Hillary’s Voice

I will be a guest on Head-On with Bob Kincaid today at 6:00 PM ET.  Listen to Bob from 6:00 to 9:00 PM ET every weekday on the Head-On Radio Network.

Colbert Report: Clinton Takes on Technical Difficulties (video)
Senator Hillary Clinton gets to the bottom of Stephen’s technical problems and recommends toggling the input.

Let’s see.  How to handle a bad debate performance?  How about giving your opponent the finger the next day?

And don’t tell me that’s not what he’s doing.  The crowd certainly got it.  He also did a fist-shoving motion reminiscent of a certain Italian rude sexual gesture.  Unfortunately, I must predict that this will only make him more popular with the anti-Hillary crowd..  Here’s the CBS video.  Thanks to Kevin at HillBuzz blog.Unbecoming a Presidential Candidate (by SusanUnPC at No Quarter)
I cannot recall hearing such whining in my life from the mouth of a major candidate. This man is incapable of withstanding criticism or handling difficult questions. He is not only defensive and inept in his excuses, but he is also petulant — and then he delivers “below the belt” attacks on Hillary Clinton, while condemning such tactics.

Success! (by lambert at Corrente)
WaPo, [Thursday]:

24 hours ago, the immediate coverage was that Hillary had decisively beaten Obama. I know; I live blogged it. Philly’s local TV station covered the debate from three angles: The Undecided broke for Hillary 55/45; the focus groups for Hillary 50/27 (remainder undecided); and UPenn students, having been for Obama or neutral, broke heavily for Hillary. But the narrative can never be that Hillary won. And Barack “No Mas” Obama performed so horrendously that the narrative couldn’t become that he had won… So, since Hillary can never win (those are the rules), and Barack could not be said to have won (too absurd), the narrative can only [be]…. That nobody won, because the debate sucked.

Obama Shaken, Rattled, and Rolled (by Dick Polman at Real Clear Politics)
Obama’s devotees will no doubt complain … that the ABC News inquisitors were grossly unfair, that they focused their fire on Obama while leaving Hillary Clinton relatively unscathed, and that they asked too many dirtball questions at Obama’s expense. (George Stephanopoulos to Obama: “Do you think Rev. Wright loves America as much as you do?”) Whatever. Whining about the media is the last resort of losers. The bottom line is that Obama didn’t successfully adapt to the environment.

How Obama Fell to Earth (by David Brooks)
[T]he aura around Obama has changed. Furiously courting Democratic primary voters and apparently exhausted, Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal. He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.

George Stephanopoulos Responds To Obama, Defends Handling Of Debate (by Greg Sargent)
In an interview with me moments ago, [Democratic debate moderator George] Stephanopoulos strongly defended his handling of the debate. He dismissed criticism that it had focused too heavily on “gotcha” questions, arguing that they had gone to the heart of the “electability” that, he said, is forefront in the minds of voters evaluating the two Dems… When I asked him whether asking about Obama’s derelict approach to his flag lapel pin risked making it look like right-wing frames were dictating the line of questioning, Stephanopoulos said: “Sure, there’s a risk.” But he added: “If you look at the fall campaign, there are some clear signals from Senator Obama’s opponents that all of these issues are going to be put together in a general argument. They all go back to that same theme.”
Much as I hate to link to any of the mostly virulently anti-Clinton TPM properties.

Hannity’s unfortunate role in the Democratic debate (by Steve Benen at War Room, Salon)
Jason Linkins explained: “The unseen influence of Fox News wormed its way into tonight’s nominally ABC-hosted debate, when Senator Barack Obama was asked to account for his tenuous connections to former Weather Underground leader William Ayers… The question was posed by George Stephanopoulos, who neither conceived of the question himself, nor disclosed the primary source of his donated inquiry: Fox News talking head Sean Hannity…” When Hannity is feeding Stephanopoulos ideas for debate questions, you know you’re watching a journalistic problem.
“Tenuous” connections, Steve?  Isn’t that the position of an Obama supporter?  Isn’t that a “journalistic problem” for YOU?  And honestly, the Obama apologists sound more and more like right wingers themselves.  Their candidate’s poor performance in the debate isn’t HIS fault.  Nothing, of course, is his fault.

Clinton, Obama, and Bill Ayers, Day Two (by Byron York at The Corner, National Review Online)
Top Clinton campaign officials [held] a conference call with reporters [Thursday] morning…
On the topic of Ayers, lefty journalist David Corn, sounding somewhat agitated, told Wolfson and Singer, “I don’t understand why you’re making this an issue” and brought up the cases of two Weather Underground criminals who were pardoned by Bill Clinton.  “Did Sen. Clinton think that was the wrong thing to do when he pardoned these two terrorists?” Corn asked.  “I am not aware, perhaps you are, of Linda Evans or Susan Rosenberg — of either of them hosting a political event for Sen. Clinton at their homes,” Wolfson answered… “The difference here is that Bill Ayers hosted an event for Sen. Obama when he was running for state senate…This is not somebody that Sen. Obama would just run into on the street.”

Analysis: Obama wants voters to remember Clinton’s past (by Nedra Pickler, Associated Press)
PHILADELPHIA - Remember the cookies? Barack Obama wants to make sure that voters do, even if it was 16 years ago that Hillary Rodham Clinton created an uproar when she sniffed that she could have given up her career and “stayed home, baked cookies and had teas.” While Clinton brought up the problems Obama could face in a general election if he’s nominated, Obama used a two-hour debate Wednesday night to remind Americans what they don’t like about his opponent and her husband, Bill, the former president.

Obama Claims His Campaign Only Talks About Bosnia “When Asked”. Suuuuure They Do. (by campskunk at MyDD)
Well, I got bits and pieces of the debate in between RL stuff, but I SWEAR I heard Barack Obama claim that the only reason his campaign has raised Bosnia was because they were asked about it. I guess if he meant “was asked once and then talked about it nonstop with no further encouragement”, he would be right, but I don’t think that was what he meant. He was clearly trying to imply that his campaign didn’t raise the issue spontaneously, being a good clean issues-focused campaign and all. Yeah, right. The helpful research people over at Facthub put together a list of instances where Obama’s campaign had Bosnia Tourette’s.
Click through to read the examples.

The Democrats’ Wimp Factor (by Michael Hirsh, Newsweek)
The specter of John Kerry in 2004 is beginning to haunt the Democrats in 2008. It is the specter of wimpy campaigns past. It showed up, like Banquo’s ghost, at the debate Wednesday night in Philadelphia, particularly when Hillary Clinton joined with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos and Charlie Gibson to nip away at the edges of Barack Obama’s patriotism. Between the questions about Obama’s meager association with William Ayers, a former Weatherman, and the suspicions raised by his lack of a flag lapel pin, the likely nominee is slowly being turned into John Kerry. He is becoming, in other words, a candidate who may be mostly right about national security but who will lack the Red State street cred to carry his point—and the election.
Of course, the author goes on to say that it’s Hillary Clinton’s fault.  How dare she try to win?

ADLAI AND ADELAIDE: (by Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler)
The tiny minds of our dumbest elite are crammed with a set of Inane Approved Anecdotes. By agreement, these inane points can be pulled from the shelf as the occasion requires. This morning, Maureen Dowd cites John Kerry’s cheese steak blunder—then goes back a full twenty years to cite Dukakis and Belgian endive. And omigod—unrivaled greatness! She reaches back to the 1950s to drive a prime story-line: “DOWD (4/16/08): The elitism that Americans dislike is not about family money or connections—J.F.K. and W. never would have been elected without them… What turns off voters is the detached egghead quality that they tend to equate with a wimpiness, wordiness and a lack of action—the same quality that got the professorial and superior Adlai Stevenson mocked by critics as Adelaide.” Spectacular! Dowd has spent a lot of time furthering her favorite narrative: Big Dem women are actually men, and Big Dem men are all girls. (Candidate Gore was “practically lactating.”)

The Obama Campaign: Consent of, or Contempt for, the People (by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, posted at No Quarter)
Senator Obama’s ill-conceived remarks likening small town Americans to embittered guns-and-God bigots have triggered a justifiable furor. Not only are the remarks insulting, but also factually incorrect. As it happens, at the same event in San Francisco, Senator Obama made other remarks, equally startling, insulting our Foreign Service, Intelligence Officers, members of Congress who provide oversight, and friendly governments. Like his comments about small town Americans, Obama demonstrated a cavalier disregard for Americans who every day get up determined to make this a better country, whether running the general store in a small town, or representing our national security interests in a foreign country.

Obama’s remarks feed class resentment (by Gene Lyons, author of Fools for Scandal and co-author, with Joe Conason, of The Hunting of the President)
Unlike many observers who swooned over Obama’s moving speech about race, I thought it ducked the most salient question: Did he actually buy Wright’s theology… My rhetorical question, however, remained unanswered until last week, when Obama gave an off-the-cuff response to a questioner at a $ 2, 000-per-person fundraiser in, yes, San Francisco who asked, in effect, how Mr. Hope could possibly be having trouble selling his vision to Pennsylvania voters… Like the poor, deluded peasants in Wright’s congregation, [Obama’s reply indicated], rednecks out in the boondocks cling to superstition, bigotry and conspiracy theories because the world’s too complicated for them to understand… This is what Democrats get if they choose an inexperienced faculty-lounge lizard as their presidential candidate…

[Clinton] she might try pointing out that it was working-class Democrats Obama insulted. Also, that far from falling during the Clinton administration, employment in Pennsylvania rose by more than 500, 000 jobs between 1993 and 2000 while unemployment dropped from 7. 3 to 4. 1 percent. That’s the perfectly rational reason that many cling to her candidacy.

Clinging to a Stereotype (by Paul Krugman)
Mr. Obama … declared that the people he’s talking about [those who “cling” to god and guns] “don’t vote on economic issues,” and are motivated instead by things like guns and gay marriage. That’s a political theory made famous by Thomas Frank’s “What’s the Matter With Kansas?” According to this theory, “values” issues lead working-class Americans to act against their own interests by voting Republican. Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that’s also why they support Hillary Clinton. I was impressed by Mr. Frank’s book when it came out. But my Princeton colleague Larry Bartels, who had an Op-Ed in The Times on Thursday, convinced me that Mr. Frank was mostly wrong…

Does it matter that Mr. Obama has embraced an incorrect theory about what motivates working-class voters? His campaign certainly hasn’t been based on Mr. Frank’s book, which calls for a renewed focus on economic issues as a way to win back the working class.  Indeed, the book concludes with a blistering attack on Democrats who cater to “affluent, white-collar professionals who are liberal on social issues” while “dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans.” Doesn’t this sound a bit like the Obama campaign?

In Praise of Cities (Anglachel’s Journal)
The disdain we’ve been reading lately from the Obamacan crowd, the dismissal of non-Obama voters as nothing but racist, ill-educated, narrow minded, parochial idiots who are not quite fully human is the inverse of the bile spewed by the Right against dirty cities with their “dangerous underclass”, its welfare queens, the vile and perverted sybarites, the wicked liberals who deserved the punishment of 9/11 raining fire and brimstone down from the heavens upon their Godless heads… Pulling in the threads of [Paul] Krugman, [Michael] Lind and [Bob] Somerby, what binds them into a coherent Democratic narrative is respect for the person without giving anyone a pass for denigrating others. It’s giving people enough respect to say that what they think is wrong, and not condescend to some kind of vulgar Marxist dismissal of them as ignorant rubes, or else rail against them as immoral and irredeemable and make them the scapegoats for the sins of an entire nation. That applies as much to stereotypes of urban dwellers as rural ones.

Harvard-graduate Hewitt blasts Obama’s ‘condescending’ ‘Harvard Law School stuff.’ (Think Progress)
Yesterday on Fox News’s Hannity and Colmes, right-wing pundit Hugh Hewitt blasted Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) for being “so condescending.” “In San Francisco, he insulted people of faith,” said Hewitt. “He insulted people who own guns.” Hewitt then took a swipe at Obama’s educational background, stating, “That Harvard Law School stuff, it shows.”… Hewitt claimed he was able to make these accusations because he has “Midwestern roots.” Ironically, Obama also has Midwestern roots (who spent decades in Illinois and has a mother born in Kansas), and like Obama, Hewitt graduated from Harvard. Although Hewitt was born in Ohio, he has spent much of his life working in both Los Angeles and Washington, DC.
Click through to watch the video.

New union ad in Pennsylvania says Obama will take on oil companies (On Politics, USA Today)
The 1.9-million-member Service Employees International Union has started running a TV ad in Pennsylvania to highlight Democrat Barack Obama’s plans to deal with high gas prices. The ad is up in the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia markets in advance of the state’s primary Tuesday. Called “Change,” the spot features Pennsylvanians talking about how much it costs to fill up their gas tanks and what Obama will do to help. They say things like he’ll “stand up to big oil” and “he cares about people like me.” One man says Obama doesn’t take money from oil-company “PACs or lobbyists.”
How many times do we have to debunk this evasion?  Obama takes money from the FRIENDS AND FAMILIES of lobbyists, and there are lobbyists on his payroll.

Hillary’s Remarks to the Newspaper Association of America’s Annual Conference in Washington DC
I will restore faith in our government by resorting integrity to our government… I will restore openness in government… [B]ecause solving problems starts by recognizing facts, I will restore evidence based decision making to our government… [B]ecause government abuse is checked by the separation of powers, I will restore respect for our co-equal branches of government. I’ll start by limiting the excessive executive powers this president has accumulated, like the unilateral power to wiretap, or detain try people, even American citizens… I’ll end the use of signing statements to rewrite the laws that Congress has passed. I’ll shut down Guantanamo, disavow torture and restore the right of Habeas Corpus. I will end the practice of using executive privilege as a shield against the public’s right to know and congress’ duty to oversee the president.  Finally I will make crystal clear that the president and the executive branch will comply with the laws of our nation… The President is not above the law in our system of government and we need to make that absolutely clear starting next year.

U-Penn newspaper endorses Clinton (On Politics, USA Today)
Democrat Barack Obama has the lion’s share of support on campuses, but today the Daily Pennsylvanian at the University of Pennsylvania endorsed Hillary Clinton. The staff wrote that “while Obama’s charisma far outshines that of Sen. Hillary Clinton, her public service, political experience and tenacity tell us not only ‘Yes we can’ but also ‘How we can.’ “

The Popular Vote Reflects The Will Of the People (by Big Tent Democrat at TalkLeft)
On this issue, Obama supporters and Clinton supporters both disagree with me. But, via Greg Sargent, a plurality of the Democrats are with me: “18. (ASKED OF LEANED DEMOCRATS) The Democratic nomination may be decided by so-called ‘super delegates’ who can pick any candidate they choose. Do you think the super delegates should support the candidate who won the most (delegates) in primaries and caucuses; the candidate who won the most (overall votes); or the candidate they think is best, regardless of either delegate or vote totals?
Delegates 13
Overall votes 46
Candidate they think best 37”
Respect the voters. That’s my view. You paying attention Nancy Pelosi?

Lots more really good stuff at MakeThemAccountable.com.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com