What a pile of crap! Obama has had his Hillary attack website up for over a month. Both he and Edwards have done little BUT attack Hillary for months now. If you are going to be 110% Obama biased - you should at least admit it. You are, after all, supposedly a journalist.
WTF, she can't talk about Obama's voting record?
Sure, she can discuss his voting record, but as he explained on GMA this morning, his "present" votes are a non-issue.
Of course, GOP hacks have been overblowing non-issues for years (Lee Atwater, Karl Rove, et al) but I'm not sure why Hillary would want to join in such company.
Of course she can. But I think attacking Obama makes him stronger, not weaker.
he deflects her attacks in a way that somehow make her look much worse once the dust settles.
Slime descends to it's own level.
Sad, very sad.
finally - it looks like obama is good on the defensive! (and clinton, not so good on the offensive...)
Atwater and Rove won.
SLime often works.
Shouldn't we think about that instead of hoping for a sudden dramatic change in the nature of politics in the USA?
People always say they want that kind of change but in the end the middle 10% of the voters in Middle America is moved by attack ads.
O's negatives may rise dramatically when the R's make him out to be what he is: a liberal, urban, Northern, internationalist progressive.
All things we like in Seattle. We'd love him to be our professor!
But do independent voters in Missouri and Ohio and Kentucky like it?
There's no history to suggest they do.
Spcifically, R's will attack him for avoiding the vote in Iran (irresponsible, selfish, soft on terror), for voting present in Ill. (soft on crime, indecisive, trying to please everyone) (rebuttals based on Ill. "political culture" are way over the head of most Americans in a 30 second TV spot); for saying pot helped him as a teenager (!!! likes drugs, advocates illegality, demands he retract it, then attack for being a flip flopper), for saying he did coke (felonies!) but not coming out to favor release of every single other person who is in jail for cocaine possession (hypocrite, would release XX,000 felons); for inviting Fidel and Hugo to the White House (comsymp), for favoring illegals with drivers' licenses (anti American, even 75% in NY State are against this, didn't you read the memo posted on Slog a day ago? ), for saying on a questionnaire that he wants handgun registration (D's need the votes of gun lovers in Middle America; the explanation that the answers were "unauthorized" woudl confirm his inexperience and lack of executive ability).
And for being a mere first term Senator without much of a record on the national scene.
It bears thinking about.
It is sort of surprising that the NYT article comes up with so little dirt. If Clinton gets people so riled up they actually read the article, I fear it will be underwhelming. The present votes it addresses all seem conscientious and defensible.
@8 - yeah, and what do you get with slime? right, you get slime in the WH.
America doesn't want that.
We deserve better.
His explanation of this "present votes" makes them a non-issue (#3)? Howso? Because he says so? Look, they might have been politically savvy, but isn't that what people dislike about Clinton? Too political? Seems he might not be as "outside the system" as some would have you believe.
@9 Right on. When I saw the NYT headline last night, my immediate reaction was "oh shit." After reading the article, it seemed like a total non-issue.
I remember when Europe was voting on the EU constitution, my Spanish family was upset that they couldn't vote "present" as a protest to the rushed process, so they didn't vote at all. It seems that Illinois legislators who know the history of the process (i.e. Madigan) feel the same way.
Here's more on that death penalty legislation he talked about, and which everyone gives him total credit for getting passed. He is not spineless one bit:
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).