In the Don’t you Ever Learn? category:

The Clinton’s campaign is hollering over a WSJ article that states that Sen. Obama favored ending Federal oversight on the Teamsters. The Clinton’s campaign and the WSJ both made it seem as though Obama only said that to the Teamsters to get their endorsement.

The Obama campaign pointed to a piece from 2004 that stated that Sen. Obama said he favored ending this Federal oversight. In the tradition of the faux-NAFTA outrage generated by the Clinton’s campaign, they accuse Sen. Obama of doing something (telling the Canadians one thing while saying something different to the American public) that they’ve done. The Teamsters stepped up to say that the Clinton’s said the same exact thing to them while seeking their endorsement.

Sen. Clinton’s statement to the Canadians Teamsters:

I am of the opinion that based on what I’ve seen over years of observation, this union has really done a tremendous job in turning itself around. That’s my observation. At some point the past has to be opened. If you screw up in the future, that’ll be a new day, right? That’s the way the system works. But you gotta – you can’t go around dragging the ball and chain of the past. And I think that’s true for anybody, any organization, any individual, you know, and so I would be very open to looking at that and to saying, what is it we’re trying to accomplish here? And seeing what the answers were because at some point turn the page and go on.

Now that they’ve been caught out, the Clinton’s campaign is now being disengenious by making it about Obama’s statement on ABC this morning where he said he wouldn’t make blanket statements. As a commenter turnip at TPM put it:

Obama supports less federeal oversight of the Teamsters. He has since 2004. Apparently so does Senator Clinton according to her statments from 2007.

These positions are essentially the same and whether it’s a “promise” or a “suggestion”, both candidates have historically been on the side of the Teamsters with respect to lessening the enforcement measure in the Consent Decree.

Today Obama reinforces that is his position.

Today Clinton attacks that position.

Wolfson and Clinton supporters can try to thread a needle of semantics on this one, but it’s another case of what is the meaning of “is”.

Posted by turnip
May 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink

It’s all really so many levels of smack me on the head stupid ain’t it?

Over at TPM, poster observer2 found this historical piece of amusement in the New York Times:

THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: The Front-Runner; Like Voters, Superdelegates Have Doubts About Clinton

That’s the headlines, ladies and gentlemen.  The money quotes:

“The voters haven’t embraced Clinton, so I don’t see any reason why I should endorse him,” Mr. Eckart said. “Look at the exit polls. People have terrible doubts about this guy, and we’re talking about Democrats.”

In the New York primary Tuesday, the turnout was exceptionally low, 29 percent of the electorate backed Mr. Tsongas, a ghost candidate, two-thirds of the voters said they were dissatisfied with the choice presented to them, and 4 in 10 said they doubted Mr. Clinton had the integrity to be President.

and…

“There’s a real tug-of-war up here,” said one House member. “Especially on this side, there are a lot of people who are terrified that all the character questions, all the negatives about Clinton that showed up in New York, make him so weak that a lot of people will lose their seats.”

Which, you’ll note actually did happen.  The Clinton’s managed to lose control of the house in ‘94 and didn’t raise a finger to stop it.  Shocker, huh?

But I think this sheds some light on Bill’s recent outbursts.  If I may play armchair psychoanalyst, this explains why he seems to be sabotaging his wife’s run for presidency:

In California, whose June 2 primary will provide the grand finale of the nominating campaign, only 2 of 34 superdelegates, Representatives Calvin Dooley and Maxine Waters, have endorsed Mr. Clinton. In Pennsylvania, site of the next major test, only 3 of 19, including two Members of Congress, have done so.

Come on…Sen. Clinton started her race with the backing of the party machine.  In lots of states, the conservative/neolib/DLC party machine churned and worked in her advantage.  She had clout–more clout than Bill did when he ran.  To make it worse, the only reason he did win was because of Ross Perot, pulling votes from Bush.  If his wife becomes president, she’ll be forever in history.  He’ll be a mere footnote.

That’s why Bill seems to be having all these “late night senior moments”.

Yeah…I know it was totally expected so this is something of a yawner.  What we need to know is by how much?  Remember that 6 weeks ago, Clinton was leading Pennsylvania by 33%.  One month ago, she was up 20 - 22%.  The gap has closed, but we don’t know by how much.  There was a large number of undecided (17%) and undecideds have been trending to the old and worn out in these races.

As I said over at TPM, an Obama loss of 10% or less will be awesome and very good news.  The Clinton’s campaign will spin any win as A Win.

Democrats |  Polls | County Results
Candidate	Votes	% of votes	Delegates won	Projected winner
Hillary Clinton	61,203	53%	0
Barack Obama	53,926	47%	0
5% of precincts reporting

Take a bow, the night is over
This masquerade is getting older
Light are low, the curtains down
There’s no one here
[There's no one here, there's no one in the crowd]
Say your lines but do you feel them
Do you mean what you say when there’s no one around [no one around]
Watching you, watching me, one lonely star
[One lonely star you don't know who you are]
Chorus:

I’ve always been in love with you [always with you]
I guess you’ve always known it’s true [you know it's true]
You took my love for granted, why oh why
The show is over, say good-bye

Say good-bye [bye bye], say good-bye

Make them laugh, it comes so easy
When you get to the part
Where you’re breaking my heart [breaking my heart]
Hide behind your smile, all the world loves a clown
[Just make 'em smile the whole world loves a clown]
Wish you well, I cannot stay
You deserve an award for the role that you played [role that you played]
No more masquerade, you’re one lonely star
[One lonely star and you don't know who you are]

(chorus, repeat)

Say good-bye [bye bye], say good-bye

All the world is a stage [world is a stage]
And everyone has their part [has their part]
But how was I to know which way the story’d go
How was I to know you’d break
[You'd break, you'd break, you'd break]
You’d break my heart

I’ve always been in love with you
[I've always been in love with you]
Guess you’ve always known
You took my love for granted, why oh why
The show is over, say good-bye

(chorus)

Say good-bye [bye bye], say good-bye
Say good-bye

h/t to TPM:

Hillary Clinton now has an ad running in PA with imagery of Osama bin Laden.

THUD

I…er…I thought that that was GOP territory. I mean, how many SOTU addresses have we played drinking games where we chug when Bush mentioned 9/11? How many times did we laugh at the inanity of Dick Cheney tying bin Laden with Iraq? Now, Sen. Clinton has concern trolled her way into the gutter.

The Obama campaign has a response:

Wonder how that’ll play with the Clinton’s?

One of the biggest jokes of the past week has been how Sen. Clinton tosses off “San Francisco” as if it’s a dirty word. We shouldn’t expect much from one half of a couple who spent an inordinate amount of time running away from the “liberal” tag just because the scary old Republicans tried to turn it into a playground taunt. Still, Clinton does have her supporters in San Francisco, so the way she’s been denigrating the Obama supporters who heard his truthful remarks and comparing them to “real” people, is so much GOP bullshit.

The out of touch media dorks were oh-so-quick to give a shout out to their blue-collar upbringings…well, that is the blue collar cities where they were born (near), though many of them are trustafarians who were raised in a different area. Their experiences with blue collar workers has either been ordering them around or getting their asses beat by them. The way they condescend bears this out. Keep in mind that these were people who were telling us that blue collar workers have no idea what arugla is.

Insulting.

So while the small town voter in Pennsylvania who was not being insulted by Sen. Obama’s remarks, is being puffed up by Sen. Moneybags and the Fourth Estate, the poor souls in San Francisco have to deal, yet again, with being treated like they’re so far out of the mainstream. In all these years where “San Francisco liberal” has become a Pavlovian buzzword to half-witted Republicans and even some “D”emocrats. I’ve never once heard any media pundit come to the defense of the San Francisco voter. I’ve never heard any Democrat stand up and say, “This is where we draw the line, the voters of San Francisco are people, tax-paying Americans who also deserve to be treated with respect.” Maybe we could even go all Godwin’s law or something. The fact is, that words taken of out context and/or distorted could be insulting to anyone anywhere. You know who the media largely caters to when they’re more concerned about blue collar workers, gun owners and the crazed Bible-thumping faction of religion being insulted than if black, Latino, rich, gay, or just regular religious folks (UCC anyone?) are insulted.

Let’s take the Muslim thing for example. For almost 14 months during this campaign, Muslims have been smeared. In that, I mean that some Democrats <coughHillaryClintoncough>, the media and certainly the unintelligent Republicans feel that it’s alright to “slime” Sen. Obama by implying that he’s a Muslim. Sen. Obama is the only elected official during this entire campaign to say that what these people were doing was insulting to Americans who are Muslim. The only one. That tells me more about their character than anyone Sen. Obama may have sat next to on a board eons ago.

That Clinton thinks that’s it’s totally okay to denigrate one group while ginning up false outrage over a distorted remark not aimed at another group, say even more about her character. On one hand I should be surprised, but then I remember that this is a person who has told us that black voters, activists, caucus-goers, young people, and states that she didn’t win aren’t important. This is a person who wrote off the endorsement of a friend for her opponent as “insignificant”, then spent two weeks publicly attacking the friend.

So, while she’s reminiscing over a duck hunt with dad that probably happened as often as sniper fire in Tuzla, we’ll do well to remember that even though she’s been a hanger-on in the upper echelons of the political class for over 30 years, she can still pretend to the a voice of the American people, while mildly insulting those San Francisco liberals who went to listen to Sen. Obama. Though, I’m sure the San Francisco liberals who are dumping nearly $500K (that’s 10% of what Clinton loaned her campaign!) in Pennsylvania this week on her behalf are the right kind of San Francisco liberals.

There’s no recap. It sucked balls.

ABCNews needs to know how much they fucked up on this one. You can call (212) 456-7777 or email them.

It was, hands down, probably the worst excuse of a debate in all of debating history. It was through no fault of the candidates. It was purely Assclown Hijinks with Chuck Gibson and Georgie-boy. Absolutely NOTHING of substance was asked of the candidates. I came in late and was still subjected to 45 minutes of non-issue questions on Rev. Wright, bitterness and flag pins. Can you guess the bias? There was one guess on Clinton’s lying habits. She actually said something like, “People are just going to have get over my habitual lying.” Oh…that part may be an tiny exaggeration.

Okay…wanna know how bad it is? Jonah “Iraq is Going Great!” Goldberg thought it was bad. When you have me agreeing with something Goldberg writes you know it’s bad. (h/t to idredit)

I’m no leftwing blogger, but I can only imagine how furious they must be with the debate so far. Nothing on any issues. Just a lot of box-checking on how the candidates will respond to various Republican talking points come the fall. Now I think a lot of those Republican talking points are valid and legitimate. But if I were a “fighting Dem” who thinks all of these topics are despicable distractions from the “real issues,” I would find this debate to be nothing but Republican water-carrying.

The responses from viewers on ABCNews gives you a better idea of how bad it was:

Jesus Christ - are you kidding! This is the worst sham for an unbiased debate I have ever seen - FIRE STEPHANOPOLOUS and GIBSON… and by-the-way, NO multi-miliion dollar severance package - make them pay a fine for torturing americans with their insane questions

Posted by:
j50george 9:42 PM

Pathetic job, ABC. Very sad. You had a chance to cut through the crap, but you chose to wallow in it. Lapel pins? Wright? Bosnia? All that crap’s been hashed and rehashed. And millionaire Gibson whining about capital gains taxes. What a travesty.

Posted by:
Yucca333 10:15 PM

Whatever they paid them to gang up on obama i’ll double it.they should leave the debates to the REAL news networks!!!!!

Posted by:
walchrs 9:43 PM

What a terrible debate by ABC’s moderators. I guess this is why I never watch ABC News. About 30 minutes was spent on Rev. Wright, the bitter comment, and Hillary mis-speak(which was only about 5 of those 30 mins). We then had to sit through 30 minutes of commercials in a two hour program. That was pathetic ABC. PATHETIC.

Posted by:
mr_sj 10:12 PM

LOL…One of my great laughs of the day has been watching Clinton’s new dead horse ad. If you haven’t seen it, you simply must see just how not bitter her “supporters” are:

See? Don’t just look like they shit rainbows and break into song at any moment?

“I find my faith uplifting.” GRRRRRRRRR

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Luckily, there are people in Pennsylvania with a firm grasp on reality. They aren’t buying into Clinton’s distortion of Obama’s words. Twenty-one party leaders and elected officials in Pennsylvania sent out a letter today:

Dear Fellow Pennsylvanian,

We live in small towns and rural areas throughout Pennsylvania and we support Barack Obama for President.

A few days ago, Sen. Obama made some comments that his opponents are now using to make him appear as if he is something he is not. Instead of speaking to us honestly about how they intend to solve the problems we are facing, they are playing the same old Washington games that accomplish nothing.

What Sen. Obama said is that over the last 25-30 years, working class people in places like Pennsylvania have been falling behind, and that politicians in Washington haven’t been looking out for them. He also said that, as a result, many people have become frustrated, angry and even bitter about all the broken promises.

He was right.

The politicians who are now saying that we shouldn’t be frustrated are the ones who are out of touch.

People in the towns and communities we live in have seen their jobs shipped overseas. We’ve seen our pensions disappear. We’ve seen our health care costs skyrocket. We’ve seen everything from the cost of gasoline to a gallon of milk go through the roof.

As our families have struggled to make ends meet and our communities fought to stay intact, how has Washington responded? By giving tax breaks to the wealthy, rewarding corporations who ship jobs overseas, and turning the levers of power over to the lobbyists and special interests.

It’s easy to feel a little frustrated when you see these Washington politicians continue to ignore you. But it’s not the only emotion we feel. When someone comes along who is untainted by the system in Washington, who doesn’t take money from federal lobbyists or special interests and who promises that things can be different, we feel something else—hope.

That’s why we’re supporting Barack Obama. Others have come along and promised change, but failed to deliver. Sen. Obama is different than the rest. He doesn’t take money from the special interests, and he speaks honestly about the issues we are facing.

In addition to supporting his plans for jobs, health care and education, we believe that he can deliver on his promises to ensure economic opportunity for family farmers, to provide support for rural economic development, to promote renewable energy in rural America, to protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport, and use guns for the purposes of hunting and target shooting, and to preserve open land for hunting and fishing.

Unlike his opponents who have been part of the Washington establishment for decades, Barack Obama understands the struggles we are going through. We welcomed him with open arms as he made his way through small towns and rural areas on his recent bus tour across the state. And we will work day and night from now until the primary on his behalf not only because he has heard our frustrations, but because he speaks to our hope that Washington can actually work for people like us.

Sincerely,

Ted Alter, State College

Westmoreland County Commissioner Tom Bayla, Greensburg

Mayor John Brenner, York

Lloyd Casey, West Chester – President, Pennsylvania Forestry Association

Mayor John Fetterman, Braddock

Mayor Rick Gray, Lancaster

Scott Harrison, Warriors Mark

State Representative Bryan Lentz, Swarthmore

State Senator Sean Logan, Monroeville

Carl Majji, Claysville – Corporal, U.S. Army

Mayor Thomas McMahon, Reading

State Senator Bob Mellow – Pennsylvania Senate Democratic Leader

U.S. Representative Patrick Murphy, Doylestown – U.S. Congressman (PA-08)

Perry County Commissioner Steve Naylor, New Bloomfield

Lackawanna County Commissioner Corey O’Brien, Dunmore

Fran Rodriquez, Lancaster

State Representative Josh Shapiro, Abington – Deputy Speaker, Pennsylvania House of Representatives

Major General Walter Stewart, Berks County – Former Commander, 28th Infantry Division, Pennsylvania Army National Guard

State Representative Dan Surra, St. Marys

State Representative Thomas Tangretti, Greensburg

Lackawanna County Commissioner Michael Washo, Scranton

You can sign your name to this letter too on Barack Obama’s website (warning there’s a video that starts playing automatically)

I really despise Bob Johnson.  It’s bad enough that he inflicted BET on us, but the ongoing problem is that he continues to talk like someone cares.  Jim Morrill did an interview with Johnson in the Charlotte Observer.  Bob Johnson not only repeats the “Obama is lucky his black” meme, but revises history to boot:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position,” she said, just before the resulting firestorm forced her to step down as an adviser to Obama rival Hillary Clinton.

“What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant (is) if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called ‘Jerry Smith’ and he says I’m going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote? And the answer is, probably not.”

You have to read the rest of Johnson’s quote over at Morrill’s site, but this is the gist.  Bob Johnson, is pretending that all along Sen. Obama was carrying the black vote.  We all know that that’s not true.  I have no idea why Morrill didn’t point out that that wasn’t true.

It wasn’t until after Iowa, that Obama’s standing among black voters surged to over 70% in some cases.  Before that, he was polling behind Clinton among black voters.  In October 2007, Sen. Clinton was polling high among black females, while black males were split between the two.   It was black women, who was giving Sen. Clinton her edge among black voters at that time.  The following month, Sen. Obama saw a small surge in black support, though he was still lagging behind Clinton who, at the time, held an 83% favorable rating among black voters.

Then December came…most of you may remember December as the month, the Clinton surrogates rolled out the race-baiting aspect of their campaign, starting with Bob Kerrey on Dec. 8th.  Most people were wrapped up in themselves or Mike Huckabee’s Christmas card, but black people were talking about it all.  Then Iowa happened.  Not only did Clinton come in 3rd, but Obama won a state with a black population of 2.5%.  Then the Clinton’s and their surrogates happened…There’s no need to rehash, but it’s clear that the bigotted antics of Clinton’s “fun part” of the campaign caused her some serious erosion in black support.

For Bob Johnson, to sit up there and pretend that 1) none of the race-baiting happened and 2) that Obama has always has black voters backing him, shows that Johnson is much more out of touch than his soft-porn cable channel proves that he is.

So, the Bosnia lie was dumb. The hospital story lie was amazing, since it assumed that voters were dumb. But…this new one is nothing short of outstanding.

Obama has been credited with foreseeing a troublesome war in Iraq primarily due to a speech he gave in 2002 while he was a state senator, where he spoke out against the war. Clinton said, “I started criticizing the war in Iraq before he did. So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002 and I give him credit for making that speech. But that was not a decision.”

So…um…she’s saying that even though Obama gave a speech before the war started that she was against the war before him. Before it started, but after she voted for it.

And we’re supposed to believe that.

Clinton\’s pro-Iraq War speech pt. 1

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/4wyCBF5CsCA&hl=en”></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/4wyCBF5CsCA&hl=en” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>

Clinton\’s pro-Iraq War speech pt. 2

<object width=”425″ height=”355″><param name=”movie” value=”http://www.youtube.com/v/t8fknhbB-Xo&hl=en”></param><param name=”wmode” value=”transparent”></param><embed src=”http://www.youtube.com/v/t8fknhbB-Xo&hl=en” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” wmode=”transparent” width=”425″ height=”355″></embed></object>

Note that I’m not even going to touch the lie-within-a-lie where she said: “So, I’m well aware that his entire campaign is premised on a speech he gave in 2002″. If that is all she’s getting out of Obama’s campaign then she’s even more close-minded than I thought.

What’s even more amazing that Jake Tapper at ABCNews who has been carrying water for the Clinton’s campaign wrote a piece that not only called her out on this lie, but laid out actual facts:

In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.

But Clinton’s claim was false.

Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, “when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did.”

It’s an odd way to measure opposition to the war — comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama’s opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton’s vote for it.)

And then he proceeds to mention a position paper from Clinton written on Jan. 26, 2005 regarding Rice’s confirmation that the campaign has pushed on reporters to bolster this outrageous lie. Tapper pointed out that Obama wrote a letter directly to Rice exactly the week before.

How did the Clinton’s campaign screw up something like that?

The misrepresentation of the record is symbolic of the re-writing of history Clinton has attempted on her record regarding the war in Iraq.

Because the larger context is more important. And Clinton’s written criticism of the war in a press statement in January 2005 received little attention compared to the press surrounding her trip to Iraq the next month, in February 2005.

You will also do well to remember that as late Spring ‘07, Clinton was still supporting the war. It wasn’t until the first few televised debates that she started criticizing the way the war was run, but not the war itself.