Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« KC Convention: Embarrassing! | It's Very. Dramatic. »

Monday, April 14, 2008

The Morning News

posted by on April 14 at 7:00 AM

Elitist, out of touch, and, frankly, patronizing: Hillary Clinton on Barack Obama.

And she never looked less tired: Says Alessandra Stanley.

Maybe it was: This.


But: That support from abortion foes might be working for Obama.

Meanwhile: These two try to channel Hillary Clinton’s inner thoughts.

Moving on: Carter will, in fact, meet with Hamas.

Zimbabwe: High court to rule on whether two-week-old election results should be made public.

Housing woes: Going global.

All Lama all the time: Still.

Oh, and: Exactly when Hillary Clinton last went to church or fired a gun is not relevant.

Yeah? Tell that to this guy:

RSS icon Comments


Is Hillary in a leather bar in that picture?

Posted by Catalina Vel-DuRay | April 14, 2008 7:33 AM

SLOG worthy:

The American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) has blasted a new Indiana law that requires bookstores to register with the government if they sell what is considered "sexually explicit materials." The new law, H.B. 1042, was signed by Governor Mitch Daniels on March 13, and calls for any bookseller that sells sexually explicit materials to register with the Secretary of State and provide a statement detailing the types of books to be sold. The Secretary of State must then identify those stores to local government officials and zoning boards. “Sexually explicit material” is defined as any product that is “harmful to minors” under existing law. There is a $250 registration fee. Failure to register is a misdemeanor.

ABFFE spokesman Chris Finan said the law is the only one of its kind currently on the books in the country. Calling it "clearly unconstitutional," Finan said ABFFE will urge the Media Coalition to challenge the law at the organization's next meeting on April 9. H.B. 1042 does not go into effect until July, by which time Finan is hopeful the lawsuit will be filed and an injunction issued by the court.

Posted by Cat in Chicago | April 14, 2008 8:09 AM

Oh no! There's politics that's being played!
Umm... dude. You're a politician in a political election running for political office. How can you say (imply) "politics" are bad?

Posted by dre | April 14, 2008 8:37 AM

The ridiculous thing about Hillary's charge that Obama "looks down on church-going Americans" is that he IS a church-going American, and SHE IS NOT. What a hypocrite.

Posted by Fnarf | April 14, 2008 8:37 AM

Well, that was a short "crisis".

How can Senator Obama continue to survive such an onslaught of brilliant rhetoric attacks from Senator Clinton? His calm, reasonablle responses can't possibly win the day against such a master tactician and well-oiled political machine!

Let's all wring our hands over the next terrifying nitpick Clinton may choose to make, that will somehow result in her unlikely (impossible?) triumph over the young, foolishly optimistic Obama!

Posted by Peter F | April 14, 2008 8:45 AM

Thoroughly enjoyed that story about how the Clintons would just love to say that Obama is unelectable, but--wink, wink--they're restraining themselves. Except--oopsy--they just did say that. Classic Clintonian "have it both ways:" we want to get credit for having the decency not to engage in this crap-slinging while still engaging in this crap-slinging.

You could make an ostensibly credible case that Hillary is unelectable. You could make an ostensibly credible good case that McCain is unelectable. Guess what, someone who is unelectable is going to get elected. In modern-day, Karl Rove, Mark Penn American politics any American politician can be made to appear unelectable.

If the Clintons truly do believe Obama is unelectable, then they have gone off the deep end. Somehow, I think not.

Posted by cressona | April 14, 2008 9:08 AM

In a week or so, we'll know if PA is pissed off at Obama for this. But it's amusing that, after her campaign dismissed as unimportant pretty much every voting bloc other than elderly white female Democrats (and only in those so-called important states, no less), that Hillary Clinton is calling Obama out-of-touch and dismissive of voters.

Posted by seriously | April 14, 2008 9:10 AM

The tide is turning on Obama. He needs some positive media coverage, or this nomination is going to slip away from him.

Posted by Rock | April 14, 2008 9:24 AM

Here's what I find so rich about the Clinton argument that Obama is unelectable.

It's based on the lowest-common-denominator presumption that the American people are stupid, fearful, identity-driven (not to be confused with racist) sheep who can easily be led to believe that the extent to which a candidate presents a wholesome, all-American image trumps such little things as the sorry state of our economy, our perverse, antiquated health-insurance system, the disaster that is Iraq, the potential disaster that is Iran, our failed, oil-industry-driven energy policy, etc., etc.

This low view of voters may have been true in 2000 when we elected a charming frat boy, but we're going on eight years of that experiment and 81% of Americans say this nation is on the wrong track. As P.T. Barnum said, “You’ll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” But at some point, you eventually do underestimate the intelligence of the American people.

Here's the killer passage:

...our conversations with Democrats who speak to the Clintons make plain that their public comments are only the palest version of what they really believe: that if Obama is the nominee, a likely Democratic victory would turn to a near-certain defeat.

Far from a no-holds-barred affair, the Democratic contest has been an exercise in self-censorship.

Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working-class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico).

Republicans will also ruthlessly exploit openings that Clinton — in the genteel confines of an intraparty contest — never could. Top targets: Obama’s radioactive personal associations, his liberal ideology, his exotic life story, his coolly academic and elitist style.

It is the essence of the elitism of Clinton/Bush era politics to bend over backwards to accuse your opponent of elitism. Better to cry elitism than actually engage the American people in the serious issues facing this country today. And who's calling whom condescending?

P.S. Obama was still an idiot for making those comments in SF.

Posted by cressona | April 14, 2008 9:29 AM

"There's some politics going on," Obama? In politics?! Fucking scandalous.

I think that the statements Obama made about the dumb Americans was right on the money... nothing said lately has been more true than that statement, but for him to back peddle and try to say that it's not what he really meant is just weak. Just take the heat man, you were right. Stick to it.

Posted by Carollani | April 14, 2008 9:30 AM

Sure, my first instinct as a Barackrat was to take a jibe at HRC.

But actually, HRC downing a straight shot of hard liquor and chasing it with a beer is endearing to me.

Don't we have an unofficial government post of party animal? First held by Billy Carter and later by Roger Clinton? I nominate HRC.

Posted by K | April 14, 2008 9:33 AM

i personaly dont get what was so shocking about what he father has been unemployed going on two years and he's bitter. my friend june is raseing two teenage girls working 12 hour days and was forced to sell her house at a %50 loss and she's bitter...I meet thousands of people including myself..strugeling to survive..working hard and haveing nothing come of itand being mocked and desrespected by a consumer/material worshiping media...we are bitter

and yes, we cling to guns....because as long as we have our matter how bad things get we'll always have the option of getting together, takeing the pick up to dc and corporate headquarters accross america....and shooting the basterds

Posted by linus | April 14, 2008 10:13 AM

Carollani @10 on Obama's "bitter" comment: nothing said lately has been more true than that statement, but for him to back peddle and try to say that it's not what he really meant is just weak.

Yeah, I saw Obama at that CNN religion forum trying to explain that he simply meant small-town people looked toward their faith as a foundation, and I thought, "No, that's not what you meant." Lame.

Memo to Obama: don't start acting like a conventional, patronizing politician. Obama got this far by being Obama, just like McCain got this far by being McCain.

Posted by cressona | April 14, 2008 10:16 AM

come on! he makes comments he thought were private - they weren't. He said "these people" were "clinging" to religion and "were bitter" to x, y and z! Fine. Whatever. You can say "he's right" or "thats not very right". Whatever.

But than to get up, while running in the presidential election of the century and call someone out for "playing politics" is fucking ridiculous. Um, its a politica election. You fucked up. Of course "she's playing" politics - just like you are turning the comments around back on around her.

and than to roll over and smooth his comments out to mean something he didn't quite mean. What did he mean? dude, he just meant these people are bitter and cling to religion and their guns. get him behind a few beers and some ciggies and whatever..thats what he thinks.

and he calls her out for playing politics

shame on him

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 10:18 AM

Raymond, the only reason Obama ever ran in the first place, and the only reason he won the Democratic nomination, is that he represents a rejection of business as usual politics.

So no, he is not cynical, and he does not stand by and accept Hillary's cynicism. If he did, he'd have been booted by the voters long ago and we would have nominated Hillary.

See? That is the whole point of this thing.

Posted by elenchos | April 14, 2008 10:38 AM

Please, oh please!, give this man the best security money can buy - security the likes of which no other President/candidate has ever seen.

Posted by Bauhaus | April 14, 2008 10:54 AM

elenchos, thanks for the lesson. I think I got that a few years ago. But the reminder is always great.

My point was to his comment. Do you know what he said? So...if we go from that singular comment, made in private, your notion that he is not cynical should be at best be altered to "he's not cynical, unless in private". I mean, come on!

And yeah, thank God for him not standing by for the opponents cyniicism and deragatory comments cause'...I sure was getting sick of all those decades of dalai lama / eckart tolle ego-less politicians who were sitting around, letting the other run rampant with cynicism. THANK GOD Barak is coming along with his 'business not as usual' and really taking a stand on this.

I still think its funny. "Dont play politics - shame on her". DUDE..your in a political election / campaign. its um..political.

good thing he can fool you and the others that he's like..not political and he's like...really something different. he turned her comments / response around used it to his political advantage. Which is fine. Great. but than to tackle someone on the football field while your saying "heeeey..dont' tackle and actually PLAY football" is kind of silly and im sure you agree...

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 11:14 AM

Oh yeah re. "the only reason he ran" blah blah blah

the reason he ran for president is because he thinks he can be president. thats why. all the other shit is window dressing. I mean, we should all remember some very basic notions before going off about this and that - he's running for x, y and z reasons. lets be real. hes running cause', he can, because he thinks he can win and for no other reason: he wants to be president. from there you get to other reasons (change the world, change washington, blah blah blah)

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 11:21 AM

Raymond, are we talking about the same thing? Here is Obama making the same point, albeit more carefully worded, way back in 2004. He's been saying the same thing for a long time. What is politics as usual is to pretend the one poorly worded version is what he really thinks, just so you can pounce on that one word and score a couple cheap points.

Did he say something else besides what we see in the 2004 Charlie Rose video that I don't know about? Can you link me to it?

Posted by elenchos | April 14, 2008 11:56 AM

poorly worded? thats another funny thing. what the heck are you / he / others supporting him at EVERY turn talking about? this is what he said:

Senator Barack Obama finds himself in the midst of a controversy in the aftermath of comments that he made at a private fundraiser in San Francisco on April 6, during which he explained his difficulty appealing to working-class voters in Pennsylvania. He said, “It’s not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment. . . .”

(google "obama comment san francisco")

I love it that people defend him and say "oh it was just poorly worded" here is another notion we must operate from: words matter. the bible, the constitution, speeches, etc. we could say our whole lives are poorly worded..what I really meant to say was...

thats like me saying "that guys a dick!" and than coming out later that night at the cocktail party and saying "oh that was poorly worded, what I meant to say is.." and than going on some eloquent band wagon of backtracking blah blah blah

now, he's got a point and his follow up points are fine whatever. i dont even remmeber what they were. but come on. people should see it for what it is.

REMMEBER: he said these comments in private and thought "oh this is private, no one will the record you wanna know what i really think?" and thats what he said. was he right? who cares! he said it and whats interesting is not only his response / reaction (including the cherry on top of actually turning it around and ATTACKING clinton = genius - but other peoples reactions. "oh it was just poortly worded - dam hillary playing politics ALL over again...

i love how its hillaries fault. pure political genius.

it was poorly worded yes / maybe. but he still meant it. no?

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 12:31 PM

I rofled at "shame on her".
That is all.

Posted by Mr Fuzzy | April 14, 2008 12:54 PM

Yeah, raymond, like I say, if you watched what he said on Charlie Rose (national TV) in 2004, and you still have a huge problem here, well, what can I say? You're seeing what you want to see, but maybe you should ask some of the actual small town folks how they feel about it. Many of them posted here.

It's obvious to anybody that what he thinks about this stuff is exactly the same today as it was four years ago. He said it at greater length and with more nuance back then. The version you quote is a cherry-picked sound bite.

To me what this shows is that some people are so deeply invested in this kind of politics where you try to trip your enemies and crucify them for it that they can't escape it.

The flip side is when Joe Biden was being lambasted for calling Obama "clean" and "articulate" and Obama defended him rather than piled on to score a couple cheap points. For the simple reason that he knew that Biden didn't mean anything bad, and that he also knew his own road to the White House would be paved with honorable deeds and not cheap shots.

Posted by elenchos | April 14, 2008 1:47 PM

You know, I've been having a lot of trouble deciding between these two - they both have some admirable qualities, and have articulated stances on issues that I could get behind. On the other hand, they've both shown rather poor judgement in other areas, which in turn has given me cause for concern.

But now, I think I've finally determined a way to break the deadlock:

whichever candidate can eat the most "Bean Boozzled" Jelly Bellies will earn my vote.

Posted by COMTE | April 14, 2008 2:22 PM

elehchos. that's exactly my point: what he said on charlie rose, or on national tv, or wherever is ONE thing, and what he said on April 6 in "private" is another. what he said on april 6 isn't even fucking close. its right there, down the middle, up your nose. nothing more. nothing less! nothing at all really but ripping people "he can't" connect with because they are essentially 'backwards'. how arrogant is that?

Your getting, and I'm starting to, get tripped up on the "comment" - on the "content" of what he is saying. What I'm refering to is his "tactic" of getting out of it. He got "caught" and he turned it around to be Hillary's fault. "shame on her" for jumping on it. do you not see that? is this "dirty pool"? come on! calling someone "clean" or whatever isn't even the same thing.

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 2:44 PM

Annie has the whole statement here.

I don't have a problem with what he said. I don't have a problem with Obama saying Hillary is just playing politics and that she should be ashamed. What she's doing is debasing the debate within the Democratic party, weakening both sides by slinging mud. This turns off voters, and hurts turnout. Democrats never win without high turnout. She has no chance to become the nominee, so her behavior has no excuse.

If she were having a high minded debate over the issues Democrats want to talk about, she'd be helping us crowd the McCain campaign off the front page. But instead she's hurting everyone. Obama is right to tell it like it is.

Posted by elenchos | April 14, 2008 3:03 PM

Elenchos, I thought we were talking about the comment he was defending in the video clip, which is the comment I posted above, which is what he said on April 6 in San Francisco. So, there's that: can we agree on that? That's the comment we are discussing.

You bring up a good point, one they've been refering to on NPR etc.

At what point did people forget this is a "race"? At what point did people forget this is the most competitive political race in some years (to put it lightly - perhaps the most competitive ever). This is a huge bar brawl - the stakes are high - its a PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN! Campaigns and lives and directions and ideas and egos and money etc etc are at stake here. So we know that's what's going on. And the "players know that's what is going on.

SO, to than come out and say "hey, I don't know about all this jabbing and in fighting and name calling and pushing and shoving" is something I don't get. THat doesn't resonate with me at all. It's a huge f'ing election, what do you expect. These guys are fighting for the soul of our country.

the funny thing is im not even really a hillary supporter. I say "really" cause I'm not totally sure but whatever. But come on people. Should she just quit?

Here's another fact. SHe can win. THere is a chance. As long as theres a fighting chance, there is a fighting chance. Period. Let the fight resume.

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 3:13 PM

No. She is not going to win any of the remaining contests with 70+ percent of the vote. Obama could eat a kitten and she still wouldn't break 70. And the supers are not going to overturn the popular vote. They're not crazy. So. There it is. She is not going to win.

I only want her to get out if she intends to keep hurting the Democrats. If she would stick to the issues, I would love her to stay in all the way to the convention because that steals the spotlight from McCain. At this point though, I don't think she is capable of sticking to issues and she's going to instead keep destroying not only Obama and the Democrats, but herself as well.

One possible silver lining is for the superdelegates to come together to stick a fork in the Hillary machine, and to say we have had enough of her. A strong message that we are finally closing the door forever on her brand of politics would be a fantastic step forward for America. But that's a lot to hope for.

Posted by elenchos | April 14, 2008 3:22 PM

not likely that she will win, but if she gets 60+ in pennsylvania, than the super delegates won't jump ship quite yet. That will still be a race.

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 3:37 PM

Unless she wins every contest from now until the National Convention by 30 points or more (that's 65-35 in every single race) - she is toast.

No matter how much mud she slings for McCain/Bush 08 ....

Posted by Will in Seattle | April 14, 2008 7:36 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).