'93 NAFTA Congressional Opponent: "She Never Offered Criticism"

I heard Senator Clinton claim to have been against NAFTA, one of her husband's major legislative goals during his first two years in office. That was a poser.  I didn't remember it like that at all.

I'm glad to hear that my brain isn't 100% confabulating memories yet.

pundit

Here is my comment that I posted on another blog in which I talked about NAFTA

I am not sure what is the significance of all of this.   The Clntons have a good track record in looking after the best interest of the civil rights movement, America and all humanity.  I have viewed any progress for the black civil rights movement as progress for all minorities and the clintons have done well to advance this cause.  This country has seen some of its best times under the Clintons-much prosperity and hope-but the Republicans had to undermine and destroy Bill to achieve their goals. The world was full of hope and there was a lot of goodwill towards America.

I have heard a lot of unfounded criticisms about NAFTA, implemented by Bill Clinton.  At that time there was globalization and the formation of megablocks AND FREE TRADE ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS the European Union, ACP, CARICOM, WTO and others. NAFTA was our response (and there has been others by the bush administration and more in the making eg with Columbia). Obama in his inexperience and misguided stance has criticized NAFTA although the US has exported hundreds of billions worth in goods under the free/fair trade afforded by NAFA. Over a hundred thousand Americans live and work in Mexico and many jobs were created in Mexico for Mexicans, who would have entered the US illegally-the illegal immigration problem would have been worse although we need cheap labor.Many more loss of US jobs resulted from big corporations moving overseas and receiving incentives for doing so and from our China relations. Mexicans, Americans and Canadians have benefited from NAFTA. Obama's criticism of NAFTA is yet another testimony of his inexperience and ignorance in the foreign and domestic policies of the US. His stance on the Iraq war is as ill-informed and misguided as Bush's administration prosecution of the war and collectively (with Obama's efforts in undermining the war effort-rallies etc)has contributed tremendously to our failure in IRAQ. Nations/factions go to war for different reasons especially when there was and is the perception of a growing threat (eg Islamic fundamentalism within and outside the US)which and the scarcity of resources eg oil upon which we depend heavily and has to compete with Russia, China, and India.  I can go on and on but please give the clintons credit. Obama is naive-instead of being able to unite, the Republicans will tear him apart and shred him and his empty promises couched in lofty plagiarized rhetoric into pieces. Jesse Jackson or Alan Keyes have more character than Obama and are more deserving of elevated status. I am appealing to the Latinos and young voters to look beyond the Obama hype for real answers to their questions. If you are rich without a heart vote for the Republicans-otherwise please support Bill & Hilary Clinton to get us out of the quagmire...Thanks (One last word:  Global warming is no only about greenhouse gases and carbon emissions but much more about energy transformations and thermodynamics)

I will add that President Bush has gotten a lot better recently and I admire the way he has responded  to Obma's position of "talking with our enemy" and his criticism of NAFTA which I believe should help Hilary (The Republican voters  have had tremendous influence on the Democratic primary and in fortifying Obama's position and creating the ilusion of his invincibility). I am not sure if Obama opposed the war because he shared the same name with Sadam but he has certainly done a lot in undermining our war efforts from the inception by holding rallies etc. His sortcommings in national security is abysmal-limited to "I opposed the war from the ionception".  Obama is also very shortsighted on domestic policies and I can elaborate...He is the greatest hope for a black president...but wait  until the Republicans shred him and his false hope to pieces and win the presidency again. He is a shady character hiding behind a veil of lofty rhetoric (some plagiarized) but is wrong on many issues.  Bill & Hilary have their shortcommings they they are the real deal for a strong America

pundit

TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS HAVE BEEN EXPORTED OVERSEAS OUTSIDE OF NAFTA- OUR STEEL PLANTS COULD NOT COMPETE WITH OTHER COUNTRIES SUCH AS JAPAN AND CHINA-DONT BLAME IT ALL ON NAFTA

A report that aired on the Canadian television network CTV citing anonymous sources said that a senior Obama adviser called Canadian ambassador Michael Wilson to warn him that Obama would criticize NAFTA , but that it was just campaign rhetoric he doesn’t believe.

What a fraud, Barack Hussein Obama, all rhetoric borrowed from Deval Patrick. Ask MA residents how that experiment turned out.

I was very impressed with the article and was able to easily get through it.

If anyone is about the truth they should be willing to read everything they get their hands on. Since I don't posses a short attention span I was able to read through the rather long, but beautifully written article.

Get ready because here goes another long explanation of why I'm not convinced Senator Obama is anywhere near ready to run this Country and restore it's place in the world. He's not ready to run against John MCCain or make well thought out decisions.

I'm mainly concerned about what I view as Senator Obama's flawed health care plan. I view his policy making on this subject like that of NAFTA. Both were/are necessary. But if not well thought out from the beginning could become very destructive, especially for me as a lower end, middle class American. It makes me wonder why he doesn't want to cover all Americans with his plan. It strikes me more of a republican solution than that of a democrat. When put to the task and asked the hard questions he tried to use republican tactics of spin. Asking how you would enforce it --- HOW WOULD HE ENFORCE his mandate? It was not an answer it was a spin. The middle class would once again bare the brunt of the well intentioned but highly misdirected solution. That's if there is a middle class left.

I've also been concerned about the speech Senator Obama gave (not vote) denouncing the war. I'm afraid that given the facts that the Senators were given (from the master spinner of facts) Senator Obama would not be able to wage war when needed. I know that the McCain camp will pick up on this. He has his own explanation why he was against the war but I'm not convinced given his recent answers about foreign policy. They seem to oppose one another. I think he was playing politics with the explanation and the Republicans will run with this.

This may sound a bit different. I'm still for NAFTA. Being from one of the biggest steel producing cities I still understand and support the idea. I wish it had been better thought out. Now both said they would try and re-negotiate or withdraw. I'm not so sure that if it was better negotiated that the present administration would have acted to help the American people. Their record for ignoring what was in place is deplorable and when asked to act upon the law by the steel union's they were ignored.

I'm also concerned as a middle class Ohioan about the claim that the National head of the machinist's union gave about why they supported Hillary Clinton. He had to work with Obama in his state (one of the few REAL examples we have to judge his record). Obama of course made all the right speeches to the union but in the end did nothing to help them. When looking at his donation list the company that he helped the most by NOT supporting his Ill. Union was his fourth largest contributor. The man is on record and on tape and will not support Senator Obama. The head of the Maytag company's explanation of what the union thought was a negotiation meeting with Senator Obama was "the subject NEVER came up." What Senator goes into a meeting with the heads of a major company about to pull the manufacturing jobs out of his state and NEVER brings up the subject?

I guess feeling good about someone doesn't make a good president and I'm old enough to know that.

I know this little family of five former steel union - now auto union workers will be casting their well thought out and researched votes for a candidate who represents them the best. On March 4th we are all voting for Senator Hillary Clinton.

I have gotten the idea that Hillary's experience has taught her how hard it is to get things done... which is probably very true and valid.  She has worked very hard and not accomplished as much as she would have liked to.  (to put it diplomatically)

So, I think she really does not understand the "hope" factor and the "yes we can" attitude.  It seems she truly believes this is naive because her experience has taught her "we can't"

pundit

I have read it in its entirety. Hope you are capable of reading with an open mind and be enlightened. look beyond the hype and make the right choice. 

It's called a "comment" box.  Do you really think that if you were standing in a conversaion face to face that you'd be able to drone on and on for 10 minutes?  

Hillary did some of that during the debate, a person should be astute enough to know when to stop talking once your point has been made.

You'll have better success by keeping your audience in mind, and by be ing courteous enough to quit "xeroxing" huge passages and pasting them on multiple state blogs.

Dear Ohio Voters:

The women's rights movement in the United states grew with the American Revolution. Abigail Adams and a group of women indicated to the men that their voices weren't being heard. That they had no representation, and it was for that same reason the men took up arms against the British.

After the American Revolution, the women's rights movement lacked leadership and became divided. It wasn't until 1848 that the women's rights crusade picked up steam with the Seneca Falls Convention,under the leadership of Elizabeth Caddy Stanton.She introduced the Declaration of Rights and Sentiments. It read like the Declaration of Independence, and convinced women to stand up for their rights.

The Seneca Falls Convention encouraged a few women from Ohio to be more involved in Women’s equality with men. Elizabeth Bisbee, Frances Dana Gage, and other women organized women's conventions across Ohio. In 1851, Gage led a state conference in Akron, Ohio.To beat back public disapproval of women's rights at this convention, Sojourner Truth, a former slave, gave her acclaimed "Ain't I a Woman?" speech.

Truth spoke of things being out of kilter when there was conversation about peoples rights.She Ploughed, planted, and harvested better than any man on the plantation. And watched her numerous children go off into slavery.Ain't I a Women? Sojourner rebuked man's attitude that women can't have the same rights as men. Truth elaberated on God and how he made women strong to take back the world and make it right.

Women's rights have come a long way since the famous Ain't I a Woman? speech. But there's one more major goal for women's rights activist to achieve: Elect a woman president of the USA.

Ohio can lead the way by standing up and voting for Hillary Clinton! "Ain't I a Woman?"

Thank you.

                                        Ron "Tank" Rotunno

R-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

I'm voting for change I can believe in.

Not more Clintonian triangulation.

No one is trying to change your mind. It is obviously limited to "Yes We Can" and "Change We Can Believe In". These are so cliched. Obama is like a sales man who is trying to sell you a new product without you knowing how it will work. He spreads his agenda like a runny jar of mayonnaise. It may look good from the outside but when you open it, it just goes nowhere. He is all talk. He would never be able to stand up to her record or all the media's criticisms over her. McCain is already ripping apart his seems. You think the swift boat ads were bad. Wait until the Republicans start showing Obama studying in 6th grade overseas. I can read the captions now. Obama has a dreaming about traveling to new countries and meeting world leaders. He needs to grow up first, ha, ha, ha. He is no John F Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Mahatma Ghandi or the second coming of Christ. He is one big slogan away from being forgotten but after awhile the words fade and people are looking for something better and more reliable. Even Bush laughed today. This guy has not elected yet and he wants to sit with the worst leaders of the world. Hillary offers solutions not empty promises she can't deliver and not make this country simply a do gooder welfare state. Oh that sure will make the economy better. Can't wait to get my health care refund in the mail. When are tax codes going up?

I mean seriously, you are so programmed in your bumper sticker attack on Hillary, you have no idea how ironic /moronic what you just said is.  "Clintonian Triangulation" as described by the guy who came up with that nifty title, Dick Morris was based on President Clinton moving outside Democratic Orthodoxy and in fact achieving victories on issues that would neutralize Republican attacks against "Liberal Democratic Dogma", in other words getting beyond the traditional Democratic/Republican divide to achieve victories on issues often championed by conservatives to attack Democrats.   

 Has not Obama based his entire campaign on moving beyond the Democratic/Republican divide and achieving progress on goals all Americans can agree on?  Sounds like Triangulation to me.  Better yet sounds like Clintonian Triangualtion.  Please do tell me what was so outrageous about that.  Do you have any substantive opposition to those policies or did you hear a speech where it was mentioned and you just knew it was bad.  Seriously give me some examples and offer a defense of your absolutely ludricrous post or please do stfu.   I'm waiting. 

I'm afraid you are confusing policy triangulation for political style.

In the case of Clinton, he built his political successes on the adoption and re-branding of Republican legislation for his own. Rather than winning people over to the Democratic way of thinking, he hijacked their ideas and policies for his own. The only reservation left to Republicans was whether or not to support their own ideas at the cost of making Clinton look good. THAT is triangulation.

In contrast, Obama has a built a campaign on stylistic differences. Hillary and Obama have nearly identical (and very progressive) policy platforms. The difference lies in Obama's ability to attract support from Independents and disaffected Republicans in spite of his liberal policies. And how does he do this? Through his personal charisma, his quick wit, and obvious intelligence. That's one ability Hillary just does not possess.

I didn't confuse anything.  First what Clinton did wasn't just hijacking Republican ideas and call them his own.  He perfected them, making them tolerable for Democrats and used the leverage gained by their political success to achieve real progressive accomplishments during his term.  He took welfare reform, which had long been a republican race baiting talking point (welfare queen etc) and took stronger work requirements for welfare recipients and leveraged that to create the welfare to work program and the work opportunities tax credit, giving employers incentives to hire and train people coming off the rolls and created the Earned Income Tax Credit, the largest anti poverty program since LBJ.   And what happened?  The biggest reduction in poverty in 30 years, lowest African American poverty rate ever, highest African American Employment rate ever.  

 Republicans wanted to cut spending on government programs (namely slash entitlements like Medicaid and Medicare) Instead, Clinton throws them a couple insignifcant programs, consolidates the federal work force, gets rid of redundant programs, he claims victory "The Era of big Government is Over" in fact it was the biggest reduction of the federal government in a generation, AND expands Medicaid for Kids at the same time (biggest expansion since the program was created) and SCHIP gives 6 million poor kids and another 600,000 adults health care and creating the Family and Medical Leave Act too!  Come on! Those are the Republican ideas that he hijacked?  In fact that's what he did that so many people, Democrats no less, are considering "Triangultion".  Ubelieveable.

Obama has already gone beyond current Democratic policy orthodoxy on Social Security.  He ran an ad in Iowa attacking Hillary for not doing anything on Social Security, saying we got to fix this problem now, when the whole Democratic mantra in 2005 when Bush was pushing privatization was THERE IS NO CRISIS, so there would be no opportunity for Bush or Republicans in Congress to get an opening to push privatization.   But in 2005, he said,  "And we have an administration that has decided that it's going to invest its entire political capital into fixing a Social Security system that's not broke instead of fixing a health care system that everybody knows is broke. It doesn't make any sense."  Families USA Conference. 

He really hasn't shown much interest or aptitude for doing that in GOVERNMENT. As David Ignatius points out in this article in today's WaPo. Which it should not be regarded as mean and unfair to think about.

An article that relies on citing a former election opponent, a "Chicago pol" (curiously the hyperlink is broken), and not much else for support to author's opinion isn't terribly persuasive to me.

Many many opinion-makers in the news have gone backwards and forwards over the records of both candidates in the Senate. I don't think there is a lot of room for arguing one has a clear advantage over the other, and I am wary of people who say otherwise. I've seen plenty of intelligent people disagree. What I do think one can say is that Obama has worked on bipartisan legislation and had it passed. The bill on nuclear proliferation that with Richard Lugar is a prime example.

Luckily, you don't have to look only to the senate for evidence. Look at his campaign. Compare and contrast it with Hillary's. He has mobilized MASSIVE grassroots supports from a starting point of nothing at all. It is how he has beat Clinton thus far, the woman who had all the advantages: name recognition, institutional advantage, insider access, a former and very popular US president. Obama's only path to winning versus all of that is through overwhelming support at the level of ordinary people. The evidence speaks for itself: winning the popular vote and the delegate race, smashing all fundraising records in sight, 1,000,000 donors to his campaign, and an awe-inspiring volunteer ground game. 

which was in my second paragraph. (I just bounced it of the Ignatius article--which I read carefully and can't dismiss as easily as you did.)

"Campaigning" is so far removed from governance that one really has nothing to do with the other. Obama has benefitted greatly from a great marketing campaign and branding that has obviously struck a chord with those who have felt cut off from the political process.  It says nothing about what he will be able to accomplish when he has to take unpopular stands (will he? Will he risk his popularity?)  and work with a Congress that has not had a good record of accomplishing anything in recent times. Not to mention foreign entities that really don't like or trust us.

You are free to give Ignatius as much weight as you like. Reading articles "carefully" is admirable, I did too, that's how I know his link to one of his so-called sources is broken. I've seen a zillion pundits tackle this question and none of them can clearly answer the question on who has the advantage based on Senate records. It's a very complex and involved problem that requires much more than simply tallying up votes. Ignatius himself acknowledges this by ending his article with (I'm paraphrasing) 'the early evidence looks good, I just wish there was more.'

I think you have completely missed the point if you think Obama's campaign is a result of marketing and branding. He is winning states because of massive people-level support who are willing to donate their own time and money. Those people aren't going to go away. He is building the political capital now with these people for when he is President and will have to face tough resistance. He is saying these things today, in his speeches to his supporters. The one thing all politicians are sensitive to is public opinion. They don't want to lose office. A democratic congress will be much more likely to pass democratic legislation with a democratic President in office that has the backing of a movement behind him.

What campaign isn't that? It's naive to think otherwise. They've been selling us our candidates like toothpaste since television came along. People buy when they like the package that is presented to them.  They'll spend great amounts of money for it, too. But as I pointed out...you don't always get what you thought you paid for. The antiwar movement hasn't backed down on Iraq, and public opinion is now squarely against it, but somehow the Congress HAS been able to withstand the pressure of public opinion and not do anything about it, even though many who were elected in 2006 were elected on their promises to change things.

The Obama that is playing so well with Democratic primary voters isn't going to play as well with the general electorate --something Democrats get amnesia about every four years--I'd almost bet my house that all the shiny new voters inspired by the positive and hopeful message they're hearing now have NO IDEA what lengths the GOP attack machine will go to once they have a Dem nominee inevitable. Hillary has withstood their attacks for years (though sadly, many Democrats have bought into the right wing memes); Obama has never been subjected to anything close to that.  The branding change he will have to undergo to survive the sharkfest may disappoint the hopeful following he has now.  We'll soon see.

Susan,

This is such a lazy point you are stressing. No one would say campaigns don't have to pay attention to marketing and branding, but if your analysis of the Obama campaign (or any other campaign for that matter) stops there, then you aren't taking in the whole picture. A good logo doesn't explain the Obama campaign and if that is the extent of your thought process, well I beg to differ on who is being naive.

As far as Congress and the antiwar movement. That's not hard to explain. The Democrats enjoy a razor thin majority. It's simple mathematics. They don't have the numbers to overcome a presidential veto. They struggle to overcome Republican filibusters. Go google how much more compared to the history of Congress the Republicans have used the filibuster and be enlightened. It's astounding. Especially coming from the same party who several years ago was whining constantly when the Democrats would do it.

As far as Hillary withstanding right-wing attacks. Again, who is being naive? Why do you think her negatives are in the toilet and have been for years? She hasn't withstood their attacks for years, she has been subjected to them. The next Democratic nominee will have to face the same attacks regardless. The notion that Hillary is somehow better at this is laughable. So is the idea that the Republicans won't have new things to throw at her. They've had 8 years since the end of the Clinton presidency to dig up new crap, and they will use it.

Look, this whole idea of choosing a candidate from fear of what the Republicans might do to them is just wrong. Choose the candidate you like best, that you think is the most capable, that you think will best argue against the other side, but trying to read the tea leaves of the right wing smear machine is an utter waste of time.

It goes far beyond a "logo."

The Marketing of the President 2008

How Obama Got His Branding Right

What Clinton and Obama can teach UK high street retailers

etc etc etc

I've been involved with WAY too many campaigns to be naive.

I had a feeling this had something to do with the recent spate in journalism of analyzing the Obama campaign from a marketing perspective. No doubt if the roles were reversed we'd see some similar reporting for Hillary. I've read a few of these, and I think there's something to be learned but to suggest this is the whole story is silly.

Sorry. 

I wanted to give you a link to an article written BEFORE Obama decided to run about the DC consultants that were already busy at work developing his "packaging," but google is all cluttered up with the more recent articles of course, and I can't recall what publication it was in, so I'll have to dig.

This is nothing new. There have been MANY books written about the "selling" of candidates. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break the news to you. And of course all the other candidates are being marketed as well. It's just the way it's done. 

 You aren't breaking any news to me.

I just think this line of critical analysis only goes so far. I also think it's something almost any voter is aware of even if only intuitively. It's probably not the case that most people have sat around naval-gazing on the cultural implications of immersive branding, but we've all grown up swimming in that ocean nonetheless.

I think it explains how his message is spread, in part. I think it explains how he has been able to overcome some of her name recognition. That's about it. It does nothing to explain why he has a movement of activists who has over matched Hillary's campaign machine on the ground in state after state. It does nothing to explain how it is he has smashed fund raising records left and right. Marketing and branding is just a vehicle, if what it delivers has little to no value to the end user, then it will fall flat.

 Don't look behind the curtain.

"Marketing and branding is just a vehicle, if what it delivers has little to no value to the end user, then it will fall flat."--yes, and that is what remains to be seen.

Go back and review your own links. Some of what is discussed there is Obama's use of the internet and social networking (sloganeering aside). Only much later in the game has Hillary caught onto this. Compare and contrast her web site with his -- I make web site's for a living, so I am sensitive to this sort of thing. Notice how similar they are in look and feel? That didn't happen by accident. She's been poaching off his campaign for a long time now.

The latest CW (hence my earlier reference to late trends in reporting on the campaign) has been to marvel at Obama's brand control. Particular emphasis has been given to things like font selection, typeface enforcement across all campaign material, the useability of his site, his site's visually appealing design, and his smart use of social networking tools.

My point in bringing up Paul and Dean had nothing (obviously) to do with comparisons on substance. You seem rather obsessed with surface analysis of campaigns and at this level the comparisons are quite natural: internet-fueled, brand-sensitive, insurgent campaigns that rely heavily on social-networking tools to drive activist participation and funding. So the natural question becomes why is Obama succeeding where they failed? Marketing doesn't explain it. God knows their competitors (Kerry and McCain) did not beat them through some sort of Apple-like brand management kung fu. This is all the more obvious when you account for the comparatively higher hill Obama has had to climb (Clinton has vastly more advantages than either Kerry or McCain).

No, I'm decidely not fixated on that sort of analysis. I think it's useful but only in a most myopic sense. It was you who brought up marketing and branding, that's the only reason I've humored this conversation.

The product that is being marketed is the candidate and his policies. Image is the very essence of surface analysis. Message is a rather ambiguous word in this context. I suppose you mean slogans. Slogans are the verbal equivalent to visual cues like logos; they are spoken images, if you will. I don't find the minutiae of sloganeering terribly fascinating or enlightening either: it's useful but, again, only narrowly so.

Look, this is an example of where I am at in my thinking on this campaign. It's a Dean comparison, but this time on a completely different level. It discusses strategic thinking of the campaigns. Their different approaches to organization. I find this interesting because it speaks to the candidate's philosophy regarding power and how to use it. It sheds light on their management styles. This is why I think your original dismissal of the notion that the campaign can be separated from governance is wrong. I don't think the proposition that campaign = governance is true, but your inversion that campaign != governance is false for similar reasons. It's a gross oversimplification.

I mean seriously, you are so programmed in your bumper sticker attack on Hillary, you have no idea how ironic /moronic what you just said is.  "Clintonian Triangulation" as described by the guy who came up with that nifty title, Dick Morris was based on President Clinton moving outside Democratic Orthodoxy and in fact achieving victories on issues that would neutralize Republican attacks against "Liberal Democratic Dogma", in other words getting beyond the traditional Democratic/Republican divide to achieve victories on issues often championed by conservatives to attack Democrats.   

 Has not Obama based his entire campaign on moving beyond the Democratic/Republican divide and achieving progress on goals all Americans can agree on?  Sounds like Triangulation to me.  Better yet sounds like Clintonian Triangualtion.  Please do tell me what was so outrageous about that.  Do you have any substantive opposition to those policies or did you hear a speech where it was mentioned and you just knew it was bad.  Seriously give me some examples and offer a defense of your absolutely ludricrous post or please do stfu.   I'm waiting. 

and the messiah appeared!

While casting aspersions in SHrillary-like condescension, you, like other Clintonistas embrace re-fighting the wars you lost in the 90s.  We liked the economy then, but not the Clinton soap opera of an investigation du jour, some unfairly, but brought on, if not invited by the Clintonian manner of DLC politics.  Nor did we think Hillary was unfairly picked on when she cost us national healthcare because of arrogance, secrecy and a total lack of political savvy. They embraced NAFTA which may have been OK, but they threw the environment and labor in general under the bus to gain its passage. Some triagulation there!

Dick Morris is an A-hole, but who hired him?  The Clinton machine.  Do you genuinely believe that he got hired without Hillary's approval?  So much for experience we want from Day one. The toe-sucker Morris is usually wrong about most things political, but he's spot-on about the Clinton triangulation which only served a useful purpose in helping Bill avoid conviction after impeachment. The rest of the time it produced a Republican Congress, and endless partisan bickering and gridlock.  You can have that Clintonian Triagultion.

The Clinton 50+1 strategy is yesterday's politics, and Obama is attracting the masses of people-- the only sure-fire way to get Washington to listen and change what's going on.  Clintonian political strategy will produce no workable Congressional majority; Hillary couldn't bring any underdog Dem Senate candidate along because she would have no coattails; in fact she looks like a loser to McCain too, let alone a loser to Obama.  Her final gasp is using the worn-out Republican cliche of blaming the media for being unfair.  The Sybil-like campaign mode switch between "good Hillary" "Scolding Hillary" and "Sarcastic Hillary" within a matter of hours let the party know that this is not the candidate we want against McCain in the fall election.

Your childlike reponse is the immature echo chamber of the Taylor Marshes and other so-called Dems hell-bent on smearing Obama because your inevitable "it's going to be me Katie" candidate is NOT going to be the Democratic nominee.

And with that, you can STFU.

Wow I guess you showed me!  Seriously your response while failing to actually answer my question was really just a rambling recycled litany of Obama Cliche attacks i.e. Shrillary, arrogance and secrecy on health care, Clintonian Manner of DLC Politics (btw, did you know that Obama's top economics advisor comes from GASP the DLC!!!), Clinton Machine, you even managed to sneak in the Sybil reference from the Maureen Dowd article today, even copied the Scolding and Sarcastic Hillary lines.  You memorized your anti hillary tp's for today and put it to use right away.  You get a HOPE pin!

I'm going to respond to you in an adult like fashion, but give me one aside.  Your whole response is completely regurgitated attacks on Hillary.   You ever see Good Will Hunting where Matt Damon gets in the debate with the douchebag Harvard guy with the ponytail, when ponytail guy thinks he's gonna school Matt Damon, by quoting the Gordon Wood, American Revolution book, and passes the observation off on his own.  And then Matt Damon calls him on it, and says, yeah, I read that book too, page 78,right?  Were you gonna copy the whole book?  is that what you do you memorize some obscure passage and try to pass it off as your own?  Guess what, you're the Pony tail guy.  How do you like them apples!

 Ok now to respond to thisstuff.

You say that the Clintonianmanner of DLC politics brought on the investigations into theadministration?  What does thatmean seriously, are you actually implying that the Bill Clinton embracing ideaslike liberalized trade, balancing the budget, and welfare reform spurred theRepublican investigations into his Administration?  Powerful stuff. Makes complete sense.   While we’re on DLC vilification, like I said, Obama’secon policy advisor, Austin Goolsbee was the chief economist at the DLC.  I know this is gonna kill you butObama’s other two economic advisors, Leibman and Cutler, they both worked inthe Clinton Whitehouse, churning our those Clintonian manner of DLC politicsfor him.  And even though Obamamade the DLC’s “100 to watch /endorsement list” in 2003 one year before winningthe Senate, and is good friends with current DLC Chairman Harold Ford andreached out to him last year to find out how they could work together, you areabsolutely right. Obama is definitely going to get rid of these DLC politics asPresident.

You also said health carefailed because of the arrogance, secrecy and a total lack of politicalsavvy on the part of Hillary. Yeah, the nerve of her having over 130 capitol hill staffers fromvarious congressional offices on the task force.  The nerve of her meeting with Republican and DemocraticLeaders of the Senate and House in April ’93 to go over the issues in the billand begging for compromise/advice, the nerve of her making the HIAA spend $50million in Harry and Louise ads against the plan (good work by Barack on thatone, he does know effective messaging) and taking meetings with Jim Cooper(Obama’s Health Care Mentor) when he said he didn’t support universal healthcare and introduced a weaker bill, and she really screwed up by not getting PatMoynihan involved after he said that in fact “There was no health care crisis”.  If nailing on the head means that yourentire recycled lame argument in your post is wrong, then you nailed it on thehead.

Ok tired now, I got lotsmore to do on this though, you said a lot of stupid shit, but I’ll be back formore tomorrow.  

You're tired, and so is your style of politics embraced by the Clintonistas in the waning days of an unconvincing, losing campaign.

Most enlightened Dems have moved on from the Clinton Triangulation of being "Republican-lite," and that's why Obama will win both Ohio and Texas on Tuesday.  This type of "in-your-face" or "I'm going to win by ridiculing my opponents" style politics is fortunately dying a slow death, but it lingers in self-righteous ass-clowns like yourself.

Don't bother coming back, it's neither stimulating nor educational arguing the Clintonista talking points with a troll from taylormarsh.com.

Hillary's Battle-Cry: "NO WE CAN'T!"

So trying to argue any substance about the actual record is met with the same buzzwords "Clinton Style of Politics" "Triangulation" etc.  And while you decry the politics of "ridiculing my opponents" (I certainly am guilty since I've had a lot of fun at your expense) your eloquent criticism of that style of politics included....

Shrillary 

ass-clowns 

troll 

Truly remarkable stuff and the most powerful denunciation of the politics that ridicule your opponents.  I thought I had a point refuting your arguments and that Obama supporters were being a bit hypocritical, but then you hit me back with ZZZZZZZZZ.  I am indeed humbled.  

for coming over disguised here as someone wanting a real dialogue.

You insulted me because I had the temerity to criticize your candidate and the same old politics most Dems I know are sick of.  I merely returned the fire you sent to me, so get off your high-horse of disingenuity.

Just say no to the Hillary Clinton Rapid Response Team.

Go back to taylormarsh.com, you'll find lots of "friends" over there.

I've read all your responses to the comments posted on this blog. You have this self-aggrandizing tone to everything you say. Just by your moniker "Buckeye Nation". You insult people, tear down their viewpoints to pontificate your own. Not once have you provided us with serious dialogue where we could have informative debates. All you do is criticize and bastardize our candidate.

And you should not be considered the representation of "BUCKEYE NATION", if you are, you are a poor example You are showing Ohioans to be arrogant, misinformed, spilling conjecture and malaprops at people. You are so assured that the messianic OBAMA will win OHIO more like the negative archetypes that Ohioians get your reputation.

Share your reasons why instead of your inflated opinions. We are not looking for friends but to show our opinions, ideas, and comments matter and we will do whatever we can to convey them in a cogent manner.

Unlike your disingenuous junior senator from Illinois who has no experience but throws every potshot on Senator Clinton. Seems to me this is right out of the Rove playbook.

You are so assured that the messianic OBAMA will win OHIO more like the negative archetypes that Ohioians get your reputation.

I'm sure this sentence might actually mean something to you, but it would help if you fashioned it in a way that might be deciphered by English-speaking persons such as myself.

On second thought, just keep posting like this.  It's funny.  Send my regards to Hillary's Rapid Response Team.

Now what, Buckeye Nation?!! Can't we all get along? Let's put on our Roman Soldier's Helmets and march forward into the past. My talking point is boxers AND briefs BEE-ACH, and if you don't feel me you can feel me, if you know what I'm saying ;-) Because it's all strickly dickly POUND IT. Perhaps you'd prefer to join the ladies in the situation room because I feel a serious CAP coming on that the barefoot ones wouldn't understand. Anyway, they need to be kept pregnant and bombing the Kurds. My itchy buckeye is in need of relief. If only I hadn't eaten so many donuts I wouldn't be sitting on a donut. WAIT... I'm hearing a message from ground control: Major Tom is a babe, and she needs to take her protein pills. Is it just me or are you sinking in the most irregular weigh, and if I'm not mistaken it's 2:15 and your way should be buckeyeing right out of your third buckeye any decade now. HANG ON SLOOPY. You're seriously messing with the Feng Sui of my hate. Perhaps if I positioned my bizzoot squarely up your azizzzass, brotherm =, because Hogan knows best and he's telling everyone to vote for Sargeant Slaughter OH YEAH!!! because he's single and ready to mingle just as soon as they foreclose on his house in Vegas. I pitty the fool that doesn't vote for the candidate that's up all night waiting for the phone to ring. Hello??? What happened to all my oval office wall paper samples? The one's I was saving?  Do you expect me to vote? No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die, and you should never say die. Do you honestly think that a human is ready to be President? Afterall, they've been having bad hair days for over 10,000 years. If only they had run for that bus, instead of waiting. Speaking of brisket I regret that I only have one cows tail to give for this blog. MMmmm suger cow marrow.

Senator Hillary Clinton has 6 years experience in the National Senate. She has served on the Foreign Arms Committee and the Homeland Security Committee. She has voted for numerous bills on Children Health Care Initiatives, FDA Health Compliance Regulations, Improvements in Infractures (Roads and Bridges), and was the only Senator who told General Petraous (Be Tray Us) that she did not agree with his report on Iraq.

Senator Obama's only major piece of legislation was Ethics Reform. While campaigning he missed 14 votes. And he has one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate as at 95.5 as a 2 year junior Senator. He is using Jimmy Carter's former advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski on Foreign Policy. He recemad ntly sent Zbigniew Brzezinski to meet with the leader of Hezbollah after Mughniyah, one of the world's foremost terrorist was murdered much to the dismay of the supporter of Israel since. Brzezinski is well known for his dislike of Israel. I am sure this is going to help the Middle East Region.

Also

I did not make any of this up. It is all archived and documented. And Hillary never mentioned the word race..it was Michelle Obama. So get your facts straight. Hillary has a better voting record, and she is less liberal. Senator McCain will paint Obama just like he did John Kerry and he will lose badly,

Just some food for thought

 similar types of "ordinance' to inflict mass casualties among civilians

Why should Americans care so deeply about Israel, especially when they use cluster bombs against such targets?   And the word you are seeking is ordnance.

Joey,

you had me thinking until I got to your attack on education and defense of cluster bombs. What- nonIsraeli children should be denied education and should be blown up by bombs that could not be better designed to kill and maim children?

For the most part I try not to respond to honest HRC supporters (just right wing trolls in disguise). I think you really are trying to promote HRCs candidacy in a straight forward way. But DEAR GOD how can you defend anyone by saying some children don't deserve education and don't desrve to be protected from horrible weapons? The rest of your argumetns are slanted, but these are evil.

I think you're misreading what he said. He didn't say anyone should be denied education. He was referring to the pernicious role that madrassas teaching Wahhabism play in creating the kind of virulent Islamist extremism that is a real and growing threat in the world--something that MUST be dealt with more effectively than we are dealing with it now. (Hint: the military occupation of Iraq was a very bad step in the WRONG direction. But Iraq is only one small piece of the regional dynamic.)

As for cluster bombs, they're evil, as are all weapons of mass destruction--but you need to take that up with the Israelis. They're not going to give up cluster bombs as long as Hezbollah is using cluster bombs against them. I don't like warfare--and we've never yet in the history of mankind figured out how to stop agressing against one another, but we've developed ever more efficient ways to kill.  And I don't hear that being discussed seriously as a problem by ANYONE at high levels of government.

There are no attacks on education or cluster bombs. 54 people were killed today in the Gaza strip. Israel is constantly attacked by suicide bombers or Hezbollah terrorists. Both sides should work toward peace. It would be very hard to achieve that if Obama had a leading advisor that has such an anti-Israel sentiment. I am completely insulted that you would even infer that I would defend cluster bombing of innocent children. None of my arguments are slanted but used to show factual events and direct quotes from people in the political spectrum.

I listened to Hillary today while she was in an airplane flying to a campaign rally and as I do with all my responses, I took notes and gave the facts. One of the issues she brought up was that Obama has not even chaired on committee on Afghanistan and he was too busy campaigning to vote yet he boasts how he will "Focus on Afghanistan." Give me a break! He has missed 14 votes trying to be the candidate of "Change" but can't even take the time to do the job as Senator that he is being paid and elected to do. He has no credible foreign policy experience. He is brazen in his claims that he would rather sit with the world's dangerous leaders, and now is trying to interfere with the Israel-Hezbollah conflict without even being elected into office. How presumptious of him.

And to all you bloggers who continue to insult, deride, demean, and bastardize us for wanting to encourage people to vote for Hillary, all you do is express your contrite outrage and derision without discussing the issues at hand. You act no different than the pundits who offer their political expertise and continually assail and criticize Hillary and put Obama on some pedestal that he does not deserve. He is liberal to the core. He is the leading senator to vote 95.5% liberal. And I would love to hear all the wonder legislation that he has helped pass. From what I understand, is that he only was able to get Ethics Reform done.

Obama has been chomping at the bit to be President since he arrived in Washington. All his popularity right now stems from the media, African American outrage and racial sentiment, Anti-Clinton supporters who learn Republican, people making over 100.000 a year so they can avoid paying new taxes.

Hillary will win Ohio. I took the time today to call on my own 100 people in the sample I reached 56 and only 2 people said they would definitely vote for Obama. Hillary is smart. She is going from town to town all over Ohio just like President Bush did to defeat John Kerry. She will take all these little towns because she took the time to meet with the voters and address their concerns. Ohio is very similar to New Hampshire. They both have the forgotten middle class.

So all you smart-asses, who love to blog on and insult, get on your sanctimonous soap box, use all your buzz words, and your so-called intellect better start reading, listening, call and speaking to the voters, instead of spewing your ill-advised egomanical inflated, self congratulatory opinions.

This process is far from over. If you really believe that Obama will be nominee then you should not fall victim to the overconfidence you all seem to possess. Take the time to be on the trenches, go canvassing, speak to your neighbors have real cogent discussions with Hillary supporters, call the residents of Ohio and see what they are thinking instead of contiinuously massaging your own egos.

I have yet to meet a Hillary support that is being paid to do it. We do it because we CARE and we want to see her carry OHIO and give OBAMA the run for his political life. She is tough and determined. And so are we. So continue to attack us, ridicules us, extrapolation our comments and put some kind of spin like a lobbyist or insider as Hillary has been accused. She IS READY ON DAY ONE. AND SHE IS GONNA KICK SOME ASS.

Joeybulboy03

Stay tuned!

and tearing apart the Democratic Party on her way down and out the door.

What is Clinton's record? 8 years as First Lady? A failed attempt at healthcare reform that set the movement back for years? Voting in favor of theneocon Bush-Cheney war in Iraq?

Fact: Barack Obama has more legislative experience than HRC.

Fact: Barack Obama spoke out against the war from "Day one."  While Shrillary voted for it, ostensibly to show her "toughness." 

If Obama is so bad, why do you parrot Republican talking points to build-up your candidate?  So you think Bush made Obama look bad? Au contraire. Most Dems see Obama as an effective campaigner against the right-wing echo chamber.  HRC merely mimics neocon dogma.  Moreover, using George W. Bush as a talking point IN FAVOR of Shrillary shows how pathetic her campaign and sycophants have become. 

Yeah right, McCain is really ripping Obama at the "seems."  Is that why most people thought he masterfully counterpunched McCain's AlQueda remark? Shrillary wouldn't answer the "hypotheticals" at the debate in Cleveland for fear of taking the wrong position just like her votes to give Bush carte blanche in Iraq AND Iran.

Say "G'night" joeybullshitboy03.

pundit

What change? Misguided positions couched in lofty eloquent plagiarized empty rhethoric -style but no substance

Lemme get this straight?

I should vote for Hillary Clinton because she's got a different set of reproductive organs?  Not because you feel she's the best candidate?

How positively uninspiring and lacking in intelligence.

Tank,

the whole point of the feminist movement is to point out that women are sentient, rational human beings capable of defining and defending their own destinies. We don't HAVE to vote for a woman just because she has ovaries any more than we have to promote a man because he doesn't.

I won't vote for the Clintons because I think the spouse or child of a former president has too much power in the way of name recognition, favors owed, secrets known and funding networks in place. This is how the original position inheritances came about and it's absolutely anti-democratic. I've heard the argument that it's undemocratic to keep an otherwise qualified person from running, but in the end I think more damage is done to the fabric of our society by allowing dynasties. Luckily I have an alternative candidate whose policies and goals I can truly believe in.

and the backdoor antics he is up to....

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/02/obama_nafta_and_canada.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0208/Canadians_deny_Obama_call.html

"A spokesman for the Canadian Embassy to the United States, Tristan Landry, flatly denied the CTV report that a senior Obama aide had told the Canadian ambassador not to take seriously Obama's denunciations of NAFTA.

"'None of the presidential campaigns have called either the ambassador or any of the officials here to raise NAFTA,' Landry said.

"He said there had been no conversations at all on the subject.

"'We didn't make any calls, they didn't call us,' Landry said.

"'There is no story as far as we’re concerned,' he said."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/canadian-embass.html

"ABC News' Jennifer Parker Reports: A senior Canadian Embassy official in Washington, D.C. disputes a report by the CTV Canadian television network that an Obama campaign staffer telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, to reassure him that campaign rhetoric against NAFTA should not be taken seriously.

"'It didn't happen,' said Roy Norton, who heads up the congressional, public and intergovernmental affairs portfolio for the Canadian embassy.

"Norton said none of the three campaigns for Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Hillary Clinton, or Sen. John McCain have contacted the embassy. "

 AND THE STAFFER REFUSED TO DENY HE CALLED

 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=TopStories

CTV NAMES OBAMA ADVISER

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama’s senior economic adviser — Austan Goolsbee — and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any question to the campaign headquarters.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=TopStories

Admittedly CTV's attempt to save face for getting their story wrong could confuse the issue. Austan Goolsbee is not a staff member of Obama's campaign, he's an advisor. He is not an official spokesperson for the Obama campaign, and CTV is misportraying the facts if they want to pretend that he is.

Interesting also how the story has changed from the call going to the Canadian Ambassador directly to the claim that the call was made to a (still-unnamed) person at the Canadian government office in Chicago.

So, they got the alleged initiator of this alleged conversation wrong, they got the alleged receiver of this alleged conversation wrong, and we're still supposed to believe that they got the alleged content of this alleged conversation right? I'm not buying it.

Someone should tell Obama, cause there is a person named Austan Goolsbee that purports that he's Obama's chief economic advisor speaking for the campaign in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, the Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, CNBC, who put together his economic plan, signs off on new policies and talks to reporters on a daily basis.  This is indeed troubling. 

We were talking about his role in an alleged conversation with Michael Wilson, Canadian ambassador. Or was it someone else who works at the Consulate General? CTV's contradicted itself on that issue, yet the proponents of the story don't seem to care. 

Strange how people think that CTV presenting a completely different version of their original claims somehow counts as "standing by their story".

Sheer volume of prose does not indicate sheer volume of good ideas. 

You don't focus on a single one of Clinton's negatives. 

1. She refuses to release her tax returns. She says she will release them when she is the nominee, nor will she release the details of her experience as first lady. "Tested and vetted" falls apart under this fact.

2. To assume that HRC can get a universal health care plan implemented is insanity due to the looming shadow of prima facie history. She couldn't get this same plan passed in the 90s' and it was a huge embarrassment. Why would this instance be different?

3. Her campaign has been woefully mismanaged. Obama was launched into prominence by giving an amazing speech. He has gone on to be the executive of an extremely successful campaign. Hillary has mismanaged every aspect of her campaign (just like she did in her second senate race). If she is the best executive, why has the campaign been such a mess?