 |
 |
||
|
|
|
 The Gloves Come OffPosted on Nov 20, 2007WASHINGTON—Finally, we’ve got a real presidential campaign on our hands. Wake up, those of you in the back row, because it looks as if the long-running seminar is finally over. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going at each other tooth and claw, with an occasional elbow thrown in for good measure; this weekend they clashed bitterly over purported mudslinging, even in the absence of any discernible mud. On Sunday, John Edwards said his mounting attacks on Clinton were “milquetoast compared to what we’re going to see next fall,” as if his repeated blows were just a little tough love. Oh, and he also accused her of wanting to perpetuate the occupation of Iraq. Meanwhile, somebody has been calling voters in New Hampshire and Iowa, bad-mouthing Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith; the other Republican candidates are shocked that anyone would take such a cheap shot at the guy who happens to be leading in New Hampshire and Iowa. Fred Thompson had fighting words for Mike Huckabee, saying he was “pro-life but he’s liberal on everything else.” And John McCain accused Romney and Rudy Giuliani of being dependent on “briefing books and PowerPoints,” when the more important qualifications for the presidency are character and judgment. Ain’t it grand? We in the media are accused of preferring to focus on the horse race—who’s surging ahead, who’s falling behind—and the food fight—who threw what at whom—rather than what the public wants and needs us to focus on, namely The Issues. OK, guilty as charged. It would be disingenuous not to acknowledge that political reporters and commentators don’t look forward to coronations, which are boring. Would we rather see a good old-fashioned donnybrook? Sure, wouldn’t you? Advertisement Clinton’s stumble a few weeks ago on the debate question about driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants showed a lack of preparation and a desire to have it both ways. Subsequently, she took every possible position on the issue before settling last week on her final answer: “No.” That showed resilience and an understanding—albeit belated—that sometimes you have to cut your losses. Obama’s stumble last week on the same question showed, yes, a lack of preparation and a desire to have it both ways. Now we’ll see if he can refine and edit his position the way Clinton did. Despite that slip, though, Obama has recently shown the willingness to punch back that critics said he appeared to lack. This weekend, he even punched first. Columnist Robert Novak wrote that Clinton operatives were whispering that they possessed “scandalous” information about Obama but had decided to take the high road and not use it against him. Obama immediately blasted the whole thing as “Swift-boat politics” and demanded that the Clinton campaign put up or shut up. Clinton spokesmen said they had no idea what Novak was talking about and accused Obama of naively falling for Republican tricks. Reporters on the campaign trail have noticed that Obama has begun throwing a line into his speeches about how he isn’t running “to fulfill some long-held plan or because it was owed to me.” A reference, perhaps, to the claim in a recent Clinton biography that she and her husband Bill long ago mapped out a scenario in which he would take a turn as president and she would later follow? You could say that all of the above is unseemly and irrelevant, but I disagree. About Clinton, we learned that she can have a bad outing and quickly return to form. About Obama, we learned that he can be less professorial and more pugilistic when the occasion demands. And both candidates learned that illegal immigration could become a genuine third-rail issue in the general election campaign. All that knowledge, it seems to me, is valuable to the process and ultimately valuable to the nation—and well worth a few bruised feelings. Next, I’m waiting for somebody to truth-squad Giuliani’s sudden realization that he is an avid, dedicated NASCAR fan. On Sunday, the quintessential New Yorker attended his third NASCAR race this year and called auto racing “the quintessential American sport.” In the next Republican debate, somebody should ask him if he knows who Dale Earnhardt was. Eugene Robinson’s e-mail address is eugenerobinson(at)washpost.com. © 2007, Washington Post Writers Group CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
Kucinich Predicts Health Care Will Pass by One Vote
Email
Print
Share
Digg
Facebook
TwitThis
StumbleUpon
Reddit
YahooBuzz
Email
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MyShare
NewsVine
Propeller
SphereIt
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Become a Fan
Follow Us
Subscribe
We just got faster!
Our site is growing, and we’ve upgraded our servers to bring you a better, faster Truthdig experience.
We’re thrilled with our improvement — but it’s added a lot to our costs. Please help us to keep things snappy and make sure you have instant access to thousands of in-depth Truthdig articles, interviews, videos and cartoons.
Please chip in today with a gift to keep us moving forward. Then check out the site for yourself!
Tags|Bazaar|Podcast|About Us|Contact Us|User Agreement|Privacy Policy|FAQ: Comments and Moderation
Copyright © 2010 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By Conservative Yankee, November 22, 2007 at 7:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
15189 by Paracelsus on 11/22 at 2:09 pm
“Stubbornness will win you nothing. Be a gentleman, Douglas, apologize”
D.C. is a Hill-the-business-shill troll, he will never apologize… NOR will he address any real issues where the business shill is concerned. Ask him about the India Caucus, the proposal for unlimited H1-b Visas, the statement that Microsoft can’t hire the talent needed from the US workforce, or her unabated support for foreign wars, and he will tell you you are picking on her because she’s a woman!
He’s a poor man’s Lee Atwater for the DLC!
don’t waste your time with him.
Report thisBy Paracelsus, November 22, 2007 at 7:09 pm #
@ #115135 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/22 at 8:14 am
(1303 comments total)
#115132 by Paracelsus on 11/22 at 7:59 am: Check the link below then…
As I said, it doesnt exist, uhh - certainly NOT on the 19th - or were you merely referring to the article being written on October 19? Apologize for slandering me!
*************************************
Douglas please check out what I have extracted from the post you are referring to.
#114845 by Paracelsus on 11/20 at 10:32 pm
(144 comments total)
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-cli nton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom- the-defense-industry/
Hillary Clinton receives the largest number of military donations from the Defense industry.
Posted on October 19, 2007 by Lance
*********************
Stubbornness will win you nothing. Be a gentleman, Douglas, apologize.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, November 22, 2007 at 1:35 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
114966 by hippy pam on 11/21 at 10:25 am
“I am so tired of the crime statistics-Lets put some of these proven criminals out of their misery while fixing the overcrowding problems in the prisons.The STRONG MESSAGE that would be sent MIGHT GET THRU WHERE THE SOFT APPROACH has failed.”
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha… Good joke Pam. The “soft approach” I loved it. You should go on Chris Rock’s show!
....and when were you a “hippy?”
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, November 22, 2007 at 1:14 pm #
#115132 by Paracelsus on 11/22 at 7:59 am: “Check the link below then…”
As I said, it doesn’t exist, uhh - certainly NOT on the 19th - or were you merely referring to the article being written on October 19? Apologize for slandering me!
Report thisBy Paracelsus, November 22, 2007 at 12:59 pm #
@ #115127 by Douglas Chalmers
Check the link below then; it is the same as in the article, then apologize for slandering me.
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom-the-defense-industry/
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, November 22, 2007 at 12:23 pm #
#115084 by Paracelsus on 11/22 at 1:40 am: “...a quote from “Posted on October 19, 2007 by Lance” if this topic only ran since the 20th??? A bit dodgy yourself, huh?”....... Please check the URL, then submit your apologies….”
There was none! You are deceiving us…...
Report thisBy hippy pam, November 22, 2007 at 10:00 am #
We tend to “pick” the person who best mirrors each of our personal DESIRES AND BELIEFS.They ALL SAY WHAT WE WANT TO HEAR and THEN GO THEIR OWN WAY WHILE FOLLOWING THEIR OWN AGENDAS.THEY ALL “WAFFLE” and “LIE” and “KI** A**.THEY WANT TO RETURN THE “STROKES” THEY RECEIVED WHEN THEY MADE ALL THE PROMISES TO THEIR “CONTRIBUTERS”..................IF I WERE PRESIDENT….I WOULD KNOW-WHEN MY TERM WAS OVER-IF EVERYONE HATED ME-I MUSTA DONE A GREAT JOB….
Report thisBy robert, November 22, 2007 at 7:45 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Way too much credit given to the “genius” of Clinton strategy. Way too much credit. Why did Bill C win—well could it be a fellow by the name of Ross Perot took 19% of the vote? How did Hillary win the New York Senate race—well did not Rudy bail and become replaced at the last minute by Rick Fazio of Long Island. Face it—its just the facts—the much vaunted Hillary has never had to do a real campaign and both her and hubby walked into vicotories handed by luck not skill. Deny this and you may as well deny the existence of the pacific ocean. Can she handle a real campaign without ultimately showing her doublespeak or just plain sucking—yep you can bet on it….
Report thisBy Paracelsus, November 22, 2007 at 6:40 am #
@ #114883 by Douglas Chalmers
Report this“By the way, where did you get a quote from Posted on October 19, 2007 by Lance if this topic only ran since the 20th??? A bit dodgy yourself, huh?”
****************************
Please check the URL, then submit your apologies.
By Paracelsus, November 22, 2007 at 6:33 am #
@ #114883 by Douglas Chalmers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/10/17/defense-industry-embraces_n_68927.html
No other Democrat came near Clinton’s totals. Running second to her in the competition for Pentagon contractors’ cash was Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn), who raised $13,200, almost all from executives of General Dynamics which has a major submarine building facility in Groton, Conn.
Former Senator John Edwards (D-N. Car.) raised $12,200 and Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) took in $10,000.
Clinton’s major industry benefactors - donors who gave the $4,600 maximum allowed by law—include Roger A. Crone, Boeing’s president of Network and Space Systems; Stanley Roth, Boeing’s Vice President for Asia, International Relations, $4,600; Anne Sullivan, a Raytheon attorney; William Lynn, Raytheon’s Senior Vice President for Government Relations; and Michele Kang, Northrop Grumman Vice President for health science solutions.
*******************************
Do you really think Joe Bob the machinist is giving money like that?
Report thisBy Paracelsus, November 22, 2007 at 6:27 am #
#114966 by hippy pam
We would need a nationalist tariff policy to get our manufacturing economy back. Hillary is so CFR that to mention this to her would make her scream like a demon. She would also start vomiting fire and her eyes would glow red.
Report thisBy hippy pam, November 21, 2007 at 3:25 pm #
I am so tired of the crime statistics-Let’s put some of these proven criminals out of their misery while fixing the overcrowding problems in the prisons.The STRONG MESSAGE that would be sent MIGHT GET THRU WHERE THE SOFT APPROACH has failed.Let’s put AMERICAN WORKERS on jobs making SAFE American products for our citizens and children.Let’s fix HEALTH CARE and SOCIAL SECURITY.Let’s put PEOPLE ON WELFARE TO WORK.They could help people who are employed with ALL SORTS OF HELP[child care-yard and home fixups-assisting the elderly]Let’s send the border crossers home once-If caught again -SHOOT EM-OBVIOUSLY THERE IS SOME PART OF “GO BACK” that they DO NOT UNDERSTAND.Let’s quit ALLOWING EVERY ??? to come and live here.Maybe if they have a SKILL and are THE BEST IN THEIR FIELD an invite would be in order.YOU ALL WOULD NOT WANT ME TO BE “PRESIDENT”.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, November 21, 2007 at 10:38 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
114883 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/21 at 3:11 am
#114845 by Paracelsus on 11/20 at 10:32 pm: Hillary Clinton receives the largest number of military donations from the Defense industry….
Oh, come off it, Paracelsus. This was discussed before in a recent topic. Those claims were shown to relate to Defense industry EMPLOYEES only! In other words, they were as dissatisfied witht he establishment as everybody else is.
Funny how the apologists for the Dogma-cratic party apply the double standard:
When GWB got the “employee” funds from Defense, the question arose as to weather Grumman, Lockheed-Martin, or McDonald Douglas supplied the “employee contributions.”
No such questions this time from our resident business-shill campaign worker.
Here are some figures that are hard to dispute,
The association of importers&exporters;, the pharmaceutical industry, The Health care industry all support Ms Business-shill with the lion’s share of their contributions.
No question, she’s got the cash… the only debate is centered on how much money is it going to take to buy the US voter this time? Maybe when they look at the worth of a US dollar they will find that no amount of them will return us to status quo.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, November 21, 2007 at 8:24 am #
114768 by Hammo on 11/20 at 3:24 pm: “It could be that Clinton, Obama and Edwards, though currently in the lead, will be determined to be not the best candidates to win a general election against the Republican nominee….”
Hammo, I noticed that you made this statement, although slightly differently, in the “Obama Campaigners Work the Switchboards” topic.
There, you posed the question of what if Obama won the primary but was unable to contend successfully against Romney or McCain, etc. But, now you are suggesting that none of the front-runners for the Democrats might survive into 2008. I think you seem to have lost the point you were making before, so I will post the answer I gave to it because it was an important point to make:-
#114881 by Douglas Chalmers on 11/21 at 3:01 am:-
114765 by Hammo on 11/20 at 3:16 pm: “To me, Obama is a good candidate. However, in a general election, I am concerned that his inexperience, ethnicity and other factors might prevent him from beating a Republican candidate such as Mitt Romney or John McCain….”
This is the sad consequence of insisting on childish “either-or” options in politics. Ideally, Hillary AND Obama should occupy top positions…... but you can be sure that Hillary won’t be taking up a vice presidency under an inexperienced Obama.
Obama voters need to get that clear. Anyone who thinks Hillary will be co-opted into second position on demand are just insulting her.
Ref. http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20071118_obama_campaigners_work_the_switchboards/
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, November 21, 2007 at 8:11 am #
#114845 by Paracelsus on 11/20 at 10:32 pm: “Hillary Clinton receives the largest number of military donations…from the Defense industry….”
Oh, come off it, Paracelsus. This was discussed before in a recent topic. Those claims were shown to relate to Defense industry EMPLOYEES only! In other words, they were as dissatisfied witht he establishment as everybody else is.
The same goes for Wall Street EMPLOYEES who were being culled as a result of the mortgage credit crunch…... in the same topic! Better to read it through first, uhh. It was shoddy reporting, to say the least.
By the way, where did you get a quote from “Posted on October 19, 2007 by Lance” if this topic only ran since the 20th??? A bit dodgy yourself, huh?
Report thisBy Paracelsus, November 21, 2007 at 3:32 am #
http://politicalinquirer.com/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-receives-the-largest-number-of-military-donationsfrom-the-defense-industry/
Hillary Clinton receives the largest number of military donations from the Defense industry.
Posted on October 19, 2007 by Lance
The ever famed Military-Industrial Complex has picked their candidate of choice: Hillary Rodham Clinton. When Hillary takes office, do not be prepared to see an anti-war populist of any sort. She is as establishment as Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, ready to declare war on Iran at a moments notice. The defense industry sees this and, I think, has made a good investment. Well, good if youre a defense contractor. The Huffington Post reported:
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.
An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Posts Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.
Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.
************************
Eugene, I don’t care. You are getting worked over for nothing. Look how much money Hillary is getting from the military industrial complex. BTW, Mr. Scheer, do you really think Hillary will pull us out of Iraq when she has all that mojo from the spear-chuckers? Those weapons makers need a war as a government subsidy. Even Rupert Murdoch likes Hillary. Eugene, you are calling a fixed horse race. You might as well
Report thiswork as a sports caster for a rigged parimutuel operation in the basement of a Chicago speak easy.
By thomas billis, November 21, 2007 at 12:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Rudy Vroom Vroom Giuliani would not know a checkered flag from a table cloth in an Italian restaurant.But appearing gets votes.What is depressing is that all the drivel that Mr Robinson notes is what voters look at.It is not Mr Robinson’s fault it is ours.If we demanded more intelligence we would get it.If we demanded debates on the issues we would get it.These campaigns are not full of fools they saw how a moron got elected twice and until we demand more they will treat us like morons.
Report thisBy farmertx, November 21, 2007 at 12:18 am #
ER says that we all love a good mud fight.
Myself, I would love a Presidential race where all viable candidates focused on the issues at hand and their plans for building a consensus in Congress to carry out that plan.
The greatsest person can be chosen as President and wind up a failure if Congress won’t go along.
As to there being no difference between the Parties, sad but true. I was heartened when Hillary was booed on the YouTube debate when she said that accepting donations from corporations wasn’t a bad thing.
Too many voter’s don’t take the time to seriously look at the candidates, which explains why so many voted for the Shrub the first time, before he had the magic voting machines installed.
Corporations, trade groups, associations and unions have no business donating to any candidate. The individuals who comprise those groups can do so if they wish.
Putting donations off limits to any not eligible to vote for that candidate is the first step in making politician’s accountable to the voter’s. Preventing lobbyist’s from giving money, trips, access to jets for travel and all the other bribes that they offer polictian’s is the next.
We elect these people to represent us, not some business group. Why do we continue to sit by and allow this to go on? We all complain about the politician’s being on the take. But there is no real movement to force the politician’s to really change the laws. They slap a coat of whitewash on from time and pronounce the problem solved, and go to a $10,000/plate fundraiser sponsored by a lobbyist.
Report thisBy DennisD, November 20, 2007 at 11:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Finally, weve got a real presidential campaign on our hands.”
ER are you f**king serious. You keep giving us this same Coke or Pepsi bullshit when the end result from over consumption of either is tooth decay. In the case of our political system, it’s been government decay.
Anyone that wants a real change isn’t buying it anymore. You’re becoming more irrelevant with each new non story.
Report thisBy WR Curley, November 20, 2007 at 8:58 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Robinson! Dude! You’re useless!
With small due respect,
WR Curley
Report thisElizabeth, Colorado
By jbart, November 20, 2007 at 8:57 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
To “Conservative Yankee” & “Mary”...
Report thisI absolutely agree.
To ALL you prospects who hope we elect you to lead us away from this craziness back to sensible government,
Please debate the real issues. We ALL care about “Real” issues and want to hear about YOUR positions, opinions & thoughts on THEM.
By Hammo, November 20, 2007 at 8:24 pm #
Robinson writes, “Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going at each other tooth and claw, with an occasional elbow thrown in for good measure; this weekend they clashed bitterly over purported mudslinging, even in the absence of any discernible mud. On Sunday, John Edwards said his mounting attacks on Clinton were ‘milquetoast compared to what were going to see next fall’ ...
It could be that Clinton, Obama and Edwards, though currently in the lead, will be determined to be not the best candidates to win a general election against the Republican nominee.
Would Chris Dodd or Bill Richardson be more likely to win a general election against John McCain or Mitt Romney? Maybe.
More on this in the article ...
“Democrats risk self-sabotage in presidential race ... again”
AmericanChronicle.com
November 5, 2007
http://americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=42271
Report thisBy felicity, November 20, 2007 at 1:45 pm #
#114701 I agree and we’re not going to get anything substantive from these so-called debates run by media flunkies.
First off, they’re not debates. To be so there must be one issue and one issue only, say immigration, and from there all the rules of debate should be strictly followed. Each subsequent debate would deal with another issue.
By the end of the campaign season, the voter would be able to cast at least an informed vote.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, November 20, 2007 at 12:54 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“In the next Republican debate, somebody should ask him if he knows who Dale was.”
Half the NASCAR fans were still shitting their diapers when Dale Earnhardt died, and would not know who he was either except that Dale Earnhardt Jr. sports his name.
The “regular guy look” as fashion for president came about with Jimmy jeans-and-flannel Carter, disappeared with Reagan, & GHW Bush, returned with McDonald-belly Clinton and the Connecticut cowboy.
My question is: given history of the Regular-guy presidents do we want another? OR for that matter a “regular gurl?”
Memo to press:
Ask the presidential candidates what the falling dollar means to the average US consummer? Ask them “Who benefits from a cheap dollar, and who loses?”
Ask them what happens when oil producing nations begin basing oil prices on the Euro, Pound, Or Looney? Then ask them if they intend to follow the Bush monetary policy which leaves us with a devalued currency, and high food and energy prices?”
How about making these folks explain their health care proposals so folks understand what they are saying? What about our shrinking manufacturing base? Will we ever start building stuff here again? What about the direction we are taking visa vi borrowing from Communist China? What about the debt we are building for our children, grandchildren, and generations hence?
Sure I love a good mud fight, especially when the opponents are so versed in the art of sliming. BUT we can have our fun later… right now we have some hard work to do, and this is the window… It will be four years before ANY of these folks give a damn again about what we think!
Report thisBy mary, November 20, 2007 at 12:47 pm #
This article is exactly the type of reporting I hate. It tells us nothing I care about! The only way we are going to get change is when we get real reporters. These guys may enjoy the food-fight, but the rest of America is not interested. We want to see who is going to do what about the most important issues of our time, the war, the economy, the declining middle class, our sick and injured troops, healthcare, poison products imported from China, and on and on…..
Report thisBy RdV, November 20, 2007 at 11:48 am #
Sure, if they get to actually argue in more than soundbites.
Look how he spins this:
“Clintons stumble a few weeks ago on the debate question about drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants showed a lack of preparation and a desire to have it both ways. Subsequently, she took every possible position on the issue before settling last week on her final answer: No. That showed resilience and an understandingalbeit belatedthat sometimes you have to cut your losses.”
Despite the fact that others have observed that Blitzer let her walk on the issue—no follow-up no acknowledgement—instead Blitzer mentioned “triangulation, whatever that is”—as if the entire Clinton performance wasn’t a textbook case of it.
Report thisBy KISS, November 20, 2007 at 11:44 am #
ER are you so blind that you can’t see their is no difference of whom wins? Which orange do you choose in the vegetable section. All are the same, with maybe a difference in blemish. Same with Dimmos and repugs. No Difference, except for which corporation will be in charge. Bubba was really not much different than Bush. He was able to smoke the issues with more finesse than Bush’s ineptness.With the front runners reminds me of the TV program ” Who Do You Trust?” and I say None of the Above!
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, November 20, 2007 at 10:25 am #
Quote: “Obama has recently shown the willingness to punch back that critics said he appeared to lack. This weekend, he even punched first….”
This is the childish garbage by which voters choose their candidate???
If there is one thing which has become obvious, it is that other Democrats’ candidates have become desperate in attacking Hillary if not each other. It is hardly loyal to their party but it is sure helping the Republicans’ cause, uhh.
Report this