Why I support Senator Hillary Clinton for President
guest column

By Josh Kardon of Portland, Oregon. Josh is the chair of the Oregon Steering Committee for Hillary Clinton for President. [Editor's note: Josh is also Senator Ron Wyden's chief-of-staff, though Senator Wyden has not endorsed any candidate for President.]

I was working as a Legislative Director on the Hill when I first met Hillary Clinton in 1993. She was making the rounds with members of Congress to discuss health care reform and stopped in to visit with Rep. Ron Wyden, then a young, health care hot-shot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I sat in on the meeting despite my utter lack of knowledge on the subject. What struck me immediately about her was her near-constant eye contact and the barely-perceptible nodding of her head. It took me awhile to put my finger on it, but eventually it came to me -- she was listening! It was the last thing I had expected from a First Lady, particularly given most of my experiences up to that time, and since then, with those at the top rungs of power in Washington, D.C.

The Clinton health reform effort obviously fell short, but she sure fought like hell for it. As a result of her experience on that campaign, I would wager that no candidate for President before or since knows more about what it takes to actually deliver on fundamental change than Hillary Clinton. The challenges faced by our next President are obviously daunting. More people face financial and health insecurity today than at any time since the end of the second world war, opportunities to attain middle class status have declined alarmingly under President Bush, and remaining in the middle class has never been more challenging due to ever-shrinking wages and the risk of catastrophic illness (the number one cause of bankruptcy in America). And, of course, our standing in the world is an unfathomable nightmare to such a degree that many Americans wonder if the damage will be repaired in our lifetimes. Each of these challenges will require someone with an extraordinary capacity to listen, someone intellectually top-shelf, someone who understands the multiple layers of government, policy, politics, media and how they interact. Someone who is progressive and inherently empathetic. That person is Senator Hillary Clinton.

I believe very strongly that if we have learned anything from the wreckage of the past seven years, it ought to be this: no matter whom we elect President, whether it is a Democrat or a Republican, that person ought to be the best prepared for this unbelievably demanding and complex job. The nation knew George W. Bush was intellectually lazy and painfully inarticulate, but took a flier on the guy. Didn’t work out so good. That, by far, the best prepared person for the job this time happens to be a brilliant, progressive woman -- and a great listener -- cinched the deal for me.

For decades I had sat with friends, usually over beers, and played the “which woman is ready to run for President?” game. Diane Feinstein, Pat Schroeder, my former boss Barbara Boxer, Geraldine Ferraro, Ann Richards: there was always an allegedly disqualifying objection that kept them from even approaching the starting gate. Now, for the first time in my life, I could say, without qualification, that a phenomenal woman was by far the best prepared person for the job. As a father of two daughters, I couldn’t in good conscience turn away from this great woman and this historic opportunity.

I don’t know Senator Obama and regret that I didn’t get to work around him before I moved to Oregon. He is a phenomenal talent. One old friend of mine is his Chief of Staff and another is his media consultant, and if Senator Obama wins the nomination, I will bust my hump to get him elected (and salvage my friendships).

I did get the opportunity to observe Senator Clinton up close in D.C., however. She was quietly and powerfully effective, and charmed friends and Republicans alike with her surprisingly modest ego, as evidenced by her still-extraordinary listening skills. There is typically very little listening to one another on the floor of the House or the Senate, but plenty of talking at each other. Hillary could have played that game, and it would have put her on front pages across the country from Day 1. But instead she put her head down and went to work. She listened, fought for good, progressive economic and environmental policy, and became an exceptionally popular figure in New York and the Senate, even among her former detractors. I know she will do the same as our next President.

I want to strongly encourage all who want to help Hillary become our next President to e-mail us at OR4Hillary@gmail.com or join the “Oregon Stands with Hillary” group on Facebook.

March 5, 2008 | guest column | Comments (219 so far)
Permalink: Why I support Senator Hillary Clinton for President

Share on Facebook

Sponsored Advertising

Comments

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 5, 2008 10:42:49 AM

What struck me immediately about her was her near-constant eye contact and the barely-perceptible nodding of her head. It took me awhile to put my finger on it, but eventually it came to me -- she was listening!

Every report I have read about Hillary's health care debacle in 1993 suggests a primary cause was that Hillary didn't listen. What Josh may have considered listening might more likely have been a case of sizing up Ron Wyden.

I can understand why Democrats might stick with Hillary in the general election if she is the nominee, but I wouldn't bet on many independents switching from Obama to Hillary.

Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 10:44:05 AM

Excellent. Nice to hear from someone who's worked closely with the Senator.

Posted by: Randle McMurphy | Mar 5, 2008 10:44:54 AM

Josh Kardon for President.

Posted by: genop | Mar 5, 2008 10:51:33 AM

It's nice to see you're open to either Dem in the general election and will work for that person. Thanks for your personal insight.

Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Mar 5, 2008 10:52:51 AM

How could we ever entrust as President someone who had the poor judgment to vote to invade Iraq, without even bothering to read the National Intelligence Estimate? When it counted, she showed she would rather play politics rather than do the right thing and is not someone to be trusted with our votes.

Posted by: Billy | Mar 5, 2008 10:58:14 AM

Clinton's chief strategist is Mark Penn

Charlie Black, John McCain's top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, the DC-based lobbying subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller -- of which Mark Penn is CEO.

Tells you a lot about Clinton when her top advisor's company also advises the Republican nominee.

Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 5, 2008 11:05:16 AM

As a result of her experience on that campaign, I would wager that no candidate for President before or since knows more about what it takes to actually deliver on fundamental change than Hillary Clinton.

That's like saying no team understands more about what it takes to win the Super Bowl than the Arizona Cardinals...how does failing to deliver ANY change, give you the knowledge on how to deliver it?

I see no evidence that Clinton has any desire to effect change in the political system that so badly burdens us. She doesn't have a problem with K Street, she doesn't have any interest in building the party beyond a narrowly defined base of "her" Democrats, and she is far too entrenched in the current power centers to attempt to buck them.

And I have to ask you, Josh--do you believe as Clinton does that McCain is better equipped to be President than Barack Obama?

Posted by: Evan Manvel | Mar 5, 2008 11:06:41 AM

Excellent piece, Josh.

Since Obama's been in the Senate, don't Clinton and Obama have identical voting records on Iraq?

And everyone in politics associates themselves with people who are linked to some people. I don't think it was fair when people were harping on Obama's connections to certain undesirable donors, nor do I think Clinton's connections to Penn are telling.

And I don't think Clinton's efforts on health care died because she failed to listen -- my read is that she didn't capitulate to certain interests, who then torpedoed her with misinformation to the voters.

That said, I think Obama does better things for the ticket, as well as being more electable, and despite Clinton's impressive skills (I think she'd be the most competent president of the three), I'm backing Obama.

Posted by: torridjoe | Mar 5, 2008 11:15:32 AM

I don't think it was fair when people were harping on Obama's connections to certain undesirable donors, nor do I think Clinton's connections to Penn are telling.

Penn's not a disconnected donor; he's the architect of Clinton's campaign! Not at all the same.

Posted by: BCM | Mar 5, 2008 11:31:42 AM

...the best prepared person for the job this time happens to be a brilliant, progressive woman -- and a great listener -- cinched the deal for me.

The experience argument is a loser, no matter how you spin it. Sen McCain has more 'experience' than Sens Clinton and Obama combined. She's only been in the Senate since 2000, and if we include a tangential role in the (Bill) Clinton administration that's 1992. In 1992, Sen McCain had already been in Congress for 11 years -- in addition to 26 years in the Navy.

Judgment, not experience, is the Democrats only of of muting John McCain's sizable experience advantage.

Posted by: Josh Kardon | Mar 5, 2008 11:35:13 AM

Mathew, I understand your frustration with her vote on Iraq, but I don't believe for one second that Hillary Clinton would have taken this country into war with Iraq. We will never know if Sen. Obama would have voted for that resolution had he been in the Senate at the time like Sens. Edwards and Clinton.

Billy, think what you want about Mark Penn, but you are being irresponsible when you infer that Penn has anything to do with advising the McCain presidential campaign. Obama's media consultant, GMMB, was purchased by Fleishman-Hillard which is now a subsidiary of Omnicom which owns right-wing lobby shops that support McCain. It would be equally ludicrous to accuse GMMB of advising McCain.

Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 5, 2008 11:40:30 AM

Hillary's lifetime of experience canard is not based in reality.

Laura Bush is one senate term away from having as much "experience" as Hillary.

Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 11:44:05 AM

The experience argument is not at all "a loser." The difference between McCain's experience and Clinton's experience is that she is a Democrat and good on the issues.
Nobody's saying that her experience is the only thing she has going for her.

Posted by: Peter Bray | Mar 5, 2008 11:44:39 AM

Yes, Hillary just sat and made cookies while Bill was in office.

Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 5, 2008 11:46:11 AM

facts suck, huh, peter!

Posted by: Peter Bray | Mar 5, 2008 11:48:11 AM

In terms of electability, Clinton is the clear winner in a general election.

Take a look at last night's spread in Ohio. Now ask yourself, do you think that Obama can win Ohio in a general? Do you think that Obama can win Florida and New Mexico, both with sizable Latino populations, in a general? Do you think that Obama can win Nevada in a general?

No, he can't. And those are the pivotal swing states that matter. Without OH, FL, NM... well, it's difficult for him to put together a winning strategy.

Obama wilted like a plucked daisy after a week of modest "attacks" by Clinton. (And by "attack" I mean a commercial, the red phone one, that made zero explicit reference to Obama.)

He would get absolutely creamed in a general election.

Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 5, 2008 11:52:37 AM

He would get absolutely creamed in a general election.

hey Peter, how many moons on the planet where you live? "cause it sure as hell ain't this one.

Posted by: Jonathan | Mar 5, 2008 12:17:32 PM

Neither candidate will lose to McCain. I think one of the major issues in the campaign, is really a question of political strategy. Obama is the heir to Howard Dean's campaign and reflects a faith in the idea that change happens from the bottom and then goes up. Also a reflection of his experience as a community organizer. His campaign his based on bringing in new voters, harnessing the internet and new media to bring in small donors and build a grassroots network. Hilary's campaign is one of a partisan fighter and she sees change happening from the top down. For Clinton, bringing out the base is what wins election, including micro-targeting sub-groups. This is Karl Roves strategy and has proven effective. Clinton has worked hard to build a network of large donors while Obama is building a network of small donors. The real debate is over which political strategy will be most effective in winning back the Presidency, building the democratic majorities in Congress, and strengthening the party across the country. I tend to alternate between the two at times, but end up in the Obama camp in the end because I believe Obama's strategy will leave the party stronger after each election cycle.

I don't think it should be forgotten that Obama was 20 points down in both Ohio and Texas just two weeks ago. Obama ran a great campaign but I think both candidates have run into a wall now. I think nationally both candidates have a ceiling of support around 48% and this will continue throughout the primaries. Neither will pick up or lose substantial support from that range. The only thing that happens in each election is one beats the medias expectations going into the primary and then is considered to have won. The national polls will continue to oscillate between each candidate having approximately 45% of the national support. That is why Hilary's failure to build organizations in the 11 states following Super Tuesday was such a strategic blunder, because there will be little opportunity for either candidate to change the dynamic in the last primaries. The election will therefore come down to Super delegates and the debate over FL and MI.

I just can't wait until we celebrate victories across the board in November from the Presidential race, to the defeat of Gordon Smith, to getting a new Democratic House Rep. from Or. 5. That will be a great day.

Last comment. I don't understand why independents and some democrats say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee. Both Clinton and Obama have pretty much the same policy goals for this country, and these policies are substantially different from McCain. Do people really vote that much just on whether they think a candidate appears more likable on TV?

Posted by: Erin White | Mar 5, 2008 12:17:46 PM

I frequently view this blog but rarely post. While I have enjoyed this primary process, I can't help but feel anxious as the campaigns head to Pennsylvania.

In the lead up to the March 4th primaries, both candidates I think went negative. I'm afraid that Democrats are so busy bashing each other, we have lost sight of the real opponent-- John McCain.

While our candidates are beating each other up about NAFTA and universal health care, John McCain is uniting the Republican party against all the issues Democrats really care about. McCain can just sit back right now, amass his war chest and allow Clinton and Obama to do the mudslinging for him.

We need to begin focusing our arguements against the Republican nominee. I don't know if anyone else caught it this morning, but Peter DeFazio argued as much on today's KPOJ. In case you missed it he said (I'm paraphrasing) that the candidates shouldn't focus on tearing each other apart, but on who can build the best campaign to take on John McCain. We need our candidates to focus on developing a message that sticks with voters and can withstand the Republican spinmasters. I think Peter's comments were spot on.

I hope that the negative attacks can give way to productive conversation about the strength of a Democratic nominee to take on McCain, both in the campaigns and in the comments of bloggers.

Posted by: John Forbes | Mar 5, 2008 12:23:31 PM

There was an article in The New Yorker last year taking about how dictatorial and menacing the Hill. was during the Healthcare fiasco. Several Senators recalled how she basically threatened retaliation against anyone who didn’t fully support the Clinton plan. Bill Bradley said he pretty much wrote Hillary off after that.

In a more recent article, I think in Newsweek, some D members of congress at the time recalled how Hillary and her team pressured them to publicly attack TN US Rep Jim Cooper for offering a rival plan. Cooper was the D nominee for Senate against Fred Thompson.

Josh, you must have had your beer goggles on, because you saw a different person than did many others.


Posted by: nic | Mar 5, 2008 12:25:00 PM

Peter Bray please come back to planet earth. Evan Manvel welcome back to planet earth.

Posted by: anon | Mar 5, 2008 12:25:46 PM

I will never support Hillary.

Hillary will the destroy the Democratic party for her own personal ambition.

She will not be the nominee. And she will have no regrets about taking us all down with her.

What's on Hillary's agenda for this week? More of the same? Endorsing John McCain for president, calling Obama a drug user and a slum lord, and not a Muslim "as far as she knows", running ads that make Obama look blacker, whining about first questions and media bias, demanding the rules be changed for MI and FL, threatening lawsuits against caucus procedures left and right?

WOW - now that is a campaign to be proud of! Nice work, Josh.

Posted by: paul g. | Mar 5, 2008 12:27:57 PM

Yeah, Pat, facts suck don't they. This, by the way, from an Obama supporter. Why do you feel it necessary to so badly distort someone's record: Laura Bush is one senate term away from having as much "experience" as Hillary

Clinton:
Wellesley BA, Yale JD
Worked for Marian Wright Edelman out of college.
Interned for a law firm involved in child custody cases in Berkeley.
Worked on the George McGovern campaign.
Published articles on child custody in the Harvard Educational Review.
Staff attorney for the Childrens Defense Fund.
Member of the Watergate impeachment staff.
Passed the DC and Arkansas bar exams.
Served on the faculty of the University of Arkansas.
Xontinued to work and publish on child's advocacy issues after she married Bill Clinton.
Served on the national board of the Legal Services Corporation.
Since 1978, when Clinton was elected to the governorship, she's pretty much been his wife / political partner.
Oh, and most agree she essentially headed up (for better or worse) the health care task force in 1993.

Now Laura Bush. What are her credentials other than being George Bush's wife?

BS from SMU.
School teacher for three years.
Library science degree at UT Austin.
Elementary school librarian for the next three years.
Married Bush in 1977 and after that, volunteered for the junior league and the PTA.

Seriously. Can't make this stuff up.

You're right, Pat. Other than the Senate term, I really see no difference between the two. Thanks for straightening that out.

Posted by: anon | Mar 5, 2008 12:28:43 PM

Josh,

If you help Hillary hand the White House to McCain in November, your political career is over, I would think. It should be.

Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 12:29:47 PM

anon, I can tell you what's on Obama's agenda today - his campaign is now asking the press "what is Hillary hiding?"
Huh, seems like he's not as clean as you would like us to believe when it comes to campaigning.
I'm curious how you see this campaign as "her own personal ambition." What of Obama's ambition?
And what the heck is wrong with either of them having ambition?

Posted by: Matthew Sutton | Mar 5, 2008 12:36:12 PM

JK, you should really read the "Hillary's War" NY Times Magazine article I linked on my comment. Not only did she vote to authorize the war and fail to read the NIE, she also voted against the amendment that would have required further diplomacy, and used the "stay the course" and other Bush Cheney pro war slogans for years before shifting her position against the war.

In all cases she acted for political purposes, and showed the same warlike tendencies as the current White House occupant in hopes of advancing her career.

I have two kids JK, both boys. Do you really think I am going to vote to install another president who wants to play politics with war in a world that is already experiencing too much strife? It ain't going to happen.

I'm holding my tongue a bit here and am trying to be as polite as possible, but I hope you get my point.

Posted by: Bill Bodden | Mar 5, 2008 12:37:32 PM

Mathew, I understand your frustration with her vote on Iraq, but I don't believe for one second that Hillary Clinton would have taken this country into war with Iraq. We will never know if Sen. Obama would have voted for that resolution had he been in the Senate at the time like Sens. Edwards and Clinton.

JK (presumably Josh Kardon): You can believe what you want about Hillary taking this country to war on Iraq, but many others are quite willing to believe if going to war was politically expedient for her she would have done so. After all, she voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment that rattled some sabers against Iran suggesting a willingness to expand this monumental disaster beyond Iraq.

Now let's discuss some points about Hillary's (and McCain's) vote to go to war that other Hillary supporters have repeatedly failed to answer.

First of all, there was an abundance of evidence that the Bush scenario for war on Iraq was full of holes. Millions of people around the world didn't buy it as did approximately a quarter of senators (including Sen. Wyden) and representatives in Congress and about a fourth of the American people. Were you also ill-informed or sufficiently naive in 2002 to believe the crap the Bush Administration put out? Every attempt Hillary has made to explain away her vote has been shredded and has suggested a contempt for the intelligence the people. Her contempt for the intelligence of people was justified in some but not in all cases.

Second: Hillary and all those in Congress who signed Bush's blank check to go to war reneged on their oaths to defend the Constitution by transferring authority to go to war from Congress to the president. This indicates at least indifference to, if not contempt for, the Constitution. Senator Byrd gave senators a lecture on their responsibilities to the Constitution and told them they would not be living up to their obligation if they voted for the AUMF. How do you feel about this treatment of the Constitution? What value would you place on the word of a senator who reneges on such an important oath?

In the same vein, voting for this war violated the U.N. Charter and Geneva Conventions, so essentially what Hillary and all the others were saying was they didn't care about international agreements to which the United States is a signatory. Do you agree with them?

Third: This war has cost hundreds of thousands of people their lives and well being. Make that millions if you add the refugees that have had to flee from their homes in Iraq for one reason or another. That all adds up to a crime against humanity. The eventual cost for this war is estimated to reach as much as three trillion dollars while our national infrastructure is in decline and tens of millions of people are living in poverty and without health insurance. And the instability created in the Middle East has helped gasoline prices rise from less than two bucks a gallon to over three on their way to four. This is all damaging to our economy.

When Bill Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, was asked about the half million children who died because of sanctions on Iraq, she said, "We thought it was worth it." "We," presumably, included Bill and Hillary. Would you agree that it was worth it and this war will be worth it?

Fourth: You say that if Obama had been in the senate he might have voted for the war. That is a lame attempt at spin. When Senator Wyden visited Central Oregon in 2002 he gave the impression that he was leaning towards voting for the AUMF, but he changed his mind, presumably, after getting an ear-full from constituents. If he voted "No" after leaning "Yea" why do you think Obama, who was already opposed to the war, might have changed and voted for it?

Posted by: Pat Malach | Mar 5, 2008 12:41:36 PM

You're confused, Paul.

Hillary's lifetime of experience claim in the context to which I was referring (and in the context where she placed OBAMA behind Mccain) regards national security. None of the resume items you so painstakingly listed adds up to a lifetime of national security experience. It's a lie; -- a lie that you fell for.

Laura Bush is one Senate term away from having as much elected office and national security experience as Hillary Clinton.

And the reality is, Paul, that Hillary Clinton was elected to a senate seat in a state where she's never lived because of who her husband is.

Pretend that's not true all you want there, feller, 'cause delusions aren't just a chain of islands off the coast of alaska.

Posted by: Peter Bray | Mar 5, 2008 12:51:11 PM

Do we want another John Kerry who refuses to play rough? Do we want an edifice built solely on "hope" but nothing else? Do we want someone who, for whatever reason, turns off a significant democratic constituency (latinos)? Do we want someone that wilts at the first time of criticism (and whose proxies whine:" "that's not fair!")?

Or do we want a blood-and-guts fighter that can do what is necessary to win?

(Sorry for the mixed metaphors.)

Posted by: BCM | Mar 5, 2008 12:53:53 PM

Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 11:44:05 AM

The experience argument is not at all "a loser." The difference between McCain's experience and Clinton's experience is that she is a Democrat and good on the issues.

I'm sure the American public would render a different judgment this November, Katy. If experience is the main issue -- and John McCain is certainly trying to do that with his 'no on the job training' slogan -- he has a monopoly on it. For Hillary, who ran a good part of her campaign on her 'experience,' to go toe to toe with McCain on this issue is doomed for immediate and total failure.

Obama, meanwhile, has run his campaign on change (which HRC stole) and judgment. These issues expose fundamental differences between Obama and McCain, such as the war in Iraq, and excite our base. Hillary, since she voted for the war resolution, would be under siege for her apparent flip flopping, 'I was for the war before I was against it.' Obama will not be exposed to this argument since he has been opposed to the war since 2002.

So, despite being a Democrat and being 'good on the issues' (whatever that means), Hillary stands little chance of being competitive in a general election match-up against John McCain. He's running as the pro-war candidate with experience; she's been running as the anti-war candidate (despite voting for the war in the first place) with (dubious) experience.

Obama runs on change and judgment. Where McCain, like Clinton (thanks to her vote for the war resolution and her place in the establishment), is vulnerable. A race between Obama and McCain will be one of clear, distinct choices between war and no war, yesterday and tomorrow. I don't see that divide existing in a Hillary-McCain match-up.


Posted by: LiberalIncarnate | Mar 5, 2008 12:55:39 PM

-Josh,

I am not suprized to hear a party insider siding so closely with Hillary Clinton. She is the "insider" politician, afterall. She is the pick of the year by the DLC, no? This is that infamous organization that tilted the Democratic Party toward coorporate interests and to the right on most major issues in American thereby making Bill Clinton, once everything is taken into account... not a LEFT leaning President, but a moderate-Right leaning one.

I began this campaign cycle with largely neutral feelings toward Hillary Clinton. Overtime, one negative attack after another: Hinting that Obama is a Muslim, that people should vote for McCain over Obama and using FEAR.... FEAR to turn the tide of the election. This is a Rovian tactic. It can work, but is that really how we want to win the W.H.? Is that really what will inspire millions of young voters to come to the polls? Will inspire independants and Republicans to vote for her? No. In fact, it will turn them off.

The arrogance of the Hillary for President Campaign and the DLC establishment is simply incredible.

Josh, you should be ashamed of yourself! You call yourself a Chief of Staff? It is time to retire. Get back into the real world and understand what the mood of the nation really is.

Posted by: Bert Lowry | Mar 5, 2008 12:57:10 PM

Yikes. Y'all are getting pretty heated. Remember, we need to get along and work together once the primary is over. Compared to Sen. McCain, both Sen. Obama and Sen. Clinton are fantastic.

Ples, heated angry diatribes never convince anyone of anything.

Posted by: Chris Corbell | Mar 5, 2008 1:00:16 PM

Great post Josh.

I see nothing new really in all of the pro-Obama folks' objections - no new information, and certainly no REAL sense of unity like Mr. Kardon puts forward regardless of who the nominee is.

For those who keep crying "Mark Penn, Mark Penn" over and over: this fiddles along to the tune of the Obama camp's favorite narrative, that Hillary's campaign is just some skillful insider machine movement.

Sorry, it's baloney. Mark Penn is not running for President (any more than David Axelrod is), and he did not give Hillary a 12-point victory in Ohio yesterday. Others are associated with Hillary too you know: Gavin Newsom, Dolores Huerta, Maya Angelou, Darlene Hooley. Why don't you trash them in the same breath?

Hillary's campaign is a campaign of millions and millions of Americans reaching out to others. I've been in plenty of phone banks from Oregon this year and I can tell you that none of them involved a big political machine or expensive consultant; they involved regular folks like us putting their hearts into it. That's what won the day for Hillary yesterday and each time she's come back from the heavy-handed calls that she quit (calls which she never made for any other candidate).

All campaigns hire high-powered consultants, but Hillary is still in this fight not because of them but because of the millions of Americans who support her, and you can't simply go on ignoring them and expect Obama to waltz into the White House.

Come to grips with what Hillary's campaign really is: a campaign of workging-class Democrats, women, Hispanics, the LGBT community, teachers, seniors, moderates, and many many others in all walks of life. If you can't come to grips with this - if you are really happy shutting all of those people out of YOUR tent with mind-numbing refrains of "Mark Penn, Mark Penn" - I don't see how on earth you will ever build the coalition that will be needed to win.

Go Hillary!

Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 1:00:27 PM

Look BCM, their plans for Iraq are the same now and nobody in their right mind will say Clinton is flip-flopping given the current situation. If she wins the nomination those against the war are not going to vote for McCain over Clinton, that's silly.
We don't know how Obama would have voted on the resolution if he had been in the Senate.
...and I never said that experience was the "main issue" I said it's an issue, along with a number of other issues.
Can you please tone down the nastiness a little? I have not problem defending my candidate (or Obama for that matter) but you really make it no fun when all your posts are so angry.

Posted by: Peter Bray | Mar 5, 2008 1:03:22 PM

As to the unfair accusations against Clinton by another poster above:

- Clinton did not "endorse" McCain. Rather, she made a commercial that drew a contrast between herself and Obama in terms of experience. It is totally ridiculous to suggest that this is an endorsement of McCain.

- She never said "as far as I know" Obama is not a Muslim. Instead of repeating illformed gossip (much like people are doing about Obama re: islam), go to the source, 60 minutes, and watch it.

- In regards to making Obama look "blacker", you apparently haven't been watching political ads lately. Making an opponent look bad in video, by using grainy footage, darkening the footage, re-hueing the footage, and so on, is par for the course. Even if this was done, which is far from certain, it is silly to suggest that this was done for racist reasons. It is par for the course.

- In regards to Florida and Michigan, well, what do you want to do? Do you want to deny two swing states that have huge populations from having their say? Or do you think that they should be able to vote (or re-vote)? I gather you probably would have them denied the vote because both states would go overwhelmingly for Clinton (which is why Obama purposely did not engage with either).

If you like, I can also spread various rumors that have been making the rounds about Obama. That his campaign locked pro-Clinton caucus goers out of Texas schools. That he has used misogynistic terms to refer to Clinton: "the claws will come out" and implying that she is suffering from menopausal emotions. That his rise in fortune is directly tied to a political fixer and shady slumlord. That he only reveals facts about this case when they come out. That a person who said "I wish we planted more bombs" raised funds for Obama and chaired a committee with him. That he says one thing (NAFTA is bad) while doing another (hey Canada, NAFTA is cool).

Unfair accusations are simply that, unfair. So stop parroting anti-Clinton talking points.

Posted by: Glen HD28 | Mar 5, 2008 1:18:55 PM

The nation knew George W. Bush was intellectually lazy and painfully inarticulate, but took a flier on the guy.
Are you kidding? Al Gore was ELECTED President, Bush sued and was appointed to office by his Pappy's Supreme Court.
I am appalled by and ashamed of any Democrat that would suggest otherwise.

Posted by: Nick Wirth | Mar 5, 2008 1:20:13 PM

Do we want another John Kerry who refuses to play rough? Do we want an edifice built solely on "hope" but nothing else? Do we want someone who, for whatever reason, turns off a significant democratic constituency (latinos)? Do we want someone that wilts at the first time of criticism (and whose proxies whine:" "that's not fair!")?

Or do we want a blood-and-guts fighter that can do what is necessary to win?

It's not fair to compare either candidate to Kerry. Certainly not Obama, who had a response to Clinton's "vote for me or your sleeping children will die" ad circulating in a matter of hours.

Peter: you obviously didn't watch the video of Clinton on CNN. She stated that she and Mccain had more experience than Obama. There was no commercial involved.

Also, since you bring it up: Florida and Michigan should in no way shape or form seat delegates at the convention without re-voting. It's short sighted to suggest that they should be counted because your candidate would benefit, and that would go just the same if any other candidate including Obama had won those primaries. Yes they are crucial states that cannot be ignored in the general election. But they have to play by the rules just like all other 48 states did, and they can't simply move up their primaries to have more influence.

Posted by: Chris Bouneff | Mar 5, 2008 1:22:25 PM

I don't understand why independents and some democrats say they will vote for McCain if Clinton is the nominee.

I probably won't vote for McCain; nor will I vote for Clinton. And I'm a liberal. I don't believe in restorations. For me, it's that simple.

Posted by: BCM | Mar 5, 2008 1:26:53 PM

Can you please tone down the nastiness a little? I have not problem defending my candidate (or Obama for that matter) but you really make it no fun when all your posts are so angry.

There was no nastiness in my posts. I haven't launched into personal attacks, I've stayed on the issues. Thus your plea falls on deaf ears.

I've questioned Hillary's experience and her vote for the for the war resolution. I encourage you to refute these points with intellectual responses. Unfortunately, you have chosen to drop back and punt.

Posted by: Chris Corbell | Mar 5, 2008 1:30:08 PM

BCM, you have been nasty on several posts lately, but in the interests of real dialog here's one for you: Hillary and Iraq.

Go Hillary!!!

Posted by: Katy | Mar 5, 2008 1:30:28 PM

BCM, you were pretty darn nasty all day yesterday and again today.
I'm not sure I understand how you can say for sure how Obama would have voted on the resolution?

Posted by: Bill R. | Mar 5, 2008 1:31:52 PM

Hillary is so classy and so caring, and has such great values!

Here's an example of some of her work. It was so thoughtful of her to make Barack Obama just a little blacker than he actually is, and to make his nose just a little flatter than it actually is in her video of him. Such creative inspiration:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/5/131156/5021/187/469677

Posted by: t.a. barnhart | Mar 5, 2008 1:34:01 PM

Katy, you demonstrate one of the upside-down facts of this campaign: it's the Clinton supporters who are the cult. dig this, via HuffPost:

Credit is due to the eagle-eyes over at 1115.org, who also note that the recent Pew poll shows that Obama's supporters are more likely to stay in the Democratic camp if their candidate doesn't get the nomination:

More Clinton supporters would switch to McCain if Obama is the nominee than Obama supporters would if Clinton is the nominee: "A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November..."

you repeat talking points ad nauseam and take invididual comments to tar entire groups of people. your response to the negativity of the Clinton campaign — and that's not a smear but the description being used by virtually the entire media, mainstream and beyond — is to say the Obama campaign is going negative; that's not an answer, Katy.

and on my #1 issue on which i have asked you numerous times: why should i trust Hillary, who voted to start the Iraq and has refused to admit her vote was a mistake; Hillary, who extended her mistake to unnecessary provocation of Iran; Hillary, who didn't adopt a decent withdrawal plan until Obama and Edwards forced her to do so; why should i trust her with the life of my son when he goes to Iraq in a year? i used to think the world of her; four years ago, i assumed i would support her in 2008. as i said in my post yesterday, she threw that support away.

she earns no congratulations for digging into the muck to win one more delegate than Obama (the last count i saw). she has already lost the trust and respect of millions of Americans. it's already hard enough to face what's ahead for my son; the prospect of her becoming president will not help that one damn bit.

Posted by: Chuck Butcher | Mar 5, 2008 1:44:05 PM

I flat out don't like Hillary Clinton as a Democratic politician, she plays Bill's game of triangulation and corporatism in spades. You know what Hillary is for by putting your finger in the wind. That is exactly what the Iraq vote was about, her's and some other Democrats. It is complete Bushism to blame her vote on George II, too many people figured it out and voted right and too many in the public figured it out despite the media's obfuscation. Hillary weighed political gain on that vote. Hillary did some real careful weighing on Joe Lieberman as well. Hillary does real careful weighing of corporate support and Americans can come in second. She "now" thinks NAFTA needs fixed, she watched its results along with the rest of us and kept real quiet until it had a benefit to say so.

She is one of the most coldly calculating politcal manipulators I've seen in a long time, and as with Rove, there are short term benefits, but in the long run we've had some insight to how it works out with BushCo.

Hillary wants to claim the Clinton Presidency, except where it went south, that was all somebody else's fault. It is never Hilary's fault. So in all that experience that so qualifies her, what happened to all the stupid crap that she was involved in? How did all those messes she was involved in come about? They didn't start in a vacume, she actually was a part of it. The fact that the Republicans made more of it than was there doesn't excuse the judgements that set it up. THIS is what the Clinton apologists like to gloss over, there was bad judgement, there was the outright appearance of impropriety, it did not come from NOWHERE.

You can keep polishing this old worn out shoe, it is still that and it is still the Terry McAuliff version of Democrats, the Mark Penn version of Democrats, the corporatized moneyized anything for 50+1% that we'ver lost with and lost with. And deserved to. And they're up to it again. 3:00AM is not harmless, it wasn't inteded to be so, it is flat out rovian. The Canadian/NAFTA mess has political finger prints all over it, something is seriously amiss. Somebody better real quick take notice that Obama has a black child, er two. This is how Republicans play, sorry for the swear word...

By the way, Obama was fairly far down my list when this started, so you're not getting Obamamaniac here. What he shows is two very different things, judgement and coolness; and the ability to draw others while possibly somewhat defusing some of the bitterness across a wide spectrum. That's small beer in the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric, but we've seen where that goes, as well.

As for those who'd not vote or vote McCain/Nader/Mickey Mouse over a Clinton nomination, there is such a thing as cutting your nose off to spite your face. I have to get along with the choice of the 2nd Amendment with lukewarm support from a warmonger corporate whore Republican and our two with stupid and unConstitutional views and count on the Supreme Court - yuk. If you try to count me a Hillary hater in view of that, you ain't paying attention.

Posted by: Sid Anderson | Mar 5, 2008 1:46:11 PM

Bill put things quite nicely. I think Clinton exercised the worst judgment she possibly ever could have in voting to go to war. And then she pours salt on the wound by saying "well, had I known it would turn into such a mess, I would have never..." That's just lame lame lame! Does she think we are that stupid? I can't deal with that excuse because Clinton should have known, since so many of us knew what a disaster this war was going to be. And if she truly did not know, then she doesn't deserve the nomination (or my vote.)

Posted by: Larry McD | Mar 5, 2008 1:46:44 PM

May I repeat parts of a posting I did on Marc Ambinder's site this A.M.?

Five Samples of Hillary's Vaunted Foreign Policy Experience:

1. Doing nothing until 250,000 people had died in the Balkan Wars, including the slaughter at Srebrenica.
2. Doing nothing as over a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda.
3. Fleeing Somalia after a badly planned UN incursion went wrong.
4. Bombing a baby food factory in Sudan using grotesquely bad intelligence.
5. Bombing the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, resulting in a near dismantling of our embassy in Beijing by Chinese mobs.

Posted by: Chris Corbell | Mar 5, 2008 1:50:39 PM

t.a. - Hillary pushed for restrictions to the authorization vote in 2002, and at the time John Edwards voted AGAINST her, WITH Lieberman.

Hillary introduced legislation to de-authorize the war before anyone was even officially running for president.

Hillary led the effort to ensure that the Pentagon at least HAD a contingency plan for withdrawl, and was doing these things at a time when Obama was just voting 100% for the war and CRITICIZING Democrats who opposed Bush appointees.

You guys keep acting like Obama is Kucinich, and I'm sorry, it just ain't so. He's to Hillary's *right* on most domestic issues. Hell, he refused to even HAVE HIS PICTURE TAKEN WITH GAVIN NEWSOM because he thought the gay marriage mayor would hurt his career!!!

On the war vote: here's a bite-sized piece from Joe Wilson, who was there when Obama wasn't.

Go Hillary!

Posted by: helys | Mar 5, 2008 2:00:27 PM

Sorry if my levity offends but after this I needed a little Seuss.

Do you like
green eggs and ham?

I do not like them,
Sam-I-am.
I do not like
green eggs and ham.

Would you like them
here or there?

I would not like them
here or there.
I would not like them
anywhere.
I do not like
green eggs and ham.
I do not like them,
Sam-I-am.

Would you, could you,
in the rain?

I would not, could not, in the rain.
Not in the dark. Not on a train.
Not in a car. Not in a tree.
I do not like them, Sam, you see.
Not in a house. Not in a box.
Not with a mouse. Not with a fox.
I will not eat them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere!

You do not like
green eggs and ham?

I do not
like them,
Sam-I-am.
I do not like
green eggs
and ham!

You do not like them.
So you say.
Try them! Try them!
And you may.
Try them and you may, I say.

Sam!
If you will let me be,
I will try them.
You will see.

Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!
And I would eat them in a boat.
And I would eat them with a goat...

And I will eat them in the rain.
And in the dark. And on a train.
And in a car. And in a tree.
They are so good, so good, you see!

So I will eat them in a box.
And I will eat them with a fox.
And I will eat them in a house.
And I will eat them with a mouse.
And I will eat them here and there.
Say! I will eat them ANYWHERE!

I do so like
green eggs and ham!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Sam-I-am!

Posted by: BCM | Mar 5, 2008 2:11:22 PM

I'll shelve the personal attacks and mis-characterizations in the interest of decorum.

Chris, I read your blog post. What I suspect you're missing is the political calculations Hillary has made in the past in regards to Iraq. Her Iraq 'triangulation' gives me great doubt over her ability to lead effectively as president, let alone contend against a staunch pro-war Republican.

You can bet if Hillary is the nominee, McCain will rake her over the coals with the war resolution. Moreover, the contrast between her position in 2002 and 2008 is stark. This leads me to the conclusion that she supported the war when it was popular and turned against it when is wasn't.

Clinton Devised Both Pro-war and Anti-war Candidacy

Posted by: BCM | Mar 5, 2008 2:12:22 PM

I'll shelve the personal attacks and mis-characterizations in the interest of decorum.

Chris, I read your blog post. What I suspect you're missing is the political calculations Hillary has made in the past in regards to Iraq. Her Iraq 'triangulation' gives me great doubt over her ability to lead effectively as president, let alone contend against a staunch pro-war Republican.

You can bet if Hillary is the nominee, McCain will rake her over the coals with the war resolution. Moreover, the contrast between her position in 2002 and 2008 is stark. This leads me to the conclusion that she supported the war when it was popular and turned against it when is wasn't.

Clinton Devised Both Pro-war and Anti-war Candidacy

Note: The presence of any individual above does not imply an endorsement by BlueOregon. The selection of faces shown is done by Facebook. Visit BlueOregon on Facebook.

Post a comment

Don't have a website? Use http://www.blueoregon.com to hide your email from spammers.


HTML tips:

To make bold or italic, just do this:
<b>bold</b> and <i>italic</i>

To make a link, just do this:
<a href=http://www.blueoregon.com>this is blueoregon</a>

Please Note: It may take a minute or two for your comment to appear. Please don't re-post it. Also, if a post has more than 50 comments, your comment will appear on the second (or third) page of comments. Click the "More Comments" link above if that's the case.

Related Posts Widget for Blogs by LinkWithin