Notice: Undefined variable: galink_author_id in /home/premiumh/domains/northcoastblog.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/google-author-link/google-author-link.php on line 114

Tag: President 2008 (Page 15 of 31)

New heights of idiocy

Kos nails it.

My memory is hazy. Was the Dean campaign as pathetic during its “implosion” stage as the Clinton campaign has behaved the last week or two?

I’m trying to figure out if this is normal behavior for a desperate campaign or if the Clintons are reaching new heights of idiocy.

Read the comments to this post. Readers are having a fun time finding Hillary quotes where she is lifting campaign slogans from Obama and even lines from John Edwards. It’s hilarious.

This is the same campaign that tried to criticize Obama for something he allegedly said when he was in kintergarden.

Clinton steals Obama’s rhetoric

Barack Obama responds to the idiotic plagiarism claim by the Clinton campaign.

“He has occasionally used lines of mine. I have occasionally used some words of his. I know Sen. Clinton has used words of mine as well. I don’t think that is something that workers here are concerned about,” he said, adding that “I’m sure I should have” given credit to Patrick.

There’s the rub. She’s stealing lines from him, especially the whole “change” argument.

God help us if she gets the nomination.

Lamest campaign ever . . .

The Clinton campaign is getting very desperate. Their latest attack on Obama is that he is plagiarizing Duvall Patrick’s speeches, even though Patrick is a friend of Obama and claims that they regularly exchange ideas on speeches. Patrick does not believe he is owed any citation.

Further, Clinton’s attack dog, Howard Wolfson, would not claim that Clinton had never done something like this, claiming that rhetoric isn’t as important to her campaign.

Let’s see – they’re attacking Obama because he gives a nice speech and he won’t debate her in Wisconsin even though they’ve had 18 debates and 2 more are scheduled.

This is the Bush/Rove/Dick Morris strategy – treat the voters like they’re complete idiots. Of course, this crap has worked in the past. Will this year be any different?

Hillary’s “results”

Dick Morris slams Hillary’s claim that she has delivered “solutions.”

As a first lady, Hillary’s sole important legislative involvement came during the first two years of her husband’s presidency when she sought to pass her ill-conceived health care reform, an effort that failed so miserably that it cost her party control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years. Between 1995 to 1997, she was largely absent from the White House, traveling the world, promoting her best selling book and helping to raise funds. She never attended strategy meetings and her only intervention in the singular legislative achievements of Bill’s administration — welfare reform and the balanced budget deal — was privately to urge a veto of the former and to oppose the latter because it provided for a cut in the capital gains tax. Hillary returned to the White House in 1998 to oversee the defense to the Lewinsky scandal and the impeachment attempt, but the Clinton administration essentially folded its legislative efforts during those years and hung on for dear life. No portfolio of accomplishments there.

In the Senate, she has largely spent her time raising funds for herself and other Democrats (in hopes of attracting the votes of super delegates) and promoting her best selling memoir Living History. In part because of a lack of attention and also because of the Democrats’ minority status during much of her Senate tenure, she has passed very, very little of note.

Her legislative accomplishments in her first term in the Senate were almost entirely symbolic. She renamed a courthouse after Justice Thurgood Marshall. She passed a resolution honoring Alexander Hamilton and another celebrating the win of a Syracuse University lacrosse team. She renamed post offices, founded a national park in Puerto Rico and expressed the sense of the Senate that Harriet Tubman should have gotten a federal pension 150 years ago.

Her only actual legislation included one bill to increase nurse recruitment, another to aid respite time for Alzheimer’s care givers and another to expand veterans’ health benefits, a paltry output for six years’ service.

In her second term, she has spent full-time campaigning for president and has the worst attendance record of the three senators now still in the presidential race.

So who is she kidding? If she wants to hit Obama with a negative based on his inexperience and limited legislative record, she should go right ahead. But to pretend that she is the “solutions” and “answers” person while he gives speeches is absurd.

The press has really dropped the ball here. As Morris points out, Hillary was opposed to Welfare Reform and the Balanced Budget. Al Gore and Robert Rubin were instrumental in these achievements, but Hillary was a roadblock. Coupled with here disastrous health care plan, it’s ridiculous for her to claim her husband’s achievements as her own. In this sense she has gotten a pass from the press.

Cacoon of political ridiculousness

That’s the description of the Clinton campaign from a brilliant post by Josh Marshall. Josh has been nuetral in the battle between Obama and Clinton, and his opinion carries significant weight in the liberal blogoshpere.

The Clinton camp’s super delegate gambit is not only audacious. Far more than that it is simply unrealistic. The super delegates who are gettable for Clinton by loyalty, conviction or coercion are already got. And enough’s been seen of both candidates for everyone to be more than acquainted with them. The ones who remain — who make up roughly half the total — are waiting to see who the winner is.

The truth is that there are over 1000 elected delegates remaining to be won. We really don’t know what’s going to happen yet. But if the trend continues and Obama ends the primary season with a clear majority of elected delegates, the idea that those remaining super delegates will break for the candidate who won fewer delegates, raised less money and is polling worse against the Republican nominee simply makes no sense. I’m not saying that’s how it will be. But if Clinton starts winning big primaries in Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania and other states, then the whole question is moot.

But this is like the unreality that seems more and more to suffuse the Clinton campaign. I don’t mean the candidate or her policies or the premises of her candidacy. I mean the cocoon of political ridiculousness that has increasingly permeated her campaign apparatus since early January.

You’ve seen my continuous barbs at Mark Penn, Clinton’s ‘chief strategist’. The last couple days have shown very clearly I think that Clinton could do nothing better for her campaign than to throttle this clown and let her get down to the business of making a case to voters for her candidacy. Perhaps good spin is an oxymoron, moral if not linguistic. But good spin is clever and forward-leaning pitches of actual realities, facts. The word in the sense we use it today actually came into being in the early 90s and to a great degree around the ’92 Clinton campaign, which had such mastery in its practice. But this Clinton campaign has been doing it in a weird parody mode. Not sharp ‘spins’ on favorable realities, but aggressive pitches of complete nonsense. So now you have Penn successively saying caucus wins don’t really count, small state wins don’t really count, medium state wins don’t really count, states with large African-American populations don’t really count, all building up to yesterday’s gem: “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states — outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Sen. Obama.”

People are growing tired of the Clinton spin machine. That’s one of the reasons she is losing.

« Older posts Newer posts »

© 2023 NorthCoastBlog.com

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑