Comments on Clinton's Pre-emptive Debate Strike

Osama = OBAMA no Nig-Nogs for me!

damn, she's good. i wish i didn't hate her so much.

That's one hell of pre-debate memo right there. She is defintely running the smartest, savviest campaign at the moment.

I don't know, I actually think this makes the Clinton campaign look a little bit fearful, putting out a preemptive press release anticipating attacks. And trying to equate any criticism of Clinton with an abandonment of "the politics of hope" is a pretty cheap tactic. Worth of Bush, actually.

@4 - Yeah, but Obama was so damn strong on the Politics of Hope riff for so long that his announced re-focus on attacking Hillary makes HIS campaign look really fearful of her. I guess I can't really speak to the criticism of Edwards, who I tend to like more and more as this campaign season rolls on.

And every viable candidate takes cheap shots at the others at some point or another. It's just part of the game for anyone who's serious about their run.

This memo is *great*. Totally plays to her greatest strength, which is this: that she will kick the shit out of anyone who stands between her and the White House. Democrat, Republican; animal, mineral or vegetable. And that she is faster and better at kicking ass than any of her opponents. What a breath of fresh air.

I love, love, love her campaign.

Wow. Choices.

Tactics and politics - or Hope and Freedom.

Which to choose ...

I know, let's be MSM sheep and go with Sen Clinton for Tactics and politics!

Oh, snap! Get it done Hillary.

@7 - Well, Hope and Freedom won't get very far if the candidate representing them keeps giving wackos like Donnie McClurkin opportunities to alienate his supporters.

And really, as a Dem, having been shit on by the GOP hate machine for so long, I've got a hard on for the candidate who, as Sven put it, "is faster and better at kicking ass than any of her opponents." So yeah, in that sense I'm a big fan of Tactics and Politics.

oh my god, I love her.

This is why I think Hillary is the inevitable nominee, and the nearly-inevitable next president. It's scary how good she is. She doesn't have Bill's charisma, but with her campaign organization she doesn't need it. I actually think she's sharper than he ever was because unlike him she can't just charm people into liking her. She just has to deliver--and she does.

Too bad she's one of the most conservative Democrats running. I'd love someone with her skills and Kucinich's positions. So...I'm voting Kucinich in the caucuses, and Clinton next November.

The frontrunner announcing that they are deeply disappointed with all the negativity in their opponents' positions is just standard bullshit rhetoric. See also the Bush administration's constant disappointment in the "negativity" of their critics, who are choosing to "pursue partisan advantage" over unity.

It's a way to shield oneself from criticism while reserving the right to criticize others under the guise of Preserving the Politics of Hope or some other dumb euphemism.

Not that it isn't savvy campaigning, but since when is that admirable in and of itself? Karl Rove is a savvy campaigner.

Are you really impressed by this memo? It's the same bulljive her campaign has been throwing around for months. I find it interesting that she holds other candidates to a higher standard than she holds herself. Attacks are fine if they're substantive. It's not like Obama's going to go after the state of her marriage.

Eat yer spinach and vote Kucinich.

Obama has few substantive disagreements with Clinton, so it's hard for him to make clear distinctions. Yeah, so he was against starting the war back when he was a state senator and it was irrelevant. Since he's been a US Senator, it's hard to distinguish him from Clinton on foreign policy. She supported the Kyl-Lieberman amendment and he didn't, but he's also made aggressive statements directed at Iran, so I don't see a clear benefit in voting Obama if I want to avoid another war (or end the Iraq occupation.) Edwards is a bit better on the war now, but made the same vote as Clinton in 2003. Dodd is even stronger (despite also voting the wrong way in 2003). The three guys with the right stance on Iraq are long-shots or no-shots Richardson, Kucinich, and Gravel.

If Obama wants to win my vote or indeed enough votes to get the nomination, he will have to change the substance of his campaign, not just his style of campaigning. He has to be making the big moves that Dodd made on FISA legislation and Richardson has made on the war, or he's just not different enough from Clinton to make up for the fact that she's a better campaigner and thus a better potential nominee.

The same goes for Edwards. He at least has positioned himself as a populist. His problem is that he doesn't seem sincere, and his voting record marks him as more conservative than Clinton. I'm not sure what he could do to convince voters that his change in rhetoric marks a change in substance. His campaign is also remarkably unprepared compared to Clinton's. So while I like what he's saying more than any of the other top-tier candidates, he's not the one wowing me. Hillary Clinton is.

Vote progressive policies in the caucus. I can see a case for Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, or Kucinich. But in November 2008 we'll all be voting for Hillary Clinton.

i know! since when did attacking an opponent's issues equate to abandoning the politics of hope? what are they supposed to debate? how they all agree?

that said, very good strategy. amazing way to frame the debate. there is a certain effectiveness that is admirable. on the other hand, i want to support a candidate who is effective with the issues, not just the rhetoric.

Obama and Edwards just need to find a way to pivot off her "there they go again, abandoning the politics of hope" line and counterpunch. Maybe call a spade a spade, and say she's been reading Rove's playbook? It would be nice if some of the lower-tier candidates would do that. What have they got to lose? I'm fine with Clinton, though, and annoyed with Obama, but I am really tired of all the inevitability talk in the media about Clinton.

But in November 2008 we'll all be voting for Hillary Clinton.

I'd vote for a republican before I'd vote for a sinister hack like HR Clinton.

hr pufnstuf@18- have you taken one too many tokes off the magic flute? You'd vote Republican before you'd vote for Hillary Clinton? Have you actually noticed the wackos who are running for the GOP nomination?

Let's see, you've got Rudy Giuliani, who never met a constitutional right he didn't want to rape with a broom handle or shoot while it was reaching for its wallet, and who thinks torture isn't torture if the United States does it. Oh, and he's taking foreign policy advice from the neocon architect of the Iraq War, who wants to invade Iran next.

You've got a guy who wants to "triple Guantanamo."

You've got a sleepwalking character actor with a trophy wife half his age who has to ask audiences to receive even tepid applause.

You've got a Baptist preacher who doesn't believe in evolution and thinks that abortion is as bad as the Holocaust.

You've got a self-styled "libertarian" who wants to devolve government repression to the state level, and abolish most of the federal government, and who actively solicits the support of right-wing militias.

You've got the guy who claims he's a maverick while he's sucking up to the religious right.

You've got the guy who wants to end *legal* immigration and build a militarized fortress on the US-Mexico border, who can barely conceal his openly racist thoughts, but at least has no chance of winning.

And I think there's one or two others so lame that I can't even remember them.

Which one would you prefer over Hillary again? I'd vote for the fungus scraped off a dirty sock before I'd vote for any of these assholes.

typical hillary no-nonsense: kicking ass and taking names. go on girl!

should be a saucy, fiery debate tonight!

@19. that was long, but i read all of it. but i'm a bit curious...

Many fungi are parasites on humans, with the potential to cause serious human diseases, especially in persons with immuno-deficiencies. These are in the genera Aspergillus, Candida, Cryptoccocus, Histoplasma, and Pneumocystis. Several pathogenic fungi are also responsible for relatively minor human diseases, such as athlete’s foot and ringworm.

would you only support one of the pathogenic fungi over a republican candidate, or do you extend your support to any sock/foot fungus?

@19: the policy differences between HRC and Giuliani are negligible. They both belong to the Feinstein wing of the Republicrat party. Don't look to HRC as a guardian of anyone's civil rights and liberties.

I'm sick of the media picking the nominee for us by pretending there are no other candidates besides Hillary and Barak. I fear that Hillary will get the nomination because of what the polls are saying right now, but she is not the best person for the job; she is unclear on issues and she took way too much money from special interest groups. She seems more of a republican-light to me. I want a true democrat who has strong opinions and beliefs and who won't skirt the issues like the frontrunners are. Push for Chris Dodd.