Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

In R.I., Clinton Adopts a Mocking Tone

By Perry Bacon Jr.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A day after she angrily criticized Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton delighted a crowd of supporters here by playfully mocking her opponent.

"I could stand up here and say, let's just get everybody together, let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect," she told a crowd that laughed at and cheered the jab at Obama's hopeful rhetoric. "... You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear."

Clinton again called mailings from Obama's campaign "dishonest" and "misleading," a day after doing so before the media as she waved one of the fliers, but she did not repeat her headline-grabbing scolding, "Shame on you, Barack Obama."

Rhode Island is one of four states that will vote March 4, although Clinton is spending much more of her time on delegate-rich Texas and Ohio.

While she is essentially ceding Vermont to Obama, Clinton told reporters on the flight here that she is "really positive" about her chances in the other states. She said she had not read a New York Times story that reported dipping enthusiasm among supporters who worried about the possible end of her campaign if she does not win in Texas and Ohio. And she lamented that Ralph Nader will undertake a third run for the presidency, arguing that in 2000 Nader "prevented Al Gore from being the greenest president we've ever had."

"Obviously, it's not helpful to whoever our Democratic nominee is," Clinton said of Nader's bid. "But it's a free country."

Along with two campaign events in Rhode Island today, she was planning to attend fundraisers here and in Boston, along with one in the District on Monday. Obama aides said the Illinois senator, awash with cash raised over the Internet, has held one fundraising event this month.

By Post Editor  |  February 24, 2008; 4:19 PM ET
Categories:  Hillary Rodham Clinton  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Obama's BFFs With Press Passes
Next: Obama Accused of Flip-Flopping on Union Aid

Comments

Hillary's vote in 2002 was a vote to support the US resolution in the UN for unrestricted inspections. I don't understand the hype. Any 'informed' citizen at that time knew that Bush could have declared war without the consent of Congress, citing Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, which provides that "The president shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Presidents have generally cited Article II, Section 2 as their authority to send soldiers into combat.

In contrast, I find Obama's position on the war disturbing. After his one single speech at an anti-war rally in the most liberal precinct in Illinois, Obama did not oppose the war at all. He did not oppose the war in the Senate. He did not even campaign against the war when ran for the Senate, contrary to what he said in the debate last week. Only when it became politically expedient to oppose the war recently, he dragged his old speech out of the closet and has been distorting Clinton's position in order to win. Here is Obama's 2004 Senate campaign website. Where is the anti-war rhetoric he is using today? http://web.archive.org/web/20030603200043/www.obamaforillinois.com/index.shtml
In 2004, when Kerry was running for president, Obama had plenty of excuses to offer for Kerry's 2002 vote, which was the same as that of Clinton and of the majority of the Senate Democrats.

Hillary Clinton's speech on the 2002 vote is here http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html
One can see that what she said then is exactly what she is saying now about her position then. Excerpts from the 2002 Clinton speech:

"...Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
...
A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

I hope everyone votes for Hillary tomorrow!

Posted by: kouti | March 3, 2008 11:06 AM | Report abuse

If the primaries have demonstrated one thing, it is this: Clinton is a policitican. Obama is a Leader (to the extent that we should fear for his personal safety).

Posted by: Terrorfied | February 25, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

The Clinton's problems are only because the people started voting. As this continues on we all have seen how nasty she gets. Even the Democratic leaders are starting to feel some relief now that she is done. Notice how they all started coming out of the closet and endorsing Obama. He will be the party nominee and they can now rest comfortably she won't ruin the party now that she won't be at the top of ticket.

Posted by: buckpsb | February 25, 2008 8:48 PM | Report abuse

It looks like Mark Penn's go-negative approach is winning over Hillary - not attractive and not a good message: sounds envious and desperate. Go out with dignity and grace, Hillary.

Posted by: bethechange1 | February 25, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

tgl88 - I'm with you and waiting eagerly to break out in the same song...DING DONG THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD!!!

Posted by: nzeke | February 25, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Hllary - meet your people:
Hussien is a con man with no idea what he will be facing if he gets elected. Hillary is my Girl!!!

Posted by: mtesema1 | February 24, 2008 08:57 PM
mt - why are you not calling her Rodham? Are you not guilty of doing the very same thing the Clinton camp is doing by trying to raise fear because of a name? Is it 1952??
It must take true intelligence for you to come to this conclusion and make it the reason Hillary is "your girl."
You must be a McCain supporter - go over to a blog about him and say something positive, will ya?

Posted by: sheridan1 | February 25, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Some comments have been made here about not supporting Obama because of hateful comments toward Hillary by Obama supporters here on this forum. Of course, one should note first of all that some of the hostile anti-Clinton comments here are likely from Republicans, who truly hate the Clintons, rather than actual Obama supporters. Still, the truth is that there has been plenty of demeaning rhetoric on these forums by supporters of all candidates. That's unfortunate and does nothing positive for the important task of selecting our next President. But the candidates certainly cannot be blamed for the excesses of their overly zealous supporters.

On the other hand, the candidates are responsible for what they and their campaigns say and do. And along that line, we have seen Hillary Clinton constantly attack Barack Obama, with her campaign even injecting race. We can debate about the MLK/LBJ comments by Hillary and the "fairy tale" remark by Bill, but Bill's dismissal of Obama's big win in South Carolina by saying, "Jesse Jackson" won it also but not the nomination, has unquestionable racial overtones (Why didn't he mention John Edwards, who also won SC in 2004 but not the nomination?). And remarks by a Clinton campaign leader about how Latinos don't vote for Blacks is undeniably a racist remark, which was never disavowed by Clinton.

Yet, after all of the Clintons' attacks on Obama, Hillary has the chutzpah to stand and say, "Shame on you, Barack Obama," on account of a flier which simply tells the truth about Clinton's healthcare plan and previous NAFTA support. It was Hillary herself who made much of the distinction that her plan covers everyone by MANDATING coverage, as contrasted with Obama's. Now she says it's unfair to call a mandate a mandate by saying that the plan would force (mandate = force) people to purchase it, whether they can afford it or not (universal by mandate = no one can opt out/ can't afford it is no excuse). She has also wanted to claim Bill Clinton's record of accomplishments as her own. Well, Bill signed NAFTA into law. There's no way she can get around that. And she is on the record as saying positive things about NAFTA, whether or not she used the word, "boon."

Now Hillary has even assumed a mocking tone toward Obama that distorts his call for a different, less polarizing kind of politics as some kind of "pie in the sky." Obama has been very clear that the change he seeks will be very demanding and difficult and will require mobilizing masses of people to put pressure on their leaders to seek solutions rather than partisan bickering. There is nothing naive or idealistic about that. Actually, this campaign has already proven that Obama can inspire and mobilize masses of people to work for change, moving a little known candidate to overcome overwhelming odds against him in and overtake Hillary Clinton despite her huge advantage in name recognition and huge head start in fundraising, organization, and campaigning.

Meanwhile, Obama has responded calmly and by pointing out the facts. The contrast is very telling about who is ready to be commander-in-chief and leader of the free world. Hillary's histrionic accusations and demeaning attacks are reminiscent of how George Bush talks about an "axis of evil" and says, "bring it on," exercising his cowboy diplomacy and demonizing anyone who stand in his way. Obama seems much more presidential and capable of having a rational dialogue with other leaders, foreign or domestic. Which one of these looks more like change?

Posted by: PastorGene | February 25, 2008 1:47 PM | Report abuse

Nadar has just made the list; along with Dick Cheney, Antonin Scalia, W, and Clarence Thomas, of graves I want to pee on when they make their journeys to hell.

Posted by: horace_simon1 | February 25, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Wouldn't he have to "disown" his own wife's comment then about never being proud of America until he ran?

Posted by: JakeD | February 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY IN THE BUNKER-Day2

With the enemy rapidly approaching the Bunker, Hillary frantically imagines ficticious scenarios of victory.

With delusion and denial, Hillary reverts to her acidic personality...

The lights dim in the Bunker.

Posted by: JaxMax | February 25, 2008 11:45 AM | Report abuse

TV Commercial:

Scene: Dark, closed down factory in Ohio or Michigan, footsteps heard in empty factory

NARRATOR: There were good jobs here. Good family paychecks.

Then President Clinton signed NAFTA..

(Video of Bill Clinton signing NAFTA
with Hillary in background)

Hillary Clinton says:

("I could stand up here and say, let's just get everybody together, let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect,"soundbite from article above

SCENE- Light shines on Obama in empty factory,

"I always oposed NAFTA and will do so as your President" Obama says

SCENE: Happy workers returning, factory lights up

Screen Fades,"Obama for American Jobs"

Posted by: JaxMax | February 25, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

All these Hillary/woman-hating comments only reinforce why I would never vote for Barack. I don't want to be lumped in with supporters like you! You're comments are repulsive. Barack should disown the Hillary hating and supporters who post such drivel if he wants any chance at winning Hillary supporters to his campaign. Most of my friends will vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination.

Posted by: Mondegreenie | February 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

Someone get this woman a mental evaluation quick.

She is losing her mind.


She is in denile/.

Cant wait to see he explod tomorrow night.

Hillary stop throwing temper tantrams

Posted by: MsRita | February 25, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

Great! Hillary has found her inner Margaret Thatcher. Now for some slicing and dicing. Go Hillary!

Posted by: PhilTR | February 25, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

Hillary pay your bills how long does it take for you to pay.

copied from New York Times

Mr. Semetis catered a Clinton event, a rally she did not attend, at the offices of District Council 37, the public employees' union, on Dec. 15, charging the campaign $2,300, plus $192.63 in tax. Officials promised him that his business, Sale & Pepe Fine Foods, would be paid by check or credit card in a couple of weeks. After a few weeks passed, he started calling to see about the holdup.

Often he never reached anyone; other times he was told that his bill had been put through to the campaign's headquarters in northern Virginia.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Semetis, Mrs. Clinton was navigating some dire financial straits. She was having a dismal month of fund-raising while spending a million dollars a day to battle Senator Barack Obama. She finished January essentially in the red, with $7.6 million in debts, and she was forced to lend her campaign $5 million.

It was when news broke about Mrs. Clinton's loan earlier this month that Mr. Semetis became positively alarmed and started calling the campaign almost every day. "The fact she's lost 10 states in a row has increased the phone calls," he said.

After a reporter from The New York Times contacted the Clinton campaign on Friday, Howard Wolfson, Mrs. Clinton's communications director, said a check to pay Mr. Semetis had been put through the day before, and he furnished a copy of the check, dated Feb. 21, as proof.

When asked to explain the delay, he said only: "We do our best to pay our vendors in a timely fashion."

Mr. Semetis, however, is not the only one who has been having trouble lately collecting money from the Clinton campaign. The Hotel Ottumwa, a family-owned hotel in Ottumwa, Iowa, played host to an event attended by former President Bill Clinton on New Year's Eve for several hundred people and had been trying for almost a month and a half to get paid.

The hotel had initially asked for payment of the $9,125 bill up front but kept being put off

Posted by: MsRita | February 25, 2008 9:31 AM | Report abuse

By Perry Bacon Jr.
PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A day after she angrily criticized Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton delighted a crowd of supporters here by playfully mocking her opponent.

"I could stand up here and say, let's just get everybody together, let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect," she told a crowd that laughed at and cheered the jab at Obama's hopeful rhetoric. "... You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear."

Oh No!!! PLEASE somebody help Hillary. Obama has gotten into her head and under her skin. She is loosing control. Please HELP, HELP Hillary.

Posted by: vicnobun | February 25, 2008 9:23 AM | Report abuse

Mrs Clinton has had issues managing her own campaign finances and personnel, what will happen if she were the president and had to work with congress?


Posted by: scootab | February 25, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of waving a magic wand , Hillary thought she could just get a bunch of F.O.B.'s ( friends of Bill) to donate a bunch of money , steamroll over the opposition and waltz her way to the presidency. Not so fast. What her people and the Republicans are saying about him being naive is rapidly being disproved by his skill and tenacity of building a large , broadbased coalition of people willing to work their hearts out for him. On the contrary, it is Hillary who is turning out to be the naive little princess who was caught totally off guard. Now her campaign is starting to look like a squirrel caught in the middle of an eight lane highway. She blew $96,000 on party platters for the caucuses in Iowa. At $40 a pop,that's 2400 party platters. Her campaign has consistently blew large amounts of money on frivolties and very highly paid advisers who are getting rich off giving her schizophrenic advice. She is about out of money and now while she should be campaigning, she had to run to Boston for another fat-cat fundraiser and is going to Washington D.C. tonight for another to hit up her lobbyist friends.

Posted by: majorteddy | February 25, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

I thought the mocking was hysterical. I cannot believe that the Obamabots have absolutely no sense of humor regarding their Chosen One. Chill folks it's all in fun. Some day you may actually have to take some heat. The "unity schtick" is getting pretty lame.

Posted by: baptisa77ohio | February 25, 2008 8:07 AM | Report abuse

ceciboloca wrote, "When did he go to Church for the last 26 years? He is 46 years old now? Is there something true of him not being a Christian"

Who cares? I don't which country you're a citizen of but I am an American and this nation is the property of no single religion. In fact it was formed to leave all those religious squabbles behind.

True religion is in conduct. Constant fighting and hating is the way of the Republicans and Hillary--who became like Republicans after fighting them so long. And that is un-Christian, un-Islamic, un-Hindu, un-Buddhist, un-pagan and undesireable in every way.

Posted by: DrSubtle | February 25, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

Yes, where are the tax returns and where's the full disclosure about campaign fundraisers? Maybe we need a magic wand to make those tax returns and disclosures to appear. Or will it take a celestial choir to sing the praises of Billary for truth to come out?

By the way, did it take a magic wand to order $11,000 worth of pizza in January for the Clinton camp or to pay 15 million dollars to Wolfson, Penn, Grunwald, etc.? The only way celestial choirs will ever appear for Hillary is if she pays them exorbitant consultant fees.:)

Posted by: DrSubtle | February 25, 2008 7:30 AM | Report abuse

HILLARY, WHERE ARE YOUR TAX RETURNS?

Posted by: sconradweesner | February 25, 2008 7:13 AM | Report abuse

Maybe her great campaign staff can come up with a NEW theme. How about "Two Americas"?

Posted by: steveboyington | February 25, 2008 5:21 AM | Report abuse

I am delusional and inspired by empty words ... " NOT!" (quoting Borat )

1) tax breaks for people under earning $75,000
Well I'm an IT guy and make under $75,000 so these empty Obama words would benefit me.

2)tax cuts for companies that ship jobs oversea and review of nafta.
Since I speak to my work colleges located in Montreal every workdays, and I regularly communicate with other teammates in India. I think that cutting tax breaks to companies that outsource high good paying jobs like mine to Canada and India is a good first start (I say that even if I like my teammates there). If we don't force our companies to keep jobs here, many IT jobs may will go away in the next 5 to t10 years. Obama empty words again benefit me.

3)4000 /yr tuition in exchange for service such as government service.
Well OK, no benefits to me here, but I like it, I wish it was there when I was in University in the 90s. It would have helped me a lot! Well OK, Clinton wins here, I like this one because of nostalgia, I let my emotions sway me. "Shame on me". (Ok you can boo on this one, I paraphrasing Clinton out of context here in a joke attempt)

4)To talk leaders of regimes we oppose and are opposed to us.
Yes I admit, I am shameless, I also have an emotional reaction to Obama's foreign policy. I happen to like the fact that someone says that our foreign policy is hypocritical when it comes to choosing who we talk to. I like someone that says that we will lead by example and make a show good faith ourselves, because at this time in history America has to think strategically and not tactical. IMHO, America needs to show good faith to the world because the way we have doing as of late, we're getting to the point where we will soon need to world to show us good faith us. Some call it being naive, other call it vision. But I know this, if this is the vision I have, and a candidate offers me that vision, then this is the candidate I vote for. I guess I am guilty of being moved by feelings, because even if I am an IT guy, its the foreign policy vision that really moves me, that's the change I am looking for. (feel free to XEROX this if you wish)

The problem with Clinton's approach is, she is not just attacking Obama, she is attacking his supporters, other democrats, other Americans! She had the reputation for being a polarizing figure, I never really understood what that meant until now! I guess all I needed was a concrete example.

If the press was mean to hillary, they would have turn this celestial choirs incident into a howard dean moment.

They would have done the same with this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jfa9XIJxdAg&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/24/14438/5462/534/463220

Posted by: jmd1701 | February 25, 2008 4:00 AM | Report abuse

I have a lot I could say about Hillary's ridiculous antics, but I am so much more angry at 'xbox' - and can't believe that not another single person posting here took this person to task on his/her comment about the 'dummies' who volunteered to be in Iraq. How dare you discredit the men and women of our armed services. You are clearly the most ignorant person I have come across in these blogs - and God knows I have come across a lot of them. then again, you are a hillary supporter - all we hear from that camp is hate; it spews from her website. I feel sorry for you.

Posted by: mrabrams | February 25, 2008 3:06 AM | Report abuse

Tell it like it is, Hillary.

Obama's announcement of what he would do overseas reveals just how naive, immature, and inexperienced he is. And he is guilty of 'trading on the race card' by maliciously implying Hillary made a racist comment, and is trying to ride on the coattails of Martin Luther King's popularity right into the White House. He should grow up before he runs for President again. I second that, Shame on you, Obama.

Posted by: lyndalee8888 | February 25, 2008 2:14 AM | Report abuse

Here's Obama's answer to questions about patriotism and being a Muslim: "Whenever I'm in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America," Obama frequently tells voters. "I've been going to the same church for 20 years, praising Jesus," he adds.

When did he go to Church for the last 26 years? He is 46 years old now? Is there something true of him not being a Christian? I also read somewhere he was baptized at age 20? What was the situation when he was a teener? Did he decided to become a Christian at that time because he already had an ambition to become a politician?

Posted by: vidcre | February 25, 2008 1:46 AM | Report abuse

You call this a playful display? She looks and sounds like she is suffering a meltdown. It is not a pretty picture. Hillary Clinton is losing it and she has lost every sense of dignity and decorum. And it comes on the heels of another inappropriate outburst yesterday. Hillary Clinton does not have the temperament to be president. She seems to be suffering from multiple personality disorder as she goes hot/cold and continues to reinvent herself- ultimately she has to lose credibility. Today she looked as if she was losing her mind.
You can view the video here and judge for yourself:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html

Posted by: ceciboloca | February 25, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

to counslr523: good luck with the 100 years war with old man McCain. We don't need racists like you in the Dem party. In fact, you sound more like a shill for the Repubs than a real Hillary supporter. Get over yourself, you just not that important.

Posted by: cbl-pdx | February 25, 2008 12:25 AM | Report abuse

Whaaah! He's making fun of me so I'm going to try to make fun of him by repeating everything he says.

That'll show that meanie, Barack!

Posted by: reporter1 | February 25, 2008 12:09 AM | Report abuse

Seriously . . . Hillary has cried twice during this campaign already (and IF the tears were not fake, voters need to keep in mind that these were selfish tears shed for her own failing efforts in the campaign - nothing noble), she has thrown a hissy fit with her (eye bulging, vein popping) ranting and raving about Senator Obama's tactics that were nothing less than honorable, and now she is once again adopting that childish mocking tone that she has displayed on more thaqn one occasion. Does this appear to be PRESIDENTIAL material to anyone?

Posted by: diksagev | February 24, 2008 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Mocking?
Oh, SHrillary, please stop embarrassing yourself and my party. You are disappointing me --
From a once strong supporter and admirer--
Go, Obama!

Posted by: mbbiggs | February 24, 2008 11:22 PM | Report abuse

If I've said it once, I've said it a million times. Thou shalt not mock or scouff even if that's your style Billary. Thou shalt not put down other's values to make your empty smile meaningful (of what?). Thou shalt not open your mouth and thou shal not touch my baby.

Posted by: MissClarty | February 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Report abuse

So, let me get this straight, Obama is weak like Carter, and so you want a strong president in McCain who's more like . . . Bush? yeah, that's done us a lot of good.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Hillary says: "You are not going to wave a magic wand and have the special interests disappear."

No, Hillary, not if you're taking their money hand over fist, that's for sure. What a pity that someone who thinks she's ready to lead should be so cynical about the possibility of doing the least bit of good.

It's also very interesting to contrast the demeanor of the two candidates. Obama has been calm and measured from the start, no matter what has been thrown at him. Hillary appears to be exhibiting multiple personalities as she tries ever more desperate measures to gain people's approval.

For those who feel sorry that she's being led astray by her advisors, I respectfully ask you to think about the following: If she's being led astray by sycophants now, is there any reason to think she'll suddenly wise up if she gets in the White House?

And do we really think she has a chance of getting there if she can't handle running against a fellow Democrat. What on earth will happen to her when they roll out the "vast right-wing conspiracy" guns?

If you measure the candidates by the way they're running their campaigns, the choice is clear. One person only is pursuing a winning strategy that is successful, fiscally responsible, calm, commanding, and unifying.

That's the guy I want in charge!

Regards
-=-
Scarlett http://scarlettswhirled.blogspot.com/

Posted by: ScarlettHill | February 24, 2008 11:13 PM | Report abuse

Obama, do the right thing as Spike Lee said and get out. You're not up for the task. You're wife can be not proud to be an American back in Chicago. Hillary Clinton is a true american..a woman who took one on the chin for this country. Unlike Barry(if it's a white crowd) Hussein Obama. Obama will be a weak, weak president. All signs point to "deer in the headlights" when the heat gets turned up. And Hillary's push back will nothing next to McCain's. Fold Barry,fold.

Posted by: deminFLA | February 24, 2008 10:16 PM | Report abuse

Obama is an arrogant, condescending, has done nothing of substance, candidate getting a free ride from the press. Thankfully the free ride is ending. His church, his sleazy connections, his lack of experience, his wife's angry black woman chip on her shoulder, are all coming out. I only pray for the country it isn't too late. This guy as president is Carter all over again. I'm voting MCcain as is every dem over 40 in Florida if he's the nominee. I vote common sense over cult of personality.

Posted by: deminFLA | February 24, 2008 10:11 PM | Report abuse

If the so called inexperienced empty suit from the slums of Chicago can be ahead of the inevitable candidate after 36 states have voted, then think about how much fun Putin, Ahmadinejad, al-Sadr and Hugo Chavez will have with Hillary.

Posted by: jim283 | February 24, 2008 10:02 PM | Report abuse

The clouds parted, a light appeared, and then a lightning bolt zapped her into a pile of ash, which was soon blown away by the gathering wind.

A feller's got to dream after all!

Posted by: itsatest | February 24, 2008 9:46 PM | Report abuse

Another tone change?! Hillary, you're way off script. Allow me:
Shock
Denial
Bargaining
Guilt
Anger
Depression
Acceptance

Posted by: Dave20707 | February 24, 2008 9:45 PM | Report abuse

At this point Clinton is only doing harm to the Democratic party. Do the right thing Mrs. Clinton... consider the whole rather than your part in it.
Please.

Posted by: PulSamsara | February 24, 2008 9:29 PM | Report abuse

Hussien is a con man with no idea what he will be facing if he gets elected. Hillary is my Girl!!!

Posted by: mtesema1 | February 24, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Oh yeah, putting a flag sticker on your bumper really boosted America's chances in Iraq. Wearing a flag lapel pin is the ultimate sign you're a true American. Worked in Vietnam era right? Why don't we make constitution lapel pins; after all, that's what we swear an oath to if we get elected. Then again, that would diminish the power of symbolic, but otherwise empty patriotism wouldn't it?

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

"I could stand up here and say, let's just get everybody together, let's get unified..."

But she won't...win at all cost and to hell with unifying the Democratic Party.

Posted by: brodier | February 24, 2008 8:56 PM | Report abuse

What precisely is Hillary Clinton's great experience for being Commander in Chief? Her work in the Senate has not been stellar in terms of rallying Democratic Unity against the Bush agenda. She had never held executive office. She and Obama were/are both lawyers which cancels the advantage or disadvantage for each. It's not so much that she has experience and Obama doesn't, it's that she claims experience she doesn't have and trashes Obama for vision she doesn't have either.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchaf | February 24, 2008 8:50 PM | Report abuse

Obama will collapse under the Swift-Boat-style attacks that will attend his nomination. He is another George McGovern.
Hillary MUST win the nomination to aviod a McCain Presidency. To win, she must go for broke and attack Obama. She needs to take the gloves off and start talking about his unpatriotic behavior. I guarantee the Republicans will.

Posted by: pupplesan | February 24, 2008 8:42 PM | Report abuse

Whoops, lost her voice again.

Posted by: MShaughn | February 24, 2008 8:33 PM | Report abuse

jameswhanger
I would rather prefer to have a choice between attack agianst non-attack than poor attack against strong attack.

Posted by: bibs | February 24, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton's erratic behavior concerns me about what kind of president she would be. One day she's crying, the next day she's playing nice with Obama, the next day she's attacking furiously. What if she acted like this on the international stage - it would completely confuse our allies and enemies and be quite dangerous. She's all over the place on strategy as well. At the same time, Sen Obama is calm, cool, and collected. He doesn't let anything rattle him. His strategies are consistent. I don't agree with him on everything but I think he'd make a much better, and safer, president.

Posted by: jay_casey | February 24, 2008 7:55 PM | Report abuse

bibhudash,

They aren't both in the same boat. The Clinton campaign strategy was:

1. Intentionally distort Obama's policy with the intent of putting Obama on the defensive.

2. Feign surprise when he responds, even though she expects the response, it's why they distort it in the first place.

3. Frame her as the victim, even though she took the first shot with the intentional distortion.

The problem with this strategy was that Obama did not play his role the way the Clintons wanted him to. Rather than react angrily and retaliate strongly, he identified the tactic for what it was, and then calmly explained why their distortions were in fact not true, and finally put forth a substantive argument for his position.

When watching this play out again and again. It's only natural for the media to report, describe, and analyze it.

No conspiracy.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 7:52 PM | Report abuse

State of the Black Union 2008
Hillary Attending vs. Barack Obama not attending
www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIapXSKKr2U

Posted by: dotheresearch | February 24, 2008 7:31 PM | Report abuse

blowmeplz
Light will shine for those who are still sleeping and dreaming.
For us,everyday starts with the ligh shining through the window.
How about those people who have lost all their houses due to Katrina yet to have a window to see the light.

Posted by: bibs | February 24, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

"... a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany ... and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Obama" - Barack Obama Lebanon, New Hampshire.
January 7, 2008.

http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/

transportation
http://flighttoguyana.com/

beverage
www.kraftfoods.com/koolaid/

Posted by: blowmeplz | February 24, 2008 7:22 PM | Report abuse

kevinlarmee said "A QUESTION FOR HILLARY
Answers are below the qustions:

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ?
>> She didnot get a ticket but her mom has.

A SERIOUS QUESTION
People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but alway expect other parents' children to die in them.
WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????"

>> It is not Iraq where US soldiers are dying.It is everywhere.In the past it ws vietnam.They are also dying in Africa & Afghanistan.It is nothing new.

Posted by: bibs | February 24, 2008 7:11 PM | Report abuse

kevinlarmee said "A QUESTION FOR HILLARY:
WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ?
Why is Chelsea campaigning for her mother, going to Hawaii...if she supports her mother, why isn't she fighting in Iraq?
A SERIOUS QUESTION
People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but alway expect other parents' children to die in them.
WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????"

If you volunteer to be in a military, sucks for you. You know you can be in a war, or dead at any time. What are you stupid, not to know that. Hillary voted for it, not her daughter. But those dummies in Iraq volunteered, they were not drafted.

Posted by: Xbox | February 24, 2008 6:53 PM | Report abuse

jameswhanger
It doesnot make much difference.
I think both are in the same boat.Both are doing attacks wheter it may be poor or strong.
I would rather prefer to have a choice between attack agianst non-attack than poor attack against strong attack.

Posted by: bibs | February 24, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

syoung1 at 6:18:

Seems like Senator Clinton is the one doing the disparaging here.
And who has the ego problems?
Yesterday she was talking like Senator Obama needed a spanking or something--
"Shame on you, Barack Obama."
Get Real, the man is a US Senator.

Posted by: bhotchkin | February 24, 2008 6:50 PM | Report abuse

People do not remember Jimmy Carter. He proclaimed change to this country and even when he was and is an honest person he also was an inept president who brought the 20% interest rates and a double digit inflation to this country. Democrats were in power for 4 years. Young people should read history because Obama (good intentions) but not ready for such a big job.

Posted by: keylargo53 | February 24, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

It is generally Hillary making a poorly conceptualized attack and then Obama responding by identifying it as an attack, defining it as old politics, and then calmly explaining why the attack isn't true. When one observes this again and again, the media is going to report that process. Again, no conspiracy.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 6:43 PM | Report abuse

the964kid
Noone in the democratic race is a clear winner till yet but republicans have McCain as the clear leader.
Then how can one say that Obama can bring the country together?If so then by this time he could have been a winner already.

Posted by: bibs | February 24, 2008 6:34 PM | Report abuse

jameswhanger
Let me first make it clear I donot support Oboom or Hill.
Let us go to the basics.It is always Oboom who is on the offensive and Hill beomes defensive.See the last email campaign Oboom saying about Hill that Hill's healthcare plan will have everyone has to pay for it.Then Hill goes on the defensive.
How many times Hill has sent campaign like this?
Yes, true.She is trying all and desperate.In this situation,Oboom would also have done that.
This has happpened in all past presidential race and nothing new.

Posted by: bibs | February 24, 2008 6:28 PM | Report abuse

This is pathetic. She's only reinforces what it is that people dont like about her and that she does not have the ability to bring people together. Anybody who thinks Obama has no plan for America should go to his website and read the dozens of detailed pages which are every bit as complete as Hillary's (I've actually read thru both of their plans). The reality is that they have pretty similar positions - so this is all Hillary has left - negative personal attacks. She's pathetic...

Posted by: the964kid | February 24, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

I wonder how many of the Obama fans above are actually McCain fans.

As for the mailers, perhaps the WaPo could spare some of their great untapped "journalism" to point out that he supports Bush's SPP (spp.gov), aka "NAFTA on steroids":

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007494.html

Posted by: LonewackoDotCom | February 24, 2008 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Yes, I don't disagree, bibhudash. The point I was trying to make, but perhaps didn't phrase clearly, is that when one side goes strongly negative as the Clinton campaign has, and it doesn't work, they look bad because there is plenty of bad stuff to report.

"A" attacks "B" and "B" calmly responds. "A" accuses "B" of being incompetent, yet "B" wins again and again and again. Of course the articles are going to look good for "B". He's winning against the champ, who was expected to coast quite easily to the nomination.

When the narrative begins with "It's Clinton's nomination to lose" and they lose 10 primaries in a row, and they didn't have a plan beyond Super Tuesday, there is plenty of bad stuff to report. And when in comparison, the upstart is running a very disciplined and successful campaign, in spite of the accusations that he isn't capable to be chief executive, there is a story there.

It's not a conspiracy. It's simply the structure of the ongoing narrative. Don't you think the NY Times would prefer to have more positive things to report about the Clinton campaign?

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 6:20 PM | Report abuse

I just can't imagine Hillary as the President of the US, going from "I'm a Clinton" attitude, to crying before New Hampshire, to racially divisive before South Carolina, to conciliatory at the end of the Feb. 21st Texas debate, to angry and yelling on Saturday. I wonder what other world leaders think when they see this type of behavior out of a potential US president. As a US citizen, I'm appalled! Hopefully the voters of Ohio and Texas will tell Hillary, no more please!

Obama in 08!

Posted by: ajtiger92 | February 24, 2008 6:19 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton must be an un-treated Bipolar. She is very unstable and all over the map.

Posted by: cakemanjb | February 24, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Hillary- so right to expose the arrogant narcisism of the Obama campaign. What an egoist to disparage all the hard work you and others have done throughout your careers . We get it. We hear you. Thanks for hearing all of us!

Posted by: syoung1 | February 24, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

Hi All - I think Senator Clinton may need some help.
Watch the video from CNN below, and tell HuffPost whether you think Clinton's line of attack against Obama will help or hurt her campaign:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/24/hillary-clinton-mocks-bar_n_88194.html

Posted by: dotheresearch | February 24, 2008 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Dear laplumelefirmament
She has already supported a flirt like Bill then what is the big deal if she supported a rapist.Obama was a druggist and you are supporting a druggist.
Is there any difference?

Posted by: bibs | February 24, 2008 6:13 PM | Report abuse

CLINTON DEFENDED A RAPIST IN HER PAST

BREAKING NEWS

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

Newsday's Glenn Thrush has that rarest of things: A new chapter to the Hillary's biography, and one that cuts sharply against a central part of her image: That she's spent her whole career fighting for children:

[T]here is a little-known episode Clinton doesn't mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas - using her child development background to help the defendant.

[snip]
[Clinton's] account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy - attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to aNewsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.

Clinton's aides point out, accurately, that she was bound to present her indigent client the best defense available, which she did: He was able to plead down to a much lesser offense.

But read the whole story. Thrush reconstructs the crime, Clinton's role as a legal "bulldog," and her defense through court and police documents, and interviews a range of parties, including the alleged victim.

It's really an astonishingly good piece of reporting.

Posted by: laplumelefirmament | February 24, 2008 6:11 PM | Report abuse

jameswhanger
See all the columns,articles & blogs flaoting around.80-90% favour Obama whereas 1-2 favour Clinton.That is a fact.I am a republican and donot favor Hill or Oboom.

Posted by: bibs | February 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Only if Obama goes out of his way to insult Putin or any other world leader. That's not talking to people and mending the fences so badly broken by Bush. It's exacerbating the problem.

Posted by: stburke40 | February 24, 2008 6:08 PM | Report abuse

How do all of the articles describing Obama's supporters as being naive, cultlike, and foolish mesh with the idea that the press is overly favorable to Obama?

The simple explanation is that when one side goes strongly negative and the other doesn't, the side that went negative looks bad in comparison.

It's not a vast Democratic or Republican conspiracy. It's not a media conspiracy in retaliation for the Clinton's blaming them for the Lewinski scandal. No one made up the 10 wins in a row. No one made up the elected Democrats reaction to the Clintonian tactics.

They aren't victims, as much as they would like us to believe otherwise.

Posted by: jameswhanger | February 24, 2008 6:06 PM | Report abuse

So, if Putin says that about Obama, you won't vote for Obama either?

Posted by: JakeD | February 24, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

I am registered Independent but will not vote for Obama.

Posted by: JakeD | February 24, 2008 6:02 PM | Report abuse

How sad. The petty, pathetic antics that Hillary has shown in the past few days are anything but presidential. I'll take a starry-eyed optimist I can be proud of; over a mocking, outraged primadonna anyday!
Let's remember that Hillary has already gotten Putin to say of her-"At the very least, a head-of-state should have a head".

Posted by: stburke40 | February 24, 2008 6:01 PM | Report abuse

No matter what she does,she has to do against the media,obama & all his young supporters.By that means,she hasnot given hope but given a chance to Obama which he declared he could have resigned by now.That shows who is more persistent.I donot digest the fact that how can he biuld the consensus on iraq war if he isnot that persisten as he sounds.Hats off to her.

Posted by: bibs | February 24, 2008 5:59 PM | Report abuse

Sen. Clinton stated:
"Now I could stand up here and say, let's get everybody together, let's get unified the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing," she said, to a smattering of giggles. "And everyone will know we should do the right thing, and the world will be perfect."

She added: "But I have no illusions about how hard this is going to be. You are not going to wave a magic wand and make the special interests disappear."

Of course Sen. Clinton has no illusions, nor should she. That analysis is correct if SHE is the nominee because she is such a polarizing and divisive figure [whether deserved or not is an entirely different debate]. With Sen. Clinton, everything WILL be a fight, not to mention considerably harder than it need to be. I'm sure there will be a large percentage of people that will oppose ANYTHING she attempts to do.

All of this begs a simple question. Say you have Candidate A pushing a relatively progressive agenda, but will have to fight [I almost used scratch and claw before I realized the negative gender implications]for every morsel of political agenda.

Or you have Candidate B, also pushing a relatively progressive agenda. With Candidate B, there is an unknown element as to the level of cooperation that could be marshaled in pushing the agenda. However, Candidate B is running broad themes such as reconciliation and inclusiveness.

Suppose further that Sen. Clinton is 100% correct in her assessment that pushing the progressive agenda will be incredibly difficult and obstructed at every turn. EVEN IF, that assessment is spot on, it is argument against Candidate A [bet you didn't know which was was which due to my clever disguise]?

With Sen. Clinton, we KNOW that we well have to fight for every scrap of the progressive agenda. With Sen. Obama, we MAY have to fight in the same manner. Or maybe we only have to fight half as much, or even three quarters as much. Either way, it frees energy and resources that could be better spent elsewhere.

Expending energy is a resource of which there is a finite amount. If I KNOW I will have to expend it at every turn on behalf of Sen. Clinton's agenda and I MAY have to expend the same amount for Sen. Obama, why on Earth would I support Sen. Clinton?

The argument is simply counter-intuitive.

I won't even comment on the brazen attempts to tap into the messianic criticisms of Sen. Obama. That kind of a cheap shot, almost by itself, would exclude you from consideration for my vote.

Although, it's comments just such as these that perfectly explain why Sen. Clinton remains such a polarizing figure.

Posted by: jeff.cronin | February 24, 2008 5:50 PM | Report abuse

I would rather have McCain too.

Posted by: JakeD | February 24, 2008 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Tomorrow's new campaign slogan: "Mock the Vote".

I think she better pay off those small vendors she's left high and dry with her spending spree...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/23/nyregion/23owe.html

Only a few want to see this train wreck. I know I don't. Keep your dignity.

Posted by: jrw34 | February 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

Hateful, angry people do hateful, angry things.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 24, 2008 5:44 PM | Report abuse

I use to think Mrs. Bill Clinton was a great lady. But, she is acting very undignified. I'd rather have McCain be our diplomat representing us on the world scene, and I'm a Democrat.

Posted by: Yv_Akai | February 24, 2008 5:35 PM | Report abuse

Gee, doesn't seem too smart to mock the majority of the democratic party.

Obama gives the democratic party a larger constituency and a real consensus. He will draw people into the party, and he will lead the party toward an inclusive message that will counter the republican 'perfect storm' that came together under bush. The dems would have to be brain dead to turn their back on it.

Posted by: maq1 | February 24, 2008 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Apparently her 'slash and burn' policy is now directed at her own legacy.

I heard from so many Obama supporters (who were really angry at the tactics employed increasingly by the Clintons) say how impressed they were with Hillary's truly classy ending to the last debate. Whether or not the words echoed Edwards' and Bill's, they were good words, and I was kind of hoping we'd seen the 'real' Hillary finally standing up to bad advice from the likes of Mark Penn.

I think now it's clear to everyone with open eyes who the 'real' Hillary is. It's too bad. She has many wonderful qualities that could have made her a good presidential candidate. Unfortunately the bad qualities outweigh them.

We had one of the most impressive lineups of Democratic contenders in this election. It is very sad for the party that the Clinton brand overshadowed people of integrity and REAL experience, and we are left with someone who places her own political survival above the interests of the party and the country.

For her actions in this campaign, she deserves to lose.

Posted by: bklynsam | February 24, 2008 5:20 PM | Report abuse

God, Hillary, if you'd been doing this all along, just think how many Moonies might have been saved!

Posted by: brigittepj | February 24, 2008 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Desperate Former Whitehouse Wife.

Posted by: rrrkeyo | February 24, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

she is really losing it.

Posted by: mgri | February 24, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Go "little Rhody!" Go Obama. The Queen is dead.

Posted by: Katy7540 | February 24, 2008 5:05 PM | Report abuse

I am glad Sen Clinton is being real about how unlikely these promises of bringing change and reaching across the aisle are. Sen Obama has not created any miraculous unification of the Senate since he has been there b/c as David Brooks noted, uniting a bunch of 70 y/o with widely differing views is not a given, thus the expression 'herding cats'.

Posted by: ginaswoboda | February 24, 2008 5:04 PM | Report abuse

Mocking is probably all she's got left.

I was in RI yesterday and saw Providence's Obama state HQ --- a prime downtown space with soaring 15" ceilings, stacked to the brim with dozens and dozens of 20-, 30-, and 40-something volunteers making phone calls, checking items on spreadsheets, making sure there was enough nosh for everyone to stay fueled, and greeting supporters at the door.

Even by the standards set by my experience with Obama's NH campaign, this was an impressive sight to see. For "little Rhody" to have a den of activity was nothing short of impressive.

Elise in NH
The Obama Minute: quick, easy actions
to support Barack Obama's candidacy
http://www.obamastraws.blogspot.com

Posted by: drband36 | February 24, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

.
A QUESTION FOR HILLARY:

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ?

Why is Chelsea campaigning for her mother, going to Hawaii...if she supports her mother, why isn't she fighting in Iraq?

A SERIOUS QUESTION

People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but alway expect other parents' children to die in them.

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????
.

Posted by: kevinlarmee | February 24, 2008 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Surprised that Clinton hasn't cultivated former Mayor, Vincent A. Cianci Jr., of Providence. He'd understand the Clinton's past problems with image and the law since he's been around a court house as many times as Secretariat ran around a race track.

In all seriousness, Senator Clinton is and will reamin an outstanding Senator for New York State. She started out as a formidable candidate, but has now been reduced almost to the point of sympathy. The "outrage" at Obama's flyers, Ohio union sponsored ads et al, is patently an act of a campaign in desparation.

Her team snubbed their noses at small state and, lo and behold, Obama's got 11 in row by sizable margins. She may indeed pull out a small win in RI, but here in Vermont, she apparantly has given up. Too bad because my sources in Bennington County showed her ahead here.

Sorry Hillary, you need to be President of ALL the U.S., not just certain states. Is it over? Not by a long shot, but for someone whose husband called her "a world class genius", this campaign will be remembered as a class example of how to blow through money, not get the message over and general amateurishness. "Who'da thunk?"

Posted by: Smokescreen | February 24, 2008 5:01 PM | Report abuse

GO NADER!!!

Posted by: JakeD | February 24, 2008 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Sounds like Obama's empty, but dreamy, rhetoric is quickly becoming Hillary's nightmare!

Posted by: jamesrrobison | February 24, 2008 4:51 PM | Report abuse

Time for the fat lady to sing.It is over. "DING DONG ,THE WITCH IS DEAD. THE WICKED WITCH IS DEAD."

Posted by: tgl88 | February 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Great! Sarcasm, on top of yesterday's surreal outburst. Way to appeal to voters, Sen. Clinton. Please keep it up!

Posted by: ally | February 24, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company