Hillary's high negatives are an illusion compared to Obama or any other Democrat
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 28, 2007 - 4:49pm.
Rapid Response
Hello Everyone:
It is definitely my opinion that Hillary Clinton's high negative numbers are only an illusion compared to Barack Obama or to any other 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate!
Hillary Clinton's high negative numbers are almost like an illusion when compared to Obama or to any other Democratic candidate in my opinion because the Neocon GOP attack machine, Rush Limbaugh, extreme right wing talk radio, FOX News etc. have already done about all of the damage that they can do to negatively define Hillary and because most of the country already have their minds made up about her.
Hillary is like a piece of clay that is already molded in shape and hardened. You can put a small dent or a chip in it here and there but it is still very stable and durable when it comes to being defined and swiftboated by the other side which they are professionals at doing:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13578
ANALYSIS: Why Rush Limbaugh is so powerful & what many media pundits do not get!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 10, 2007 - 1:47am.
Yet despite all of these enemy attacks, many of the polls that I am looking at right now show that Hillary is electable:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13848
GALLUP: Clinton Best Odds of Being Elected President & Clinton Eclipses Giuliani
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 9, 2007 - 3:48am.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx
November 26, 2007
Democratic Candidates Look Good in Latest 2008 Trial Heats
Hold significant leads over Thompson, Romney; slim edges over McCain
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- "A new Gallup Poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton with a slim but not statistically significant advantage over both former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain in head-to-head matchups for the 2008 general election for president. Clinton has much more substantial leads over former Sen. Fred Thompson and former Gov. Mitt Romney..."
Barack Obama on the other hand has not nearly been fully defined yet by his political enemies which is the main reason why his negative numbers are not as high as Hillary's negative numbers are right now!
Obama is like a lump of soft clay that has not taken shape yet which his political enemies will mold however they choose to if he is the nominee. Obama as the nominee will get in 2008 just what John Kerry got in 2004 when Kerry had no clue about how to define himself as a candidate and when he allowed his political enemies to define him before most of middle America instead of being able to define himself as a Presidential candidate:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/9351#comment-147279
John Kerry has no concept about how to deal with media attacks:
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 31, 2006 - 3:27pm.
Authors Mark Halperin and John Harris clearly explain why this will be just as much of an issue in the 2008 election that it was in the 2004 election in their excellent book titled "The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008" which I highly recommend:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/03/AR2006100301030_pf.html
The Way to Win: Taking the White House in 2008
Chapter 1: The Way to Lose
By Mark Halperin and John F. Harris
Tuesday, October 3, 2006; 6:08 PM
"The bottom line was that the Bush campaign and its allies did a better job than the Kerry campaign and its allies in using the Freak Show -- its magnification of the personal and negative -- to define the opposing candidate. But the story as told in this chapter is a tactical one. What is more important for the next presidential election is the strategic reality that the Freak Show does not affect both parties equally.
The dynamic in 2008 will be the same as it was in 2004. There are structural issues in politics and media that now favor Republicans over Democrats. Freak Show politics will represent only a moderate threat to Republicans and give them a major advantage as they try to define the opposition on unfavorable terms. On the other side, Freak Show politics offers virtually no advantages for Democrats, but will again present a huge threat to any politician hoping to keep control of the narrative of his -- or her -- life story..."
I articulated further about that book in this post:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8841
ANALYSIS: A great Washington Post article about how the media affects Democrats!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 5, 2006 - 2:03pm.
The bottom line is that the GOP attack and smear machine will go after whoever the Democratic front-runner is as well as the eventual nominee as Rush Limbaugh himself has confirmed:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110507/content/01125109.guest.html
Democrats in Trouble Stack
November 5, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "The conservative attack machine will soon launch nuclear war against the Democrats' nominee when he or she emerges..."
At the moment, Hillary is receiving the full force brunt of the GOP attack machine because she is the current front-runner in the polls!
That will easily change to Barack Obama in a heartbeat if he becomes the front-runner or the presumed nominee just like how in 2004 the GOP was prepared for Howard Dean when he was the front-runner and then changed to swiftboating John Kerry when he became the presumed nominee!
The huge difference between Obama and Hillary about this is that Obama and his campaign do not understand how serious of an issue that this is and they do not know how to deal with it:
http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/obama-camp-says-clinton-is-obsessed-with-gop-attack-machine-2007-08-24.html
Obama camp: Clinton obsessed with GOP "attack machine"
By Klaus Marre
August 24, 2007
"A top adviser for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said Friday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the front-runner for her party’s presidential nomination, is obsessed “with what she calls the Republican attack machine.”
“I think we need a candidate who is obsessed with unifying this country again,” said Obama adviser David Axelrod..."
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13894
ANALYSIS: Statements from Obama that show his lack of electability if nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 14, 2007 - 10:46am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13782
Barack Obama will be swiftboated & will get eaten up alive if he is the nominee!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2007 - 3:49am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13433
ANALYSIS: Why I think that Obama would be a very weak general election candidate
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 24, 2007 - 9:01am.
Hillary Clinton and her campaign fully understand this issue, they know how to deal with it, and they are already dealing with it:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/20/clinton-takes-on-republican-attack-machine/
November 20, 2007
Clinton takes on 'Republican attack machine'
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/21/us/politics/21adbox.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
Clinton Takes On ‘Republican Attack Machine’
By JULIE BOSMAN
Published: November 21, 2007
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=sZAuXvbP77c
Machine
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13880
Hillary started a new rapid response website to fight back against enemy attacks
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 12, 2007 - 8:42am.
This is the main reason why I do NOT think that Obama is electable in the general election compared to Hillary and it is also why I think that Obama's negative numbers will definitely rise to a very high degree once the other side defines him as a candidate IF he is the 2008 Democratic nominee!
I am sure that Barack Obama is probably a very sincere person as well as being a good Senator for Illinois BUT he is in way over his head running for President right now in my opinion!
Mitch Dworkin
http://www.securingamerica.com/
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10756
StopIranWar.com: "War is not the answer"
Submitted by Wes Clark on February 21, 2007 - 11:40am.
http://www.securingamerica.com/ccn/node/7191
Listen to Gen. Wes Clark fight for Dems on Sean Hannity's radio program: An excellent example for all of us to follow and what we all need to be doing to help fight back against extreme right wing Neocon smear propaganda!
only my opinion.
However it is an opinion that is based on facts and on credible documentation!
As I asked to Paul Cornett below, what errors in my reasoning do you see in any of these posts of mine about Barack Obama's lack of electability?
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13894
ANALYSIS: Statements from Obama that show his lack of electability if nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 14, 2007 - 10:46am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13782
Barack Obama will be swiftboated & will get eaten up alive if he is the nominee!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2007 - 3:49am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13433
ANALYSIS: Why I think that Obama would be a very weak general election candidate
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 24, 2007 - 9:01am.
What you often do is use other people's opinions, analysis, commentary, not facts, to form your opinions. You use the "wisdom" dispensed by talking heads and political pundits and the Russerts and Blitzers of the world as if what they say is "fact", when all it is is their "opinion". In one of your posts, for example, you "assert" that Obama hasn't been going after Clinton hard enough and that now it's too late for Obama to really take on Clinton. That seemed to be based on opinion chatter from the "media" and talking heads. Of course, Obama has been taking on Clinton, maybe not in the way that these media know-it-alls and pundits thought he should, but in his own way and at his pace. It seems to me that for all the talk of how Clinton has had a campaign plan and that she's been very disciplined and stuck to it no matter, not allowing herself to distracted by what the "media" or anyone was saying, that first of all, that's not true, she has been forced to make changes in her campaign plan from day one, whether she'll admit it or not. Well, Obama has also had a campaign plan from day one, and he's had the discipline to stick with it regardless of what all the "experts" were saying about how he had to be more agressive and tougher and go on the attack. His saw his first job as laying the organizational and financial foundation of a presidential campaign and letting people get to know who he was and to be comfortable with him, because unlike Clinton he didn't have nearly univeral name recognition, so Clinton's and Obama's initial job was very different. And I'd also suggest that Obama knew that being agressive and going on the attack was a very fine line for a black man to walk when the person on the other end of the attack is a white woman. That's just a fact of life in this country that many people don't want to talk about - the reaction of voters to the image of an "angry black man" whose "target", so to speak, is a white woman.
I think that Mitch's point, LatinJum, is that it's a fact that the pundits are saying what Mitch reports. To many people, "the facts" aren't as important as what people are saying about them, and we should know what they're saying in order to be fully armed to talk back.
Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Don't settle for less.
Make America All It Can Be!
Mitch explicitly stated in his response to my comment that his posts are based on facts and incredible documentation. So, if he what he really means to say is that he's just reporting that so and so said this and so and so said that, fine, then he should have responded that he was just reporting what others were saying and whether it has any merit or not is up for each of us to decide.
comment for my reply:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13992#comment-257526
Re: Your opinions are based on other opinions . . . / My reply!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 29, 2007 - 10:38pm.
You will also see that I have directly quoted Barack Obama and his campaign when I have made my conclusions!
Where did I misquote Barack Obama when I claim that he does not understand what it means to be swiftboated by the other side and that he is dead wrong to not pay attention to what Mitt Romney is saying about him right now?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21562193/
Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate for October 30
Read the transcript from the special coverage
updated 11:16 a.m. CT, Wed., Oct. 31, 2007
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES PARTICIPATE IN A DEBATE
SPONSORED BY MSNBC
OCTOBER 30, 2007
BRIAN WILLIAMS, MSNBC ANCHOR: "Senator Obama, we’re going to transfer into a new area here. A question specifically for you because you’re in a rather unique position. It’s about religion and misinformation. Governor Romney misspoke twice on the same day, confusing your name with that of Osama bin Laden.
Your party is fond of talking about a potential swiftboating. Are you fearful of what happened to John McCain, for example, in South Carolina a few years back; confusion on the basis of things like names and religion?
OBAMA: No, because I have confidence in the American people.
OBAMA: And I don’t pay much attention to what Mitt Romney has to say—at least what he says this week. It may be different next week..."
Also, where did I take David Axelrod out of context in this quote where he shows that he has no understanding of the seriousness of the GOP attack machine?
Obama camp: Clinton obsessed with GOP "attack machine"
By Klaus Marre
August 24, 2007
"A top adviser for Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said Friday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the front-runner for her party’s presidential nomination, is obsessed “with what she calls the Republican attack machine.”
“I think we need a candidate who is obsessed with unifying this country again,” said Obama adviser David Axelrod..."
It is not rocket science to find direct quotes such as these, cut through all of the spin and B.S. on both sides and in the media, and then come to a well thought out conclusion about Barack Obama's lack of electability compared to Hillary Clinton's!
What did I quote out of context and what is specifically wrong with my reasoning in just these two examples?
Did I say you misquoted Barack Obama? No, I didn't. Did I say you took David Axelrod out of context in a quote? No, I didn't. Did I say you quoted anything out of context? No, I didn't. So, you might want to play that game with others, but don't imply with your "where did I" and "what did I" questions to me that I had accused you of "misquoting" anyone. You can come to whatever conclusion you want to about Obama's "lack of electability", and you can use whatever "reasoning" you want to do so. However, don't confuse fact with opinion. It is a fact that you reported on the what various people have said. But a lot of what you report being said by those people are nothing more than their opinions, so if you want to tout Tucker Carlson's and Rush Limbaugh's and all the other so-called stellar media "stars" opinions as the basis for your conclusions, fine, just admit that your basing your opinion on the opinions of others. And as for what Obama and Axelrod say, again, you can come to your conclusion, which can be another word for your opinion, that you don't believe Obama understands swiftboating and that you don't believe that Axelrod has any understanding of the seriousness of the GOP attack machine. But all that means is that it's a fact that you believe certain things, and it's a fact that I believe certain other things - it doesn't automatically follow that what we believe is a fact.
your opinions, his opinions, communication/dialogue is often based on exactly that. If we were just brains floating in a jar of formaldehyde we wouldn't have fingers to type out our various opinons, would we? Is there a fact test here now? Are we writing proofs & equations?
I find it highly unlikely that you don't have personal opinions based on all these public figures that aren't partially mirrored off the opinions of others, particularly as it is highly unlikely you know or have even met any or all of them in person.
You've given a fair share of opinion here yourself, as have we all. Opinions are like _____, we all have them.
lighten up eom
Mitch asked me where he "misquoted" Obama or Axelrod, which could imply to someone reading his response that I had accused him of misquoting them, which I hadn't. So, my reply was intended to put Mitch on notice that that's an unacceptable tactic. And, no, there's not a fact test here, but I do think it's important to distinguish between fact and opinion, and it's certainly as important here as anywhere to not state something that is misleading, which I think Mitch did in his response to my comments.
And, yes, I have a lot of opinions. And that you find it "highly unlikely" that my personal opinions of all these public figures aren't partially mirrored off the opinions of others because I don't know them or haven't met them in person is, of course, your opinion, but it's not factual. My opinions of Obama or Clinton or Edwards or Clark, for that matter, aren't based on the opinions of others. For example, on whose opinion of Clark would I have based my opinion in the summer and fall of 2003? I didn't know him, I didn't know anyone who knew him, I listened to him and watched him and read biographical info about him and articles that had been written by him and formed my own opinion. I've done the same with this year's candidates and candidates in years past. And if you actually knew me, you'd know that my political opinions have always been mine and mine alone and not subject to whatever the so-called popular opinion or conventional wisdom opinion of the day is. That doesn't mean that that aren't people whose opinions I value, but I don't value anyone's opinion so much that I would change a decision I'd made just because someone whose opinion I valued had come to a different decision. So, I disagree that unless you've met someone in person that you can't possibly form an opinion free of the opinions of others who may have met them in person. For example, some people have met both Obama and Clinton and have come away with quite different opinions and probably for quite different reasons, so what good does that do me in terms of my forming an opinion about either of them, since the opinions formed by others aren't necessarily objective, but more likely subjective.
As for your suggestion to lighten up, there's often not much "light" about CCN in the days since Clark's endorsement of Clinton, or many days in the past, for that matter, when there always seemed to be something for someone to go ballistic over - the Blue Dog Dems, Reid, Pelosi, Bush, Cheney, the list goes on and on. As Wes Clark said, politics is a blood sport. And it's not always pretty, and it's not always light, and for those concerned about swiftboating, I'd suggest that no one lighten up too much just yet. Think of defending your candidate in this caucus/primary season as practice for the general election.
As an aside, I believe I still owe you a response to a comment of yours on another post that I replied to and then you responded back. I'll get to that one of these days.
you & Mitch are bringing different mindsets to the issues that move you the most, which is par for the course. Why that has to breed controversy, or one upsmanship I don't understand (or really, care).
Please don't feel you have to bother re-commenting on that dead thread on my behalf- of course, you are free to respond in any way you like. Most everyone here seems like a pretty independent thinker, we all come to it in different ways & that strikes me as a good thing. I truly have no appetite for a fight about any of this, okay?
that we do have a difference of opinion on the issue of Obama's lack of electability.
I am completely satisfied with what I have said so far in this post along with other posts that I have written. I am very content to let each person who reads this dialogue between us judge for themself who they agree with about this issue!
In everything I have seen you say so far, I have still not seen you specifically answer any of the opinions and documentation that I have quoted to back up my claims regarding the issue of Obama's lack of electability which I think is a point that is definitely worth noting!
According to Stephen Ohlemacher of the Associated Press, as of yesterday 90% of the 765 superdelegates (all people in Congress, all DNC members, governors, and some others)were contacted. Mrs. Clinton has the endorsement of 169.
At this late date, so close to when the caucus/primary vote begins, apparently those who should know what is going on are not overwhelmed by anyone. Obama has 63, Edwards 34, Richardson 25, Dodd 17, Biden 8.
I interpret this to mean that the majority are waiting to see what happens once the voting starts.
PS: There are some superdelegates selected by the state parrties bringing the number to around 800.
If you ask a question, you can expect an answer. If you give an opinion, there's nothing to answer, because it's just that, an opinion, not a question. And if I were you, I don't think I'd get into the area of whose answering whose questions, since you're not very good at answering questions yourself, like my question to you above about why you're asking me where you "misquoted" Obama and Axelrod when I never said, nor even suggested, that you had "misquoted" anyone?
As for answering opinions and "documentation" that you have quoted to back up your "claims" about Obama's lack of electability, again, you've decided for some reason to take the opinions of others, which can change day to day and from week to week and from month to month, and to base your own opinions about this and other issues related to Clinton and Obama on those other opinions. So that's all it is, your opinion, your claims. It doesn't make any of it fact. For example, you have decided that responses by Obama and Axelrod in regards to omething Mitt Romney said is some kind of proof that Obama is unelectable because he doeesn't take the Republican attack machine seriously and doesn't know how and won't know how to counter the swift-boat attacks that will come. So, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. So all anyone can say to that, me or anyone else, is that we disagree and have another opinion. It's not like you say Obama said this and therefore I've formed this opinion, and then my response could be, no, you're wrong, Obama didn't say that, so maybe you should rethink your opinion.
A suggestion. I'd stay away from the word "claims" (as in "my claims regarding the issue of Obama's lack of electability"), as it infers an assertion of fact, and you have admitted that you're talking about opinions, both others and yours.
when they are based on facts and on credible evidence!
Nothing that you have said so far has specifically refuted any points about Obama's lack of electability that I have made in this post or in any of my other posts!
I am sure that the people who are reading this dialogue will notice that!
Hello latinjum:
Whether "other people's opinions, analysis, commentary" are facts or opinions are up to each person to decide for themselves.
When I do a post, I am always factoring in what our side is saying, what the other side is saying, what the mainstream media is saying, and then I come to what I believe is a sound and reasonable conclusion of what it all means when I cut through all of the spin and B.S. that I see!
Of course what I am posting are my opinions BUT they are based on what I believe to be clear facts. If you disagree with my conclusion about something, then I have no problem with that at all.
What I am NOT seeing from you or from anyone else who disagrees with me about this issue regarding Obama's lack of electability are your explanations about what is specifically wrong with my reasoning and my conclusions in these posts:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13894
ANALYSIS: Statements from Obama that show his lack of electability if nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 14, 2007 - 10:46am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13782
Barack Obama will be swiftboated & will get eaten up alive if he is the nominee!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2007 - 3:49am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13433
ANALYSIS: Why I think that Obama would be a very weak general election candidate
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 24, 2007 - 9:01am.
It is one thing for you to say that these are my opinions which I admit that they are. What you have not done so far is to show me where I am specifically wrong about any conclusion that I have stated!
I am also the furthest thing from being someone who believes everything that they hear from the media pundits and I always expose the mainstream media in my posts when I see that they get something wrong as these posts will verify:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13942
A Media Pundit Admits: "We talk about polls... We're creating the inevitability"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 19, 2007 - 11:52pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13814
Why I think Chris Matthews crossed the line showing his own bias against Hillary
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 5, 2007 - 3:30am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13578
ANALYSIS: Why Rush Limbaugh is so powerful & what many media pundits do not get!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on October 10, 2007 - 1:47am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13098
Chuck Todd of MSNBC said about Gen. Clark: "worse presidential launch ever..."
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 23, 2007 - 9:22am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12956
Paul Begala said "The ideal Wes Clark was even better than the candidacy..."
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on August 7, 2007 - 6:46pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12270
MY RESPONSE: Dana Milbank, Ryan Lizza, Susan Page & Chris Matthews trashed Clark
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 1, 2007 - 3:35pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12214
Cillizza compared Fred Thompson to Clark:"best day as a candidate was his first"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on May 25, 2007 - 8:54pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12619
Hagel frustrated the media pushes Hillary & money over issues & qualifications!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 10, 2007 - 12:13am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12343
Howard Kurtz & Panel/Pew Poll: Media's focus on candidate style over substance!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 11, 2007 - 4:56pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12287
James Carville, Donna Brazile & J.C. Watts misunderstand a key Iraq question!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 4, 2007 - 1:56pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11555
ANALYSIS: How "Media Pundits" wrongly push unqualified Presidential Candidates!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 22, 2007 - 5:08pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10942
MEDIA PUNDITS: What they get right, wrong, questions for them, & Clark coverage!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 6, 2007 - 2:57pm.
I have also NEVER said in any of my posts "it's too late for Obama to really take on Clinton." If I said that, then where is it?
Your statement "And I'd also suggest that Obama knew that being agressive and going on the attack was a very fine line for a black man to walk when the person on the other end of the attack is a white woman. That's just a fact of life in this country that many people don't want to talk about - the reaction of voters to the image of an "angry black man" whose "target", so to speak, is a white woman" is a reasonable opinion that I have no problem with at all.
However that and all of your other statements have NOT directly answered the specific points that I have made in my posts about Barack Obama's lack of electability compared to Hillary Clinton's!
What I am waiting to see is for you to tell me specifically what is wrong with my reasoning and conclusions about Obama's lack of electability in these posts:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13894
ANALYSIS: Statements from Obama that show his lack of electability if nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 14, 2007 - 10:46am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13782
Barack Obama will be swiftboated & will get eaten up alive if he is the nominee!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2007 - 3:49am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13433
ANALYSIS: Why I think that Obama would be a very weak general election candidate
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 24, 2007 - 9:01am.
What specific conclusion is it that have I claimed in any of these posts that you think I got wrong? When you give me a specific quote about something that I have said, then I will be glad to respond to it and make any corrections that are needed if I see that I got something wrong!
I by no means claim to be infallible (nobody is) but I always see what is going on with our side, what is going on with the other side, what is going on with the media, and then I come to a well thought out conclusion as I cut through all of the spin and B.S. that I see. In all of my posts, I ALWAYS welcome ANY comments and feedback from anyone!
Mitch Dworkin
is laughable...at best.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson
Funny story.
My sister has every book by or about Ronald Reagan. Even has magazines with articles about him. She was a College Republican, worked CPAC.. voted R every time and still does some stuff with conservative groups with high schools and such.. takes them to Harrisburg on trips, mock congress. That type of thing.
At the same time, she absolutely adores Oprah Winfrey. Year ago.. guess what she's reading.. "Audacity of Hope".. She loves Barack Obama now. well mebbe not "Loves" but Admires greatly.
Not in hundred million bazillion years will she remotely consider Hillary Clinton.
Anyways, fun stuff. :)
Hi Paul:
You missed my point entirely!
I did NOT say "that Hillary Clinton's high negatives are illusory" which I do think "is laughable...at best."
What I said was that "Hillary's high negatives are an illusion compared to Obama or any other Democrat."
You missed the part that I said in the title of this post which is "compared to Obama or any other Democrat."
My point is that Hillary has high negatives now due to the fact that she the primary target of the GOP attack machine and the extreme right wing media because she is the national front-runner in the polls right now and because she was the First Lady for 8 years in an administration that Neocon GOP activists hated and despised!
As I pointed out in this post, all of those same heavy swiftboat attacks from the other side will definitely hit Obama much harder than he realizes if he should become the front-runner or the presumed 2008 Democratic nominee!
What errors in my reasoning do you see in any of these posts of mine about Barack Obama's lack of electability?
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13894
ANALYSIS: Statements from Obama that show his lack of electability if nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 14, 2007 - 10:46am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13782
Barack Obama will be swiftboated & will get eaten up alive if he is the nominee!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 1, 2007 - 3:49am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13433
ANALYSIS: Why I think that Obama would be a very weak general election candidate
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 24, 2007 - 9:01am.
To assert that her negatives are not the highest of any Democrat running, or that that fact is somehow illusory is laughable...at best.
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism" - Thomas Jefferson
I agree:
"Hillary Clinton's high negative numbers are almost like an illusion when compared to Obama or to any other Democratic candidate in my opinion because the Neocon GOP attack machine, Rush Limbaugh, extreme right wing talk radio, FOX News etc. have already done about all of the damage that they can do to negatively define Hillary and because most of the country already have their minds made up about her.
Hillary is like a piece of clay that is already molded in shape and hardened. You can put a small dent or a chip in it here and there but it is still very stable and durable when it comes to being defined and swiftboated by the other side which they are professionals at doing..."
There is no way to know what will spew forth from the Republicas in the Illinois legislature about Obama. Edwards, not so much - they went after Kerry more than Edwards in 2004, so we'll have to wait and see what they'll dig up/manufacture about Edwards if he's the nominee this go around.
Proud to be an American.
to be able to effectively fight back against the GOP attack machine and the extreme right wing media either in my opinion which I have credibly documented:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12576
ANALYSIS: John & Elizabeth Edwards did NOT "fight back" against Ann Coulter!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 5, 2007 - 2:45am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10782#comment-178377
John Edwards has no concept how to deal with "swiftboat" attacks
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 31, 2007 - 1:31pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12296
Edwards leading in Iowa; How the GOP will eat him up alive if he is the nominee!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on June 5, 2007 - 1:40pm.
2008 general election IF he is nominated!
If I could spot all of these things, then the 2008 GOP nominee, the Neocon GOP attack machine, Rush Limbaugh, extreme right wing talk radio, and FOX News will probably be able to see them as well:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13948
Obama said strongest foreign relations experience was living overseas as a child
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 21, 2007 - 9:17am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/12713
Obama's inflated donor numbers & the ridiculous statement he made about Iraq!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on July 19, 2007 - 5:27am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11596
TRANSCRIPT & ANALYSIS: Larry King specifically asks Obama about his "experience"
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on March 27, 2007 - 3:41pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/11033
ANALYSIS: Reasons why Obama will have a very difficult time if he is nominated!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 12, 2007 - 6:00pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10998
ANALYSIS: Obama is trying to shift attention away from Foreign Policy Experience
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on February 9, 2007 - 3:24pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10648
TRANSCRIPT: Obama Promised one year ago Today NOT to run for President in 2008!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 22, 2007 - 2:23pm.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/10547
Obama to explore 2008 White House run; EXPERIENCE MATTERS: Look at Bush in 2000!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on January 16, 2007 - 5:38pm.
The main reason why these issues are not coming up very much right now about Obama is because Hillary is currently the national front-runner in the polls which puts her on the receiving end of most of the enemy attacks!
If that were to change and Obama becomes the front-runner, then you will probably see all of these issues and more brought up by the other side to negatively define Obama as a candidate which will definitely raise his negative numbers:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110507/content/01125109.guest.html
Democrats in Trouble Stack
November 5, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: "The conservative attack machine will soon launch nuclear war against the Democrats' nominee when he or she emerges..."
Hillary's high negatives are at a stable level right now to where she is electable:
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13848
GALLUP: Clinton Best Odds of Being Elected President & Clinton Eclipses Giuliani
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 9, 2007 - 3:48am.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102862/Democratic-Candidates-Look-Good-Latest-2008-Trial-Heats.aspx
November 26, 2007
Democratic Candidates Look Good in Latest 2008 Trial Heats
Hold significant leads over Thompson, Romney; slim edges over McCain
by Jeffrey M. Jones
PRINCETON, NJ -- "A new Gallup Poll finds Sen. Hillary Clinton with a slim but not statistically significant advantage over both former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain in head-to-head matchups for the 2008 general election for president. Clinton has much more substantial leads over former Sen. Fred Thompson and former Gov. Mitt Romney..."
How much higher Obama's high negative numbers would get if he becomes the front-runner and/or the presumed 2008 Democratic nominee and if he does not understand how to effectively fight back against the other side negatively defining him as a candidate is definitely not a question I that would like to find out the answer to!
from Rush Limbaugh and she is still electable in the polls as I have documented because so many people already have their minds made up about her and because she and Bill know how to fight back against this kind of crap which negatively defines a candidate!
Barack Obama, John Edwards, or any Democrat will face the exact same thing if they were to become the Democratic front-runner and/or the presumed 2008 Democratic nominee!
The key question is do Obama and Edwards know how to effectively fight back against these kind of negative attacks like how Bill and Hillary Clinton know how to?
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/8655
Keith Olbermann comments on Bill Clinton's Fox News interview with my analysis!
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on September 26, 2006 - 1:47am.
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13880
Hillary started a new rapid response website to fight back against enemy attacks
Submitted by Mitch Dworkin on November 12, 2007 - 8:42am.
Make no mistake about it that this is just the tip of the iceberg of how the eventual 2008 Democratic nominee will be negatively defined by the other side to the key swing voters in middle America:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110207/content/01125106.guest.html November 2, 2007 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. Clinton: Victim-in-Chief
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_103007/content/01125107.guest.html
Obama: All Buzz, No Substance; Hillary Stuck at 46-49% in Polls
October 30, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_112807/content/01125111.guest.html
Mrs. Clinton: "It Will Be Me"
November 28, 2007
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_110707/content/01125107.guest.html November 7, 2007 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Clinton Debate Fallout Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_111607/content/01125106.guest.html November 16, 2007 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
Dud Debate: Hillary Hailed Just for Showing Up and Cowing Wolf
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html
Wolf's Voicemail: Don Clintonleone
Debate Rehearsal: Bill Coaches Hil
Parody Flashback: Hillary Sings, "I Can't Remember My Brain's in a Blender. It's Jello!"
against these kind of attacks to negatively define him as a candidate?
Hillary has endured far more of these kind of negative attacks than Obama has!
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.guest.html Rush Limbaugh also has audio parodies of Obama comparing him to Osama Bin Laden and mocking his ears: Parody Song: Kennedy Sings Obama Osama Obama Ear Parody:
Illustrating Absurdity...
Rev. Sharpton Sings: "Barack the Magic Negro (That's What the LA Times Called Him)"
• The Perot Big Ear Institute
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050207/content/01125108.guest.html
Obama Displays Maturity, Laughs Off "Barack the 'Magic Negro'" Song
May 2, 2007 BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Paul W. Smith, frequent guest host on this program, had on his program Barack Obama -- and he had to ask Barack Obama about "Barack the 'Magic Negro.'" He did. He did! We have the audio coming. He set it up. It's not on the little bite that we have, but he told Obama the roots of this, the LA Times article by David Ehrenstein, a black man, wrote the piece on the "magic negro" and so forth, and then he said to Obama after setting it up that way. He said, "I have to do this because Rush is on our radio station. We're going to see him tomorrow. You've heard the parody song 'Barack the "Magic Negro"'"? OBAMA: (Laughing.) You know, I have not heard it but I've heard of it. I confess that I don't listen to Rush on a daily basis. On the other hand, I'm not one of these people who -- who takes myself so seriously that I get offended by -- by every -- every comment made about me. You know, the -- you know, what Rush does is entertainment, and although it's probably not something that I listen to much, I don't -- PAUL W. SMITH: But you said not every day, so you do listen a little then, and why wouldn't you? OBAMA: I don't mind. I don't mind -- I don't mind folks poking fun at me. That's part of the job. RUSH: Barack Obama. That's right, Barack Obama laughed it off. He laughed it off. He said I'm an entertainer, and he doesn't mind being made fun of, poking fun at him. That's part of the job. Snerdley's looking at me with mouth wide open and agape. What do you not believe about this? (interruption) Yeah, look, we don't need to belabor this. But there's a reason he's laughing it off. A, it's funny. B, the roots of it is the Los Angeles Times. C, there's nothing to accomplish by doing something other than this. I don't want to go into it any further, but this is a classy way to deal with it. This is the way he should have dealt with it if anyone asked. It's the first time he's, probably, been asked about it, but this is the way for these guys to deal with it. Blow it off. Laugh it off. "No big deal." Now, he didn't react that way when Maureen Dowd wrote about his ears. We have that bite, just to show you how he's maturing in the campaign. He is inexperienced in this foxhole, but let's go to sound bite number four. This is back in December, December 10th last year in New Hampshire, and he held a press conference and he made a beeline right after the press conference straight to Maureen Dowd, MoDo, of the New York Times, and had this exchange with her. OBAMA (off mic): You talked about my ears, and I just want to put you on notice: I'm very sensitive about -- What I told them was, ''I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears.'" DOWD (purring): We're trying to toughen you up. RUSH: I don't know, could you hear that very well? What Obama said was, "I was teased relentlessly when I was a kid about my big ears," and Maureen said, "We're just trying to toughen you up." Now, it sounded like Helen Thomas, but it was Maureen Dowd. The voices of those two are distinct. So he's matured quite a bit. I want to thank Paul W. Smith for sending this along and asking Obama the question. BREAK TRANSCRIPT... 
It is too bad none of us can quantify exactly how much of our negative views of each of the Democratic nominees is true and how much is Republican B.S. that has effected us. The continual repetition of their lies does effect mere mortals. I trust in Wes Clark's evaluation in these matters.
I completely agree with you about that haypops!
An endorsement from Gen. Clark does not come lightly and it is something that definitely must be earned in my opinion!
Gen. Clark in his great wisdom and being the person of honor and integrity that I know he is would never have endorsed Hillary Clinton if he did not have a good reason to do it!
Many well known Democrats have not endorsed a Presidential candidate yet so I very seriously doubt that a gun was put to Gen. Clark's head to force him to endorse Hillary. I am absolutely sure that he did it because he honestly thought that it was the right thing to do!
"I trust in Wes Clark's evaluation in these matters" is something that I think Gen. Clark's supporters should take into very serious consideration when they look at Hillary Clinton!
and I also "trust in Wes Clark's evaluation in these matters," Clark supporters are not run-of-the-mill folks. They are intelligent, knowledgable people with the appropriate analytical skills to select the candidate that THEY think will make the best president. Hitting people over the head (figuratively speaking) isn't going to sway Clarkies to support Hillary.
Proud to be an American.
Sorry I missed you when you were in Illinois - I didn't see your comment with your travel plans until you were back in NY. And Chicago hot dogs are great - as long as you get them on the North Side, where they serve them with cucumbers and celery salt.
Proud to be an American.
...January 24-25 for Northwestern Basketball and a Chicago Bulls game. Will you be in the area? If so, we can meet for a Chicago Dog, complete with cumcumbers and celery salt.
I'll send you an email after the new year to work out the details. Maybe Dorma would care to join us. :)
Proud to be an American.
I'll be in Chicago Feb 22, 23, 24 or thereabouts and celery salt / cucumber combo sounds divine-- astonishing actually... : )
While those Chicago dogs, replete with mustard, relish, cucumbers, celery salt and sauteed onions are divine, they are extremely messy.
You don't seem like the messy type, so I'd suggest you order extra napkins, and forget your lady-like eating habit.
Dorma and Nelsons may have acquired a method to eat those scrumptious objects sans slobbering. I haven't.
...and slightly presumptuous to assume that a Clark supporter would not give full consideration to his evaluation even if in the end, that supporter found it impossible to follow him into Hillary's camp.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
You bet. And even those Clark supporters who may not find their way to supporting Hillary in the primary can, and most probably will, enthusiastically support his endorsees for the congressional seats.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
And that support is so important - if we do get a Democrat in the White House it will be almost useless if either house of Congress (or both - eek!)somehow flips back to a Republican majority. Years of not accomplishing much, if anything to fix the mess of the recent span of time.
Proud to be an American.
back right away and not let the other side define them!
The end of this transcript shows that Hillary Clinton understands this key concept!
Barack Obama needs to show that he understands the important lessons in this transcript very quickly (which I have not seen yet) or he will probably lose in the 2008 general election if he is the Democratic nominee for the same reasons why Michael Dukakis and John Kerry lost!
The key points made in this transcript show exactly why Barack Obama's negative numbers will shoot up to a very high degree right away if he is the 2008 Democratic nominee and if he does not understand how to fight back against enemy swiftboat attacks that attempt to negatively define him as a candidate!
This is the main reason why "Hillary's high negatives are an illusion compared to Obama or any other Democrat" if Obama or any other Democrat were to become the nominee instead of Hillary whose negative numbers are already at the point where she is electable and will probably not change a lot:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0711/28/se.02.html
CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
Campaign Killers: Why Do Negative Ads Work?
Aired November 28, 2007 - 23:00 ET
CAMPBELL BROWN, HOST: "Remember that infamous Willie Horton ad or how about the controversial daisy ad against Barry Goldwater? I'm Campbell Brown. Those ads and others like them can sink a campaign and some argue turn American voters off the political process altogether.
But if you think you're going to get a free pass from all the negativity this primary season, well, forget it. We live in what some political observers call the golden age of mudslinging. We've got two front-runners, Hillary and Rudy, who are especially divisive figures. So get ready. The mud bath is about to begin.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I served with John Kerry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I served with John Kerry.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam.
BROWN (voice-over): It was a minor ad buy in just seven inexpensive media markets.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Swift boat. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Swift boat.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: That swift boat...
BROWN: But it became the dominant news story of the 2004 campaign.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: John Kerry lied.
BROWN: The attack didn't come from a campaign but rather a group of Vietnam vets attacking the candidate who had billed himself as a war hero.
STEPHANIE CUTTER, KERRY '04 COMMUNICATIONS DIR.: When I first saw the ads, I thought, this is crazy. There's no way that these accusations are going to hold up.
BROWN: Stephanie Cutter was John Kerry's communications director.
CUTTER: The old rule of crisis communications is that you don't respond to an attack, otherwise you elevate it.
BROWN: It took two weeks for Kerry to speak out.
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), 2004 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: They're not telling the truth. They're a front for a Bush campaign.
BROWN: But by then the damage was done. CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST: People figured, well, if he's not answering the ads, the charges, they must be true.
BROWN: What was especially troubling to some was that Naval records and eyewitness accounts by other sailors contradicted just about every claim the swift boat vets made. But it didn't seem to matter...
BROWN: Fast forward now to 2004, when technology once again changed the battlefield.
JOHN EDWARDS (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If you have any question about what John Kerry's made of --
BROWN: Swift Boat's power was magnified by the nonstop play it got on the Internet, blogs and 24-hour cable news.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- for that injury.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: John Kerry lied to get his bronze star. I know. I was there. I saw what happened.
BROWN: There was plenty of evidence to contradict the ad, but it didn't matter. The charges seemed to stick.
MCKINNON: I knew it was going to have a huge impact, and the only surprise was that the Kerry campaign didn't respond quicker.
STEPHANIE CUTTER, KERRY CAMPAIGN COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR: In retrospect, we probably should have had him respond earlier. And there was much debate about that in the campaign.
BROWN: Stephanie Cutter, Kerry's communications director --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Navy documented John Kerry's heroism --
BROWN: Says the campaign did put out a response to the attack.
VANESSA KERRY, KERRY-EDWARDS 2004: Which wound do you want to see? Which scar do you need to see to prove --
BROWN: But that they underestimated the power of the new media environment.
CUTTER: We didn't understand at that point the power of right wing blogs, how that seeps over to Fox News, gets covered by the mainstream media, and seeps out into the general public. By the time you're responding to an attack like that, the damage is already done.
DUKAKIS: When something like that happens, you've got to put responsibility for it squarely in the lap of your opponent.
We go through these cycles over and over again.
BROWN: From the man who made his share of mistakes, some words of advice for surviving the attacks to come.
DUKAKIS: Any candidate who is running for the presidency of the United States, particularly on the Democratic side, has got to expect them. They're going to be coming. They already are.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
BROWN: Coming up, the anatomy of an attack...
BROWN: Campaigns, though, are fighting back. For example, Hillary Clinton now has an entire website dedicated to rapid responses to issues and attacks that come out of nowhere..."
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/11/29/worst-journalism-ever/
This points to the latest slur against Obama (the secret Muslim slur). He needs to respond to it not because it's not true, but rather because leting any of this go unanswered is bad for all Democrats and all Democracy. Hillary and Edwards should defend him too. He should do more to defend Kucinich. Let no Republican lie stand unanswered!
PS I'm getting mad.
An example of what I am suggesting for all the Democrats was the response of Edwards to a question from Keith Oberman. Keith was quizzing Edwards about the last Republican debate. There was a question about the Clinton supporting General who raised the question about gays in th e military. Edwards could have tried to tar Hillary with planting the general but rather he ridiculed the Republican s for being afraid of answering questions from the Democrats. Good for Edwards.
Hillary Clinton and Executive Power
Over at Reason, Radley Balko suggests that she won’t be so eager to undo what Bush has done after all:
[...]It’s difficult to see Hillary Clinton voluntarily handing back all of those extra-constitutional executive powers claimed by President Bush. Her husband’s administration, for example, copiously invoked dubious “executive privilege” claims to keep from complying with congressional subpoenas and open records requests—claims the left now (correctly, in my view) regularly criticizes the Bush administration for invoking.
Hillary Clinton herself went to court to keep meetings of her Health Care Task Force secret from the public, something conservatives were quick to point out when leftists criticize Vice President Cheney’s similar efforts to keep meetings of his Energy Task Force secret.
“I’m a strong believer in executive authority,” Clinton said in a 2003 speech, recently quoted in The New Republic. “I wish that, when my husband was president, people in Congress had been more willing to recognize presidential authority.”
That jibes with a February 2007 New York Times article on Clinton explaining her refusal to back down from her vote for the Iraq war: “Mrs. Clinton’s belief in executive power and authority is another factor weighing against an apology, advisers said… she believes that a president usually deserves the benefit of the doubt from Congress on matters of executive authority.” [...]
[...] As a libertarian, it will at least be entertaining to watch the left squirm while defending Hillary Clinton’s “right” to employ the same executive powers and engage in the same foreign policy blunders they now argue that President Bush has superceded his authority in claiming. And it’ll be equally fun to watch the right cry foul when President Hillary claims the same powers they have so vigorously fought to claim for President Bush. The problem, of course, is that entertaining as all that might be, an increasingly imperial presidency isn’t good for our republic.[...]
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/10/19/hillary-clinton-and-executive-power/
With all due respect Mitch, I believe you grossly underestimate the capacity of the average voter...it might be good to take on the arguments of a more rational audience than Rush Limbaugh's.
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
Voters don't have to have ever heard Rush to be influenced by his pollution. Novak or Drudge make up a lie, Rush repeats it, the news networks report on that, and finally it makes the front page of a major newspaper as the crooks and liars piece reports.
I think it's far easier to refute a lie than to refute an 'inconvenient truth'. Can only imagine that all of the Dem machines have learned a little something from Kerry's lackluster response to the swiftboating.
imho, of course
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
The statement she made about Congress recognizing her husband's authority was likely referencing the time that they were trying actively and viciously to undermine everything he did, for entirely frivolous reasons. Wag the Dog, anyone? It's a cherry-picked out of context quote, assuming she was postulating that Bill would have loved to be Bush, and that's a good thing. Bull. Congress never resisted him grossly expanding his executive powers, because he didn't try to do so. They were reluctant to recognize his actual, legitimate, Constitutional powers. That is a HUGE difference, and one that this innuendo slam piece fails to note.
Her views on the unitary executive theory have been made crystal clear, numerous times:
"Senator Hillary Clinton said yesterday that if she is elected president, she intends to roll back President Bush's expansion of executive authority, including his use of presidential signing statements to put his own interpretation on bills passed by Congress or to claim authority to disobey them entirely.
"I think you have to restore the checks and balances and the separation of powers, which means reining in the presidency," Clinton told the Boston Globe's editorial board.
Although Bush has issued hundreds of signing statements, declarations that accompany his signature on bills approved by Congress, Clinton said she would use the statements only to clarify bills that might be confusing or contradictory. She also said she did not subscribe to the "unitary executive" theory that argues the Constitution prevents Congress from passing laws limiting the president's power over executive branch operations. Adherents to the theory say any president who refuses to obey such laws is not really breaking the law.
"It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a much more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people," she said.
Furthermore, as to the charge of Clinton being incredibly secretive, he was trying to run the damn Executive branch while a hostile Congress tried to tie his hands at every turn, spending hours doing nothing but requesting every document under the sun, most of which they eventually got. He was defending himself, not actively trying to subvert the government, unless you are of the opinon that all of the bogus Ken Starr crap was a good idea and in the interest of the country.
As for openness? The National Archives said that Bill Clinton has released more White House documents, including personal memos and National Security material, than all other presidents before him, COMBINED. He has been LESS secretive than any other president we've ever had, not more so.
And yes, I have the link for that, but I have to find it. Here's the one for Hillary on executive privlege: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/11/clinton_vows_to_check_executive_power/
"As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular." - Oscar Wilde
I happen to be fanatical about the declassification because I spend lots of time reading this stuff to connect dots. It was over a billion documents they say. There is a good chart (link below) to get a comparison snapshot vis a vis other administrations.
_____________________________________________
1995: An order by Bill Clinton sets standards for timely declassification and produces a wave of historical-document declassification, totaling more than a billion pages in the next decade. Clinton officials emphasize transparency: “When in doubt, let it out” becomes a mantra for classification authorities.
That's ^^ from Classify This by Graeme Wood in the atlanticmonthly. But you need to register to read the whole article. You can see it with Cache though.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200709/classified-documents
______________________________________________
The link below shows pages classified and declassified from 1950 to present. Good visual aid!
http://www.theatlantic.com/images/issues/200709/win.jpg
The little dimensional "towers" at the bottom represent the numbers of declassified docs per year and the flat blue spaces with the red line graph represent the number of docs CLASSIFIED in that time frame. Note the Mt. Everest in the past few years on that one...
Of course, he also has released tons of unclassified stuff as well.
"As long as war is regarded as wicked, it will always have its fascination. When it is looked upon as vulgar, it will cease to be popular." - Oscar Wilde
It's Congress's job to limit executive power. Not the President's.
"Madam President has a nice ring to it." So saith my daughter.
Unfortunately, our candidates are congress.
What are the odds they're going to initiate any real oversight powers?
Including Cuomo's now-famous op-ed, how many times have we
discussed Congress' abdication of duty?
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/13557
"The citizen who sees his society's democratic clothes being worn out and does not cry out is not a patriot but a traitor." -- Mark Twain
This seems very much like a lot of other posts you've done recently, just a change of title and some rearranging of old posts. I always check out your posts, but as soon as I start reading, they're so much the same, I just skip down to the end to read any comments.
And you say, "The huge difference between Obama and Hillary about this is that Obama and his campaign do not understand how serious of an issue that this is and they do not know how to deal with it". Only your opinion, I assume.