A Better Answer To The Pregnant Pause

A Guest Post From Joshua Green

One of the many puzzling things about Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign is why it has been so shoddily run. I spent a lot of time with Clinton’s staff a year and a half ago for this profile of her time in the Senate. While I had some doubts about her (then-still-hypothetical) presidential candidacy, I had none whatsoever about her staff. They were simply top-notch, end of story. They could quote you chapter and verse from her Senate record whether the subject was foreign policy or eggplants (New York is the number-one purveyor—one of countless New York facts her staff drilled into my head.

So what explains the embarrassing episode during the conference call on Friday that was supposed to drive the message in her “Red Phone” ad, that “Obama’s not ready to handle a crisis”? As Jennifer Skalka expertly delineated over at The Hotline, Clinton’s own staff was flummoxed when the question was turned back by Slate’s John Dickerson: “What can you point to in Hillary’s career when she’s been tested by crisis?” To experience the full measure of awkwardness the ensuing silence created, listen for yourself. Then ask yourself how on earth it is that no one thought to answer “9/11,” which is not only the biggest crisis anyone in the government has faced in the last eight years, but is also one that Clinton unquestionably handled with poise and skill. The $20 billion she helped secure for New York City after the attacks was the signature accomplishment of her first term in the Senate!

My guess is that the people who know Clinton best are not the ones acting as surrogates. Lee Feinstein, who I’ve never met, seems to have played the Steve Bartman role on this call. When I heard it, I couldn’t help wondering about the whereabouts of Andrew Shapiro, Clinton’s ever-present (during the Senate days) military and foreign policy aide, who might still be listing her credentials and accomplishments had he been on the call. ---JOSHUA GREEN

Comments

9/11 is the answer?

Specifically, getting money for New York after 9/11? Frankly, that doesn't seem to me to have taken a lot of political skill. And was it really only due to her efforts? There are other, very competent NY politicians.

I guess there was a reason why Hillary and Rudy showed up together for SNL. They share 9/11 as a message and "ignore lots of states" as a campaign strategy.

Posted by Suze | March 2, 2008 9:17 AM

It's 3 AM and the phone rings at the White House.

Hillary Clinton is on the ball, getting money for New York after the biggest domestic terrorist attack in U.S. history.

Posted by Janet | March 2, 2008 9:22 AM

if THAT'S her signature accomplishment, then she has ZERO to brag about over Obama's legislative record.

sheesh.

Posted by rob! | March 2, 2008 9:25 AM

Nine

(Pregnant Pause)

Eleven.

Well, screw voting for Senator Clinton or Mayor Giuliani. I'm voting Lois Griffin now.

Posted by Seth | March 2, 2008 9:39 AM

Wow! As a New Yorker, a sincere thank you, Hillary. Now I know that you are the only one that could have gotten us that 9-11 money. Please keep sitting by that red phone for us!

Posted by eunice | March 2, 2008 9:46 AM

The fact that it was John Dickerson is no surprise. Dickerson has had his head up Obama's butt for the entire campaign season.

Posted by JoeCHI | March 2, 2008 9:59 AM

"The fact that it was John Dickerson is no surprise. Dickerson has had his head up Obama's butt for the entire campaign season."

So, Joe Chi, you don't think that was exactly the follow-up question that needed to be asked after Hillary's ad?

Posted by eunice | March 2, 2008 10:02 AM

Other than the fact that this isn't a particularly good answer, where was this post after the Obama surrogate was so famously caught off-guard?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 2, 2008 10:07 AM

I don't know--9/11 money doesn't go with that red phone urgency.

Her campaign staff hasn't been stellar--and the loyalty issue raises a lot of specters of how Bush chose people--but I do think, in the future analysis of all that went wrong with this campaign, one can't overlook that the candidate was just not that strong. Too many negatives, old and new.

Posted by Deborah | March 2, 2008 10:14 AM

"Other than the fact that this isn't a particularly good answer, where was this post after the Obama surrogate was so famously caught off-guard?

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 2, 2008 10:07 AM"

While that was embarassing, you have to remember her wasn't anyone who was hired by the Obama campaign to promote him. He was just a Congressman who endorsed Obama. Meanwhile, Penn and Ickes are on the fucking payroll. It is their job to know this stuff. They cook up the messages. If they of all people can't answer it, then the empress has no clothes or she has no idea how to pick people who don't light their Q-tips on fire before plunging them into their ears. She is supposed to know the best in the business. That's what a political insider, which she is running as, is supposed to do. If she can't do that, she is basically running on nothing except for the possibility that some of her supporters are really voting for her husband.

Posted by Reality Man | March 2, 2008 10:23 AM

The reason HRC's peeps were struck temporarily dumb because, throughout her campaign, she has used "testing" as a code word for "surviving my husband's serial infidelities." They've long believed that this is her hook to reel in women.

Secondarily, "testing" invariably includes all of the non-sexual scandals of her husband's presidency. Even her claims of being battle-tested against the GOP are a result of her husband's campaigns - her Senate races were against seriously weak opponents.

You have to go pretty far down the line to find HRC's steel being tempered by anything that has nothing to do with her husband.

Posted by JR | March 2, 2008 10:24 AM

As a New Yorker, I also support Hillary Clinton: as my Senator. How dare she run for President? I need her to continue to bring me my pork from the federal budget!

Posted by S.G.E.W. | March 2, 2008 10:31 AM

When I heard the clip the first time I also thought "why not mention 9/11" and then immediately thought that anyone who's been in democratic politics for the past 6.5 years, esp in NY, has an instinctive aversion to using 9/11 to bolster your campaign. To Democratic primary voters, saying "I was there on 9/11" is the rhetorical equivalent of saying "I support George Bush."

On the other hand, its actually an example where her reaction was something that should have been lauded. Unlike most everyone else, she didn't run for the cameras, didn't jump to conclusions about who did it or why, didn't demand or imply a violent response, and in fact quietly went to work on behalf of those most immediately effected. Securing the $20b from Bush at that time as quickly as she did actually was quite an achievement. I think it would have been an opportunity to claim that she won't respond to a crisis with instinctive militarism or blatant political demagoguery (ie, Bush) but with clear-headed policy.

I still don't want her to win but I too wish she was being better served by her staff.

Posted by Gus | March 2, 2008 10:58 AM

Senator Clinton's Wolfson on "this week" just said no one who hasn't been president has gotten a 3 am call from Russia. Russia??

Otherwise he is better on TV than Axelrod.

Posted by Georgia | March 2, 2008 11:13 AM

JR -- I think you are spot on.

I'm not sure that John Dickerson is in the tank on Obama as much as he's dealing with the reality that the guy has had as good a 30 days as a candidate could hope for. I think Dickerson has at least tried to find something to balance the Obama-love-fest.

A Few Inconvenient Truths
Is Obama as much of a straight talker as he claims?
http://www.slate.com/id/2182159/

Posted by MWD | March 2, 2008 11:17 AM

Getting money for NYC for 9/11 damage over a period of years doesn't strike me as a "crisis" handling. It sure doesn't require any judgment. What politician doesn't use a disaster to ask for federal aid? We've got a stack of post-Katrina southern sneators who are as qualified as Hillary based on that kind of "crisis" management.

Posted by Helter | March 2, 2008 12:07 PM

Even her claims of being battle-tested against the GOP are a result of her husband's campaigns - her Senate races were against seriously weak opponents.

B-b-b-but Rick Lazio once almost led Hillary in the polls! If that's not a tough opponent, I don't know what is.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 2, 2008 12:12 PM

the sheer brazenness of the Clinton campaign has amazed me. they come out and allege "media bias" against them, when virtually every issue they raise is a total straw man, starting with "35 years of experience making change" and moving on through (to name just the most recent) her "extensive foreign policy experience" and "coolness in a crisis".

the media's refusal to do their jobs and knock down these patently flimsy arguments has been what has buoyed her current campaign message. without the "experience" argument, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. and the "experience" argument is BAD, as anyone who's actually done even cursory research knows. the press's inability to penetrate this argument is the real "media bias"... "biased" towards stupidity.

she'd be laughed out of the press conference room in Britain, where there are still a few real journalists left.

Posted by BA | March 2, 2008 12:51 PM

It wasn't the 20 billion. From the hour she learned of the attack, Hillary was on 90-hour workweeks doing her best to be a link between New York, her affected constituents, and the Federal Government to get things recovered. She did that without grandstanding. Rudy needed something, she delivered. Major firms had to move out of the enemy attack area, re-establish as recovery started and needed various Federal permissions and paperwork waived or deferred or done instantly ? - Hillary got them. And got Federal help for her constituents in a variety of areas while working on the national response, our policy after the enemy attack..

That was a fine job in a crisis. Bush, Rudy, Gov Pataki credited her hard work and ability in that sudden crisis. I agree with Gus. I still don't want her to win but I too wish she was being better served by her staff She has aides that know letter and verse about Hillary's standout work on 9/11 and in other crisis of a more localized constituent nature the national media doesn't know about. Instead, the overpriced dolt in charge of her campaign staffed spinmeister positions with "pros" that know little about the candidate's past achievements, only their canned talking points designed by committee.

Her fault. She agreed to hire such people. But a shame they are unable to deliver credit to her where credit is due. Her Jewish brain trust is being thrashed by the brain trust led by David Axelrod.

The other highly competent candidate, Mitt Romney, was similarly ill-served by slick consultants that sought to redefine Romney as someone a Base of Southern Fundies would vote for. A Base that he should have just left alone and focused on the moderates, independents and pragmatic realists that he left for McCain to win and secure the nomination.

Posted by chris ford | March 2, 2008 1:07 PM

With the greatest respect to Josh:

WHAT IN SAM HILL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Let's see, the argument here is that because she responded to 9/11 by working legislatively to shepherd $20B to her justifiably needy constituents, she's cut out to handle an international crisis?

I'm sorry, this is just incredibly strained logic.

This sounds more like an argument for keeping her in the Senate. There are many things that make Clinton a fine Senator, none of which add up to Presidential qualifications.

Posted by Tungsten | March 2, 2008 2:20 PM

Why do the Yankees lose when they have the best in baseball?
Because you have a bunch of top notch egos who are concerned only with themselves and work as independent players.
No team there.
Why did the white sox win a few years ago with a mangy bunch of no namers? Teamwork.
Look at Obama's and you see a team of people working from the same page with the same goal and leaving their ego at the door.

Posted by vwcat | March 2, 2008 2:31 PM

I have a lot of respect for Josh Green, but Hillary's post 9/11 work was catastrophically inept. That $20 billion was pissed down the hole that still festers in Manhattan seven years later.

Posted by some dude | March 2, 2008 3:01 PM

Her Jewish brain trust is being thrashed by the brain trust led by David Axelrod.

Hmm, not sure where that came from... What religion do you think David Axelrod is? (Hint: His name is David Axelrod).

Posted by Alex F | March 2, 2008 3:08 PM

Yeah, because without the brave efforts of Clinton, nobody in government would have thought to send relief money to New York or fund future security upgrades.

Are you frickin' kidding me? A blind man holding a tin cup could have collected 20 Billion for New York after 9/11.

Okay, I exaggerate, but not by much.

Posted by Doug | March 2, 2008 3:27 PM

The reason there was a pregnant pause is because Sen. Clinton has no international crisis experience. Bedroom talks with Bill don't count. Others have already pointed out why 9/11 money to NYC also doesn't count. I'd also like to point out the terrorists who committed the atrocity were not state actors. It wasn't "international", it was crime by foreign nationals.

Really, Marc, you've underdone yourself this time. I realize you've been unhappy since Hillary's coronation procession got derailed, but a mistake is a mistake, and the 3am ad was a big mistake. I'm with others here thinking her campaign staff have performed poorly. Of course, she picked them, but still...

Posted by klr | March 2, 2008 3:55 PM

REAL News - Dick Cheney's NEXT Big Energy MONOPOLY Power RIPOFF:

Obama is the pre-packaged "New & Improved Chocolate Flavor" Presidential candidate PRODUCT - being hyped & PUSHED by GE and its WHOLLY-Owned subsidiaries NBC & MSNBC...along with Westinghouse & its subsidiary CBS...while slamming the Clintons all day every day. (Assisted by...CNN/FOX/ and a lot of newspaper & radio media dependent on advertising$$.)

GE is the 2nd largest corporation on the planet.

Obama is IN with the Nuclear Industry: Excelon Corp of Illinois has been one of his largest contributors from his entry into politics to the present. Excelon is the largest nuke operator on the planet;owns Con-Ed of NY; more nukes in Illinois than any other state.

GE, Westinghouse, Excelon & 3 consortiums of other companies are planning to build 29 new nuclear power plants. Their Wholly-Owned & Wholly Influenced "News" media are selling the Obama Product because Obama is in favor of Nukes.

In 2005 Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill (H.R.6) which ENABLED the nuke industry to make its Plans to build 29 new nukes-by Guaranteeing Taxpayer Payback of any nuke loans that default. (No nukes were built for the past 30 years because the banks wouldn't loan the money - too risky)

Obama Voted FOR the Cheney Energy Bill-despite the fact the Congressional Budget Office rated the risk of default on the nuke loans at 50% or greater. (Does that sound like...GOOD...JUDGMENT to You?)

[NY Times has several articles about the nuke plans & a map showing all 29 locations; Wikipedia covers the subject]

Clinton Voed AGAINST the Cheney Energy Bill and said her Energy Plan does not include nuclear.

? "Its about the FUTURE...Turn The PAGE" ?

Nope. ts about Turning the PAGE BACK to the PAST: Obsloete 50 yr old nuke power plants-the dirtiest most expensive kind/centrally-controlled MONOPOLY POWER-instead of inventing New, Clean, Green De-Centralized inexpensive Energy.

An ad campaign has already begun on the TV media to re-package & re-name nuclear power plants as: GREEN & CLEAN -for-everybody too young to remember the 1970's anti-nuke movement and all the Bad News about nuclear energy.

Don't be taken in by the ad campaigns-Google:'nuclear waste dumps' & read about the hundreds of BILLIONS of gallons of nuke waste at the Hanford Washington dump; 140 tons of plutonium stored at Rocky Flats, Colorado; Barnwell, South Carolina; leaking into groundwater and rivers; plutonium released into the air around Denver from 500 instances of fires at Rocky Flats; stored on-site at every nuke reactor in America...presenting hundreds of potential "dirty bomb" targets for terrorists.

Is it true that Obama takes No Contributions/NO MONEY from Registered Federal Lobbyists?

Yes. It's a LawyerSpeak/Trick of: Speaking a Small truth covering up a Big Lie.

Nope, doesn't take money from REGISTERED FEDERAL Lobbyists.

DOES take money from STATE Lobbyists, Not Registered Lobbyists, AND the wives, husbands, law partners, aunts, uncles cousins...of Registered Federal Lobbyists. Gets money from the same big corporate donors as any other candidate.

Obama's campaign finances are involved in the prosecution (by Patrick Fitzgerald)and trial of his friend of 20 years Antoin Rezko. Some of the funds... allegedly...extorted by Rezko went into Obama's campaign coffers. Curiously, Iraqi Power Plants amd fraud are also involved in Rezko's trial. (Google: Obama -Rezko- Alsammarae-Auichi- IRAQ POWER PLANTS)

GE & the same wealthy people who sold the "new & improved vanilla flavor" Presidential PRODUCTS: Reagan & Bush/s 1 & 2 - are behind the massive ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN to sell you OBAMA.

At the beginning of this campaign season a large majority of voters were looking forward to electing Clinton. Then Obama stepped in and started the dirty campaigning that has created the DIVISION he so hypocritically decries. Obama played "the race card" so he could win in South Carolina. He was caught red-handed playing that race card-but the media blamed it on Clinton-even though they all knew they were pushing the Big Lie.

With nearly ALL "the mainstream media" pimping for Obama & slamming, smearing, and lying about the Clintons-it is truly amazing enough voters have seen thru the Media-Created Obama "movement"-for Clinton to STILL be in the race.

The only way a very small minority can CONTROL a very large Majority is: DIVIDE & CONQUER-Exactly the same Republican Strategy/Deception they have successfully pulled for most of the last century And ALL of this century, so far. . .

GE, the nuke industry/wealthy have hedged their bets & they will get Billions of your money via 29 new nukes IF either Obama or McCain is elected President.

Ladies & Gentlemen, Dads & Moms buy nothing GE & Westinghouse are selling - not Obama, not a washing machine, a dishwasher, 29 nuke power plants, or a garbage disposer .... because there is no garbage disposer for Radioactive Nuke Waste. Do not allow them to poison the earth and your children anymore.

Posted by elme | March 2, 2008 3:56 PM

Jeff:

I'm getting a little bit tired of you claiming - without evidence - that Hillary had no part in her husband's political success from Arkansas Attorney-General to the White House. She was intimately involved in every aspect of his success. She was a chief strategist and advisor for his campaigns, often working along with Dick Morris. In fact, Hillary was often the person who strategized with Morris even more than Bill. Hillary led efforts to reform Arkansas abysmal education system, and was highly effective in doing so (this was one of Bill's chief accomplishments as governor). That role when she, along with James Carville, was chiefly responsible for setting up the rapid-response War Room in the 1992 campaign. And she was central in many policy decisions and debates during the White House years. She wasn't at home baking cookies and having teas.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 4:02 PM

Joshua, you should have stuck with the silence. It was more convincing.

Hint: we're looking for leadership in *foreign policy*. You know, dealing with people who wear funny clothes and don't talk American.

Posted by TedL | March 2, 2008 5:12 PM

Goodness, even Hillary's surrogates are lame brains! But let's give credit to Hillary's campaign: to cite 9/11 funding as an example of crisis response would have been dumber than aything they've come up with so far. And that's saying a lot.

Posted by Miande | March 2, 2008 6:31 PM

Again, something’s happening in the world. It’s 03:00 O’clock in the morning: OMG, another bimbo eruption? No, Bill’s downstairs, I can hear the TV. Mrs. President, it’s one of the Interns, it seems she’s left an article of clothing. Just kidding … it’s the pizza delivery boy … what should I do? You know, for some reason, I’m dressed in full business attire; like I always say, nothing’s too good for the American people. Quick, put him on speaker; click, where the hell are you?

Seriously, all subliminal messages aside, anyone remember how fortunate we were, because the Cold War was over when the Clintons were in the White House? We were very lucky. Hillary Clinton’s Texas ad isn’t fear mongering, it’s ludicrous. Although why any Texan would ever vote for a Clinton is beyond me. Being married to a draft dodger hardly qualifies one as a military expert either. Who do you want answering the phone: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | March 2, 2008 6:36 PM

If Hillary was 'tested' by people writing mean things about her, then in about 20 years we can look forward to a ticket consisting of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, who have probably already been more harshly tested than Hillary. By the time they run, ravaged by age and bad plastic surgery and appearances on low-rated reality shows, they'll be candidates with 'experience' Hillary could only dream of having.

Posted by Jon H | March 2, 2008 6:46 PM

If you think it's easy to get money for NY after 9/11.... just think of New Orleans after Katrina and compare!!!!

Posted by StevenT | March 2, 2008 6:51 PM

" She was intimately involved in every aspect of his success."

Prove it.

And it's not like she could be fired if she screwed up. And if she did screw up, the public wouldn't know about it, because it was all done behind the scenes on the down-low.

But we do know that she didn't have security clearance, and wasn't involved in CIA briefings or other important things related to national security and foreign policy.

Which pretty much means she wouldn't have any experience from the 90's that is relevant to 3am security crisis issues.

Posted by Jon H | March 2, 2008 6:55 PM

StevenT wrote: "If you think it's easy to get money for NY after 9/11.... just think of New Orleans after Katrina and compare!!!!"

a) NY has more ridiculously wealthy people.
b) Wall Street firms were directly affected by 9/11
c) NYC's mayor was Republican
d) 9/11 was defense-related so support of NYC could be seen as defense-related, which gives the GOP stiffies, whereas Katrina was urban poverty, and vague hints of climate change: these two issues are to Republicans what garlic is to a vampire, so it's hardly surprising that it was ignored and swept under the rug asap.
e) Katrina happened after the Iraq war started, so it had to compete against the never-satisfied fiscal maw of war for funding.

The situations are very different.

Posted by Jon H | March 2, 2008 7:07 PM

If you try to look a little bit ahead, past the primaries, you will see that this was a terrible, terrible ad...

If Hillary wins the nominations, McCain will have an absolute field day with all this. "Yeah, good job, lady, you can handle a crisis, because you went to dinner parties with your husband. Let me tell you somthn' about crisis, have you had your arms broken, have you been tortured, have you had your plane shot down? That's crisis, my friend. Keep the rimmed glasses but lose all this "tested in crisis" BS..."
That's a very bad judgement, she's focusing on the battle, not on the war here. It's shoking to see how little perspective she has.
The more she dogs Barrack on "experience", "toughness", "battle-testedness" the more she sets herself for McCain's slaughter in the fall...

Posted by Krassen Dimitrov | March 2, 2008 7:29 PM

The key thing to realize in all of this is to take into account just how easy Hillary Clinton has had it in this campaign. Obama has fought her with one hand tied behind his back. Never once a mention of any Bill Clinton era scandals, not a one. As a result, Hillary Clinton has mostly gotten away with the "I've been vetted," "I'm battle tested," "I can stand up to the Republican attack machine" drivel.

Fact is, she would be steam rollered if nominated. Obama won't touch those issues or other giant negatives for Clinton because his whole strategy is to build a big majority to govern, and to do that, plus to get elected himself, he knows he will need the party behind him.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, burns alliances left and right, because of her ego, vindictiveness, and utter lack of a strategy for governing. She make great plans, but they are always flawed plans because they are detached from any strategy for governing.

Obama has even given her a pass on her incompetence in campaigning, because he is disciplined to achieve bigger objectives.

Clinton's incompetence in this campaign is identical to her incompetence in her 1993 health care fiasco. Last time she helped bring us Newt Gingrich in charge of Congress. Okay, Bill Clinton had a hand in that mess, too. This time she would bring us McCain and god knows who in the House of Reps.

Joe

Posted by joe shmoe | March 2, 2008 7:42 PM

It's good to see national security issues discussed again. However, voters and journalists need to know what the candidates have to say about the economic costs of the national security mistakes of recent years.

http://acropolisreview.com/2008/03/three-trillion-dollar-iraq-war-stiglitz.html

Posted by Tina | March 2, 2008 7:54 PM

Jon H:

Read Carl Bernstein's biography "A Woman In Charge" then we'll have discussion about it. But if you aren't concerned with facts I don't see much reason engaging with you on the point.

Basically you're just advancing the sexist argument that because she was married to Bill she couldn't possibly have made any kind of useful contribution. I guess that means it would foolish to blame Bill for any problems or successes her campaign in facing now, since he "can't be fired" either. Kind of funny though since Obama supporters on this blog routinely either blame Bill for her failures, credit Bill with her successes, or refer to them as one person "Billary."

Funny how "Billary" only counts when it's a negative comment, but if it comes to talking about the achievements of the only successful Democratic President of this generation, suddenly she doesn't count.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 9:07 PM

I'm getting a little bit tired of you claiming - without evidence - that Hillary had no part in her husband's political success from Arkansas Attorney-General to the White House.

Tim, with all due respect, you should probably go ahead and stop reading my comments then. Last thing I want to do is cause you grief, friend.

(Hopefully pretty soon you'll be able to distinguish my comments within the first words, sorta like I can do with Jimmy Kirchick over on The Plank at TNR. "Oh, it's Larson." *scroll down*)

But you're right; she was certainly instrumental in dealing with Bill's Bimbo Eruptions. He probably wouldn't have made it to the presidency without her help there. I also hear she brought peace to Northern Ireland or something. So, I stand corrected.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 2, 2008 9:11 PM

Jeff:

Your snark is really charming. Say whatever you want about Hillary, but so long as there is Hillary-bashing on this blog I promise you there will be some very strong criticism of Barack Obama as well... I don't care if he's the presumptive nominee or not.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 9:15 PM

Tim: Hey, I'm not married to the guy -- have at him.

Believe it or not, up until two or so months ago, I was completely indifferent between Hillary and Barack. Neither was my first or second choice candidate, but I thought they would both be formidable in the general. Hillary and her campaign and (it pains me to say as a once and undoubtedly future huge Bill fan) her husband have done much to disabuse me of that notion.

From the increasing number of the states that do not count, to the Calvinball approach to rules and procedures, to the gross mismanagement of her campaign, to say nothing of comments that I think can be fairly construed as race-baiting -- I've gone from being disappointed to mildly disapproving to being worried about her election prospects to (again, it pains me to say) rooting against her. I don't think this has been good for her reputation as a senator or the Clintons' estimable legacy of the '90s; I think it's becoming bad for the party (and would become dramtically worse if nominated); and if elected, I don't know how good she would be for the country. Look at her campaign; how's she going to manage the federal government?! I have doubts about her -- despite her indeterminate number of years of experience -- that I just don't have about Obama.

I wasn't born as someone who doesn't like Hillary. But I'm not real happy with her right now and she has no one to blame but herself.

Posted by Jeff Larson | March 2, 2008 9:45 PM

I have no comment, other than to say that Tim K is a Big Fat Idiot.

Give it up, Tim.

After Tuesday, the Wicked Witch will be melting, melting, melting.....

Posted by Tim K is a Big Fat Idiot | March 2, 2008 9:46 PM

hillary supporter gloria steinem belittles mccain's pow cred, calls him overrated.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3206775


"McCain was a prisoner of war for around five-and-a-half years, during which time he was tortured repeatedly. Referring to his time in captivity, Steinem said with bewilderment, “I mean, hello? This is supposed to be a qualification to be president? I don’t think so."

Posted by davay | March 2, 2008 9:57 PM

Jeff:

I've observed enough campaigns and have read about enough more to know that losing isn't easy. If you get 51% you're a genius... if you get 49% you're a moron. Right now virtually all of the pundits are panning Clinton's chief strategist Mark Penn. But had Obama not entered the race it is more than likely these same pundits would be lauding him for his winning strategy that knocked out (presumably) John Edwards on Super Tuesday.

Hillary Clinton is a very impressive candidate and she has a very strong team. Howard Wolfson, Mandy Grunwald, Maggie Williams, Harold Ickes are all very talent pols. Obviously so is David Axlerod.

I think the Clinton campaign's mistake was focusing on a general election strategy. They likely saw their main challenges as moving Hillary to the political center, and making sure she was perceived as experienced and strong enough to be Commander-in-Chief. From a general election perspective they were correct. That strategy has been successful: I don't think there are any serious questions amongst objective observers (obviously I don't count a lot of people on this blog in that group) about whether she is tough enough or experienced enough to do the job. Where they miscalculated was underestimating the importance of running as a candidate of change in a year of change, and in failing to fully appreciate the serious challenge Barack Obama posed. I think they had a good opportunity to, in effect, end Obama's candidacy last summer and they passed it up. That was also a fatal error.

As for your tired accusations of race-baiting, I totally reject that. If anyone has played the race card it has been Barack Obama. He wouldn't have gotten as far as he has if he weren't black, and he's been able to turn back legitimate criticisms because he's black.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 10:00 PM

>

This is a racist comment.

The religious background of her "brain trust" - Jewish or otherwise - is not relevant.

Posted by slick | March 2, 2008 10:10 PM

I find this very interesting:

Obama has spent his entire political career trying to win the next step up. Every three years, he has aspired to a more powerful political position.

He was just 35 when in 1996 he won his first bid for political office. Even many of his staunchest supporters, such as Black, still resent the strong-arm tactics Obama employed to win his seat in the Illinois Legislature.

Obama hired fellow Harvard Law alum and election law expert Thomas Johnson to challenge the nominating petitions of four other candidates, including the popular incumbent, Alice Palmer, a liberal activist who had held the seat for several years, according to an April 2007 Chicago Tribune report.

Obama found enough flaws in the petition sheets—to appear on the ballot, candidates needed 757 signatures from registered voters living within the district—to knock off all the other Democratic contenders. He won the seat unopposed.

http://dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/full

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 10:12 PM

sorry, I meant to italicize that whole passage, it's from the article linked to below.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 10:14 PM

Has anyone ever asked exactly how Blair Hull - Obama's main 2004 Senate primary opponent - had his divorce papers unsealed just weeks before the primary? Was it just a coincidence? Or how Jack Ryan's divorce papers came to be unsealed as well in the same year? Or who exactly funded Obama's 2004 senate campaign? Was Tony Rezko involved?

Are all of you Obama supporters familiar that Barack Obama entire legislative record in the Illinois senate took place in 2003 because the leader of Illinois state senate decided he was going to back him? And allowed him to co-sponsor a host of bills he never did the background work on. A lot of questions about Obama's political past have never been answered to any degree of satisfaction.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 10:21 PM

Tim,

Even if the campaign had not made certain mistakes, Hillary had the misfortune to be up against someone LIKABLE. People like Obama more than Hillary. Their political views are very similar - hard to draw a distinction there. Then you add into the mix the history of the Clintons - the scandals and the animosity - and it was just too much for her to overcome. Against boring white guys, like Biden or Dodd, she would have won. But against a fresh-faced, eloquent, charismatic, and likable person - who happens to be black (which scores huge bonus points with the lefties) - she just couldn't compete.

It's not the campaign's fault. Bad timing and baggage more than anything else.

Posted by slick | March 2, 2008 10:21 PM

Will Hillary Clinton continue if she wins either Texas or Ohio?
While Barack Obama is now leading in opinion polls in Texas, he is still behind in Ohio & Rhode Island. If the last 11 contests are anything to go by, Barack tends to close the gap and go past Hillary in the last few days before the primary.

There is a possibility however that Hillary Clinton could win Ohio. The question arises, does she then fold her tent and go home or does she take this as a signal to keep going. The Clintons are known to be fighters, so chances are she will want to continue thus causing ripples in the Democratic party.

It will then be time for Senators, Members of Congress, Al Gore and other Democratic party elders to step forward and endorse Barack Obama to bring this race to an end. The longer this race goes on the more nasty it will get and that can only help McCain in the general election.

However, if Hillary Clinton wins both Texas and Ohio (which is unlikely) then she will have a case to continue.

Posted by Ajaz | March 2, 2008 10:22 PM

Tim, you seem intelligent, however, you are completely missing the point. What Americans are fed up with is dishonesty and disingenousness that comes with all this "positioning". You can't say HRC has a "strong" team, that only made a mistake of "positioning" her to the center for the general. The whole concept of "packaging" and "positioning" a candidate is shot.

Nobody had a better team of "positioners" than Mitt Romney with his cohort of consultants, armed with powerpoints, spreadsheets and focus groups. He had a huge money advantage, too. Why is it that GOP chose instead a broke, cranky old man? The only reason is authenticity. The guy is real and he talks real. People are fed up with BS, they want substance.

Hillary Clinton is a talented woman. Had she started the campaign, being more genuine and more "real" she could have won. The voters are calling all this consultant BS for what it is.

Posted by Krassen Dimitrov | March 2, 2008 10:25 PM

slick:

I don't think I said anything that contradicts what you said there. I agree with you that likability was also a factor. Although I think Democrats are being naive if they neglect to ask themselves why Hillary Clinton has become perceived in such a negative light, and then ask the subsequent question of what is in store for Barack Obama down the road. But that's beside the point.

Krassen:

It's really sweet that people want to see "a different kind of politics." I've got news for you: ain't gonna happen. Politics is a blood sport, and will continue to be so as long as it concerns power. Politics has included negativity, smears, attacks, calculating and disingenuousness in the United States of America since the first presidential election, and before that too.

The fact that Barack Obama has been able to fool people into believing he's going to change Washington is really a testament to his own political skills and that of his team; he's a really talent and ambitious guy, I'll give him that. We're talking about a man who won his first state senate race because he had his four opponents disqualified by challenging their nomination papers.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 10:34 PM

Tim, you said:

As for your tired accusations of race-baiting, I totally reject that. If anyone has played the race card it has been Barack Obama. He wouldn't have gotten as far as he has if he weren't black, and he's been able to turn back legitimate criticisms because he's black.

1) Being black is not playing the race card. Claiming his success stems from his race is.

2) What legitimate criticisms were turned back on account of his blackness?

Posted by Doug | March 2, 2008 10:53 PM

Doug:

Well I don't know if I'd call this a legitimate criticism, but certainly past drug-use has been a problem for other politicians in US politics. Much like marital and personal financial problems have been. When that issue was brought up in the campaign Obama supporters were able to turn back it by implying that it was a racist attack... "crazed black man on drugs."

As for substantive criticisms they were able to distract from Bill Clinton's criticism of his Iraq War position by, again, pushing the story in the media that the "fairy tale" remark referred to a serious black candidacy.

They were able to distract from Hillary Clinton's criticism of his lack of experience and lofty rhetoric by calling her MLK remarks "ill-advised" and, again, implying they were racist.

That's how.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 11:01 PM

Marc,

You are really turning into a parody of yourself.

How can her attempt to secure DOMESTIC AID to NYC after 9/11 be counted as anything like experience in the scenario presented by her commercial--in which, presumably, "something has happened" that requires an immediate FOREIGN POLICY decision.

Nice try, though.

Posted by wj | March 2, 2008 11:26 PM

Tim,

The Clinton campaign didn't just bring up his drug use, they implied that he might have been a drug dealer. Past drug use has indeed been brought up in other political contests. The reason Obama's drug use is known is because he wrote about it and speaks about it. But implying (with zero evidence) that he might have sold drugs was a new wrinkle. Bush was known to have used cocaine in his "young and irresponsible" days, but nobody thought to extrapolate that into implying that he was a dealer. Do you see the difference?

Also, who are you quoting when you say, "crazed black man on drugs?"

I'll grant that there's a strong case that Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment was misconstrued as a broadside against Obama's entire candidacy, but even if you accept that, then the comment was still based upon a knowing distortion of the truth of Obama's war position. Also, I don't see how race comes into this exchange. Unless you believe that the only reason anyone could possibly call Obama's candidacy a fairy tale would be because of his race. People could have other reasons, I think they'd be foolish and woefully mistaken, but they could have other reasons.

And finally, if you don't realize that it's ill advised to minimize MLK's achievements on civil rights, then you don't know American politics. You don't have to be black to take umbrage at that.

Posted by Doug | March 2, 2008 11:31 PM

If you don't think the "Jesse Jackson" comment and the "is he a drug dealer" comment weren't racist, then you probably don't see what the big deal about Kramer's little rant from a couple of years ago was. If you don't see anything racist in these comments, there is something socially mal-adjusted about you. To then claim a black man is playing the race card by being... a black man is just morally disgusting and you should be ashamed of yourself. Sharpton got hit with criticism all of the time despite being black and couldn't even get a majority of black support in the 2004 primary.

Posted by Reality Man | March 2, 2008 11:31 PM

Doug:

What Bill Shaheen was saying, specifically, was that the Republicans might use Barack's past drug-use against him. He was saying that because Obama had revealed this, it left him open to subsequent questions like where did he buy the drugs? Who sold him the drugs? Did he ever sell drugs himself?

Do I think those were smart comments to make? No. Clearly neither did the Clinton campaign since he was forced to resign. Was Bill Shaheen correct that it could come up again in whisper campaigns and viral videos on youtube or even 527 ads? Yes.

I don't concede that what Bill Clinton said was a distortion of Barack Obama's war record at all. Obama made a speech against the war in 2002, but he was unsure about how he would have voted by 2004 in media statements and even as late as 2006 in his book 'The Audacity of Hope.' He promised to vote to cut off funding when running for the Senate then flip-flopped. Then when he came to the Senate he voted exactly like Senator Clinton. That's the record.

As for the MLK comments, they were historically accurate. They were not minimizing MLK's achievements. They were just saying he didn't do it all by himself, and that change happens as a combination of activism at the grassroots and political decisions within institutions. I have no doubt MLK would agree were he alive today. If blacks are that thin-skinned and defensive about that topic that's their problem, not the problem of people who want to talk about history as it really happened, rather than how some people would like to remember it. People who know the Clinton's know they don't have racist bones in their bodies.

Reality Man:

If you just going to call me racist and socially mal-adjusted I won't dignify your comments with a response at all.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 11:48 PM

Tim,

First of all, I'm not claiming that the Clintons are racist. However I do think that they will use any tool at hand to win an election, and worry about the morality of it later. If that means they have to try to minimize Obama's success by pretending it's merely a function of his race, then that's what they'll do.

As for Shaheen's comments. I know the context he was speaking in. His point seems to be, "I'm not saying he's a drug dealer, but SOME people will say it." Again, based upon zero evidence. The whole dealer thing seemed to be invented out of whole cloth. It's like me saying, "I'm not saying that Tim beats his wife, but SOME people would say such a thing as they continue to argue with him."

My answer to all of that is...so what? Some people think the Clinton's murdered Vince Foster. That would also come up in a general election if Hillary were the nominee, and it would be just as ridiculous. Some people think crazy things.

But we've gotten away from your original point, which is that Obama has played the race card more than the Clintons have. Do you still stand by that? And why do you think that Obama wouldn't have gotten as far as he has if he wasn't black? And how can you hold those two thoughts in your head at the same time?

Honestly, I think Obama has been a model of restraint on this issue, especially when you compare him to Clinton's constant playing of the gender card.

On Iraq, claiming that supporting ongoing war funding is a flip-flop from opposing starting the war in the first place is comparing apples and oranges. You can't unring a bell. Once we had soldiers on the ground in Iraq, they needed funds.

And as for the MLK comment, it was indeed historically accurate, but currently irrelevant. Because in the 60's MLK needed a sympathetic president to get things done. But if he were alive today he could just run for office himself. All that aside, it was still ill advised. Again, politics. And it's not just blacks that are "thin-skinned" (your phrase) about minimizing Dr. King's impact. I'm a white guy and you're talking about my very first hero. There's a reason people hold him up as a hero, whereas nobody I know does the same for LBJ. The reason was that he inspired others be better people. You know, things that Clinton supporters see as merely "lofty rhetoric."

I'd love to keep at this, but I have to go to sleep now. So you get the final word.

Posted by Doug | March 3, 2008 12:27 AM

Some people think the Clinton's murdered Vince Foster. That would also come up in a general election if Hillary were the nominee, and it would be just as ridiculous. Some people think crazy things.

I don't even know what to say to that. It's disgusting that you would even bring that up at all, especially with weazel phrase like "some people think crazy talk." Yes, everyone with a brain thinks its crazy talk.

Barack Obama admitted to snorting cocaine. Do I think that matters? No. But it wasn't like it was made up out of whole cloth.

The reason I say that Barack Obama would not have achieved this level of success were he not black is because his blackness is the thing that distinguishes him from other elected officials at the national level. It certainly isn't his position that distinguishes him. It certainly isn't his record that distinguishes him. He wasn't very well known. He never did anything particularly unique. It's not as if he's only person who can deliver an inspiring speech. It's not as if he's a uniquely brilliant intellectual, or has especially innovative policy proposals. What distinguishes him is the package of being black, and also being credible, which is to say politically talented, articulate, and clearly intelligent. Joe Biden said as much early last year and was panned for telling the truth.

His campaign played the race card just as I described by distorting his opponents words in order to garner sympathy. It was also a need way to help galvanize the black vote without actually having to say or do anything that would merit it. We saw another example of it when they accused the Clinton campaign of releasing that turban photo last week without any shred of evidence beyond Matt Drugdge's say so.

I wasn't calling voting to fund the war after opposing the war a flip-flop. I was calling voting to fun the war after promising to vote to de-fund the war a flip-flop. Please read more carefully next time.

Interesting you would bring up that Martin Luther King is a personal hero of yours. So you have something in common with Hillary Clinton. She was a great admirer of his at the time. Although, it's fair to say that unlike you she has a record of of decades to back it up with action. Great metaphor for the whole campaign, really.

Rhetoric is nice, but actions matter more. JFK has been deified because of his assassination, but LBJ was able to accomplish a lot more.

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

Apparently, it's Barack Obama's fault for playing the race card, and for interpreting the comments of Shaheen, Bob Johnson, Bill Clinton as such.
Apparently, it's the media's fault for failing to "vet" Obama, and instead drooling over the huge rallies he garners.
Apparently, it's Mark Penn's fault for framing her as inevitable, and then pivoting to an "insult 40 states" strategy.
Apparently, it's the fault of overzealous staffers for sending out e-mails lying about Obama's relgious faith, or for Bob Kerrey for incorrectly identifying Obama's early schooling as a "madrassa."
Apparently, it's Solis-Doyle's fault for burning through alot of her warchest in the early states so they couldn't do Super Tuesday right.
Apparently, it's the fault of the caucus structure that prevents her base from participating.
Apparently, it's the fault of Tim Russert for forcing her to answer questions first, when it was noted that she took the initiative on "jumpball" questions, and had led off in 9 of the last 16 debates.

Let me know when HRC takes any responsibility for any of this campaign. I started out as open to an HRC presidency (as I had voted Clinton twice in the 90s), but am resigned to believe that if she does assume the presidency, we'l have at least 4 more years of the "blame game."

Posted by macarthur31 | March 3, 2008 9:02 AM

"If you just going to call me racist and socially mal-adjusted I won't dignify your comments with a response at all.

Posted by Tim K | March 2, 2008 11:48 PM"

Then why do you fail to "denounce and reject" Bill's and her surrogates' racist comments, refuse to actually realize what race-baiting is and can't get over the fact that Obama is black and keep on going "you guys only like him cuz he's black!" You know, I have enough black friends who hate that whenever they get chosen for anything or do well on anything on merit, people start yelling that to know implicit racism when I see it. The only person who seems to care that he's black is you. Maybe some self-examination is in order, but I doubt you are emotionally mature and self-aware enough for that.

You also seem to just want attention, which suggests arrested development.

Posted by Reality Man | March 3, 2008 9:41 AM

"They were not minimizing MLK's achievements. They were just saying he didn't do it all by himself, and that change happens as a combination of activism at the grassroots and political decisions within institutions."

The implicit context was that the black man's place is to do the talking, and let the white politicians make the change.

Posted by Jon H | March 3, 2008 10:05 AM

The first crisis that came to mind when I thought about Hillary was actually "Monica Lewinsky."

Posted by Jayhawk Max | March 3, 2008 10:20 AM

I might point out that the other person to run on 9/11 dropped out of the race quite awhile ago.

Hillary's response to 9/11 was to vote to invade Iraq -- a country that had nothing to do with it. If we were not currently spending billions in Iraq, we could have rebuilt WTC by now. Heck, at the rate we are blowing money in Iraq we could have rebuilt the things in solid gold!

Posted by George | March 3, 2008 3:36 PM

Maybe I'm being too literal on this, but getting money AFTER 9/11 for New York did not require a 3 a.m. phone call.

The question was "what foreign policy crisis" tested her. (And in particular I think the question must be framed around her self-proclaimed White House "experience.")

We have a crisis in Darfur -- genocide -- that has been going on for quite sometime now. In January of 1994 the Clinton White House received some disturbing news about an increase in the manufacture and purchase of farm implements like machetes in Rwanda. There were cables sent from Kigali, Rwanda to the NSA, from the UN to the US State Department, persons in the White House, from the President on down were briefed.

The State department was told by the White House that Rwanda was not an issue, take it off the radar. In April, the killing began. The United Nations pressed for US assistance -- if not troops, at least lend us some cargo aircraft so we can airlift supplies. The US refused. (No compelling strategic interests in the region.)

One hundred days later, 800,000 were slaughtered(by most estimates). The Clinton White House claimed, "they didn't know." (Sounds a lot like the Bush administration.)

Seems to me, Hillary had a chance -- 100 days worth of chances -- if she was so influential (the "face of foreign policy" she tells us) to press a case to make a difference, to save almost 1 million lives.

Based on all that I can find, she did nothing. If someone at Hotel Rwanda called Hillary for help, the phone is still ringing and ringing and ringing and ringing and ringing and ringing and ringing. Sadly, what they were trying to tell her was that, "We Regret to Inform You That Tomorrow We and Our Families Will Be Killed." (The title of Philip Gourevitch's excellent book on the subject.)

She had a "red phone" moment. She had 100 days to make a difference. 800,000 are dead.

The Clintons went to Kigali in 1998 and gave Rwandans a plaque and lame apology. They said, "never again" back then. Today, we have Darfur. "Never again" is now.

I don't trust Hillary Clinton to rise to the occasion to halt this crisis. I need only look at her past performance -- and the key people who now vouch for her "experience" -- to know she will be toungue-tied and dumbstruck when she picks up the phone.

Posted by Jade7243 Hussein | March 3, 2008 7:44 PM

un jam shqiptar

Posted by albi | March 10, 2008 8:08 PM

hey

Posted by belal | April 17, 2008 2:34 PM

hey

Posted by belal | April 17, 2008 2:34 PM