ourselves, and realized "This is not a good thing."

WMD or not, it was a weak argument then as it's a weak argument now. UN inspections had not found anything but still had good work to do. Bush never had any intention of letting them work.

He needed a quick target to hit and hit hard after 9/11 (quick, he imagined, based on Daddy's experiences there), and for all we know, that's as deep as his thinking went.

So if taking down a despised dictator, one of many in the world, going against your Dad's example just because you feel driven by your neuroses to do so, and otherwise threatening world stability (Iran et al) is considered the intelligent decision, let me by all means and with due vigor embrace ignorance.

Posted by JimNY | March 1, 2008 3:32 PM

Meddling with our sacrosanct and Simon-pure elections from north of our border? How dare you, sir?

Just kidding. Unless something truly scandalous explodes all over Hillary, I can't see why she'd resign from the Senate.

About the only way I can see her giving a run for the top job another try is if the party drafted her, or virtually drafted her, as the stopgap against one or another party crisis - very unlikely, but not impossible. Otherwise, I don't think she's a natural campaigner, to say the least, and I don't think she's exactly been storing up a huge reservoir of affection over the course of this campaign.

Senate Majority Leader? I've heard people discuss that as a consolation prize for her - maybe down the line. (Almost anything would be an improvement over Reid, IMO, for Dems as well as for the country.) I even heard a usually perceptive and intelligent political observer suggest that she'd like to be Supreme Court Justice - though I personally think she's got way too many legal squirrels in her tree for that.

I think that if she loses, she'll go back to being Senator from New York, and settle into a role as party grandee, not as major contender, but your guess is as good as mine about how firey her belly really is. It could be that her campaign's otherwise unaccountable missteps actually reflect a deep-seated, hitherto unexpressed psychological barrier to her ambition. Maybe she really would rather just sleep in...

Posted by CK MacLeod | March 1, 2008 3:34 PM

I agree with you that the Supreme Court is not in the cards. That confirmation process would be a circus where all of the otherwise discredited ethical allegations would rear their ugly head again. Also, everyone knows where she stands on many of the controversial social issues like choice and gay rights, and I'm sure could make a fair guess on others like affirmative actions and school prayer.

I think the most likely scenario is that she, as you said, will go back to being the junior Senator from New York. I do think Majority Leader is a real possibility, or maybe she'll run for DSCC chair for the 2010 cycle.

I think if Obama loses this election many in the party will feel they made the wrong choice, and she'll be the front-runner once again for 2012... although, that doesn't mean she'd want to try again. A far-fetched scenario would see President Obama stumble early in his bid for re-election and have Senator Clinton challenge him in the primaries. Not that I think that will happen, but it's fun to speculate.

Either way, I don't think Hillary is going away as an influential figure in American politics.

Posted by Tim K | March 1, 2008 3:43 PM

I miss the pre-vacation Marc. Back then he never let 24 hours go between postings.
I'm like a junkie needing a fix!

Posted by Steve K | March 1, 2008 4:09 PM

Per Tim K.'s questions - it is a shame that he will not be casting a ballot in our elections, given his interest level in the political process and the intelligence of his questions.

(Follow-up to my previous post: I just checked and determined that none of those who appeared in the video - the Joker, Colonel Jessup, etc. - are in fact superdelegates. It also might be wondered, why having the implied endorsement of ANY of those characters would be even desirable, even in jest...)

For what it's worth, my thoughts (all speculation) on your question. (Note: I haven't counted HRC out of this race, so this should be accompanied w/ the disclaimer that this is going on the premise that she LOSES the nomination, which is far from certain):

I doubt that HRC or anyone else has given serious thoughts to what would happen after this nomination process, if she did NOT obtain the nomination. I sometimes wonder if they have so effectively convinced themselves of their own invincibility, that they can even contemplate the possibility of defeat. Evidence: the refusal of HRC to even acknowledge, let alone concede, primary/caucus defeats, and the lack of planning for a post-Super Tuesday battle.

"Do you think she'll resign for the Senate? Do you think she'll run for president in 4 or 8 years? Do you think she'll make a play for Senate Majority leader?"

HRC's Senate term doesn't expire until January 2013, so she'll still be around for a while.

If McCain wins the general, she might very well run again in 2012 or 2016. And she might be successful. It's so diifficult to predict.

In terms of obtaining the nomination: It would have been absurd to think even in 2004, that a then-unknown candidate from the Illinois state senate would topple the Clinton machine in 2008. It could fairly be asked - HRC had all of the money, all of the Democratic establishment, universal name recognition, the support of a large state, and her husband - and still couldn't win the nomination. The inevitability narrative drove the train through 2007. In a future cycle, she won't be inevitable at all.

Democrats, unlike Republicans, are not favorable toward previous candidates, even those who don't capture the nomination. Al Gore in 2000 is the only recent candidate who eventually got nominated after running in a previous cycle (1988).

In terms of becoming Majority Leader - it would not preclude her from getting the nomination. Bob Dole won the 1996 nomination after serving as the Republican leader (both in the minority and majority) during the latter half of the 1980s and Clinton's first term. One thing it does, though - it takes up a lot of time that could be better spent raising money and campaigning. It's one reason Dole resigned from the Senate during the summer of 1996...

That's the best answer I can offer...

Posted by ElectionNightHQ.com (McCain site) Publisher | March 1, 2008 4:23 PM

"There are many dozens of billions of dollars of energy infrastructure-pipelines, terminals, shipping facilities, and refineries-designed to put that Canadian energy into the American market."

Oh my God. An intelligent statement of fact in the comments section of a blog. Run for your lives!

Karl, what I think the other poster was saying is taht Canada would be selling the oil at higher prices thant he USA is currently paying Canada - not higher prices than China is already paying. He's correct on that one point.

Also, regardless of how much infrastructure is already there, it woudl be an interesting exercise to see if Canada would come out ahead if she exported more of her oil to non-US countries. Just ebcause billions have already been spent, does nto mean it wouldn't be economically advantageous. Quite a few variables to consider before drawing that conclusion.

It's all moot (and silly) anwyays. Obama and Hillary are just pandering. NAFTA will be left alone. Canada will continue selling to the USA.

What's interesting to me is that every time one points out an inconsistency or a problem with something Obama has said (or done), his believers stick their fingers in their ears and shout "la la la la". Scary.

He's a smart, charismatic, inexperienced, far-left liberal. Nothing more, nothing less.

If he did become POTUS, he'd have a terrible awakening his first few days in power (which isn't unusual for newbie leaders). It's funny when candidates say "As President, I'll do this and that and the other". As if it's a dictatorship. As if they can just wave theri magic wands and {poof} the changes are implemented. Obviously, that isn't realistic and it's not how the process works.

In Obama's favour, experience is highly overrated as an indicator of how well a President (or other foreign elader) performs. Gee...if only he wasn't espousing the same failed liberal ideology of the past decades. His campaign theme should be "Back to the Future". The guy has run a helluva campaign - far better than the "Ready On Day 1" Clinton campaign. Maybe Hillary needs a "campaign timeout"? :)

Posted by slick | March 1, 2008 6:53 PM

I don't think the decision to invade Iraq is a good example of the "red phone" ringing, so I think Obama's response was very, very weak. A good example of the "red phone" ringing would be something that seriously threatens America's security, like the Cuban Missle Crisis. The last person I want in the White House in that sort of situation is Obama.

Posted by EyeDoc | March 1, 2008 7:03 PM

The Daily Five -- Goolsbee Gate Continues

Comments (111)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives