Clinton cedes GE issue-framing to Republicans' only hope

The last few days, Hillary Clinton has been saying this:

Clinton: I've crossed commander-in-chief threshold

"I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that."

Why, in a year where Democrats have...

  • a failing and unpopular Republican president,

  • a Republican candidate who has lashed himself to the failing president's sinking ship,

  • a costly and unpopular (mostly) Republican war,

  • huge Democratic turnout that has been dwarfing Republican interest in state after state,

  • an economy in shambles, and

  • a massive presidential money edge

... should we accept Republican framing -- and, literally, their only hope for victory in the Fall -- as the primary driver of the general election?

Clinton is clearly articulating the failed, DLC, inside-the-Beltway Democratic strategy of basing a general election campaign for president, not on an agenda set by Democrats, but on fear of what the other side will say.

So we have two fears working here:
1. McCain and the Republicans' only hope for victory in November is to scare voters on national security. The albatross of a faltering economy and an unpopular war already have them two strikes behind.

2. Clinton is pushing her own fear message to scare Democratic primary voters into backing her based on McCain and the Republicans' general election framing. Instead of controlling the agenda in a year when we hold the cards?

Why would she, or any Democrat, do that? The answer is obvious: Ceding the "national security" framing for the general election makes her, somehow, a better candidate than Obama:

"And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a "distinguished man with a great history of service to our country," Clinton said, "Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with."

Clinton moving national security "front and center" is a Republican's wet dream.

What's left unsaid in her comments is the hugely ironic notion that, should national security, indeed, be the "front and center" issue of the general election, why would voters choose her over John McCain?

That is the only argument on which he wins the election.

In a year when Democrats should have their collective foot on the throat of every Republican running for office, we have one of our two finalists for the nomination casting the election in the most favorable terms for our opponents.

It is not only inexcusable, it is incredibly stupid and short-sighted. And it furthers the perception that Clinton is determined to undermine Obama not just in the primary, but also in the general, so that should she lose nomination, she can run again in 2012.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, National Security (all tags)

Comments

149 Comments

security framing now, econ framing later

Seems like a pretty smart strategy.

by fairleft 2008-03-08 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: security framing now, econ framing later

Yeah, the McCain campaign will be too stupid to use her own words against her.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-08 08:48AM | 0 recs
I don't think that would be very smart...

For the same reason that Obama's response (and your diary) are not very good for your candidate. It sort of falls into the catagory of "thou protests too much." If you have to say: "Oh yeah, I am too qualified to be the Commander In Chief," you don't look much like a Commander In Chief. In politics the more time you spend on the defensive the worse it is for you. But, that's just my opinion, if you disagree keep writing defensive diaries like this one that keep the issue front and center.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: security framing now, econ framing later

The McCain people are the same as the Clinton people -- Mark Penn is the CEO of Burson-Marsteller, the group behind McCain's campaign.

If Obama beats Hillary, B-M will bludgeon Obama with Hillary's own words.  Mark Penn and B-M win either way, and progressive Democrats lose.

Hillary is such an idiot to allow herself to be manipulated this way.

by CaptCT 2008-03-08 10:54AM | 0 recs
by 1jpb 2008-03-08 11:11AM | 0 recs
You've got your scum (republicans)

and then you've got your scum lite (DLC democrats.)

I think I'll take a pass on both formulations of scum this year if Hillary somehow steals the nomination.

FDR wouldn't recognize these people.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-09 07:22AM | 0 recs
Smart in theory...

...but in practice, it all depends on what (and whose) framing you use.  It's not like any ol' frame'll do.

Not using the Republican frame is Framing 101 territory.  Step One in Jeff Feldman's Framing the Debate:  "Stop Repeating Their Words."

Using the Republican frame on security sinks us, no matter who our candidate is.

by Progressive Witness 2008-03-08 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Smart in theory...

"Stop Repeating Their Words"

...that's funny. All Obama (and Bob) have done for the last few days is repeat Hillary's words.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:30AM | 0 recs
The operative "they"...

...in my statement actually being the Republicans.

Oh well.

by Progressive Witness 2008-03-08 10:34AM | 0 recs
Re: The operative "they"...

Meaning, using Republican frames to define security.  Sorry, was too terse to make that clear.

by Progressive Witness 2008-03-08 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: The operative "they"...

I understand what you meant, but I was just pointing out that tactically it applies to this contest as well.

I'm also very certain that Hillary Clinton would just laugh off any such use of her words by McCain and say that what she meant was that the public may view him as a qualified CIC, but his policy ideas are wrong wrong wrong, plus he's a really scary hothead. No 3am phone calls for John! It seems like it works for her both now and in the general.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: The operative "they"...

And as I write that, I am thinking how smart this whole issue is, and why the more we talk about it the better it is for Clinton. I think that when people really do consider who they want to pick up that phone, out of the three of them, it is probably her.

Not Obama because he's to inexperienced, and not McCain because he's a really scary hothead. It works both ways.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: The operative "they"...

It certainly does work both ways. I do understand however that the Obama supporters desperately want this to stop. :-)

by DemAC 2008-03-09 02:37PM | 0 recs
Re: The operative "they"...

**May I ask HOW this framing works for them now and in the GE?  Don't you think at some point Clinton will have to detail just exactly what her experience is?  Tea and cookies in 80 countries seems a bit slim.

by greylox 2008-03-08 11:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

All progressives, regardless of the candidate they support, should be concerned with the tactics of the Clintons' campaign in this regard. If she sounds like a neocon in the Democratic primary, what will she sound like in the GE?

by amiches 2008-03-08 08:45AM | 0 recs
In stating her and McCain's experience

re foreign policy and a CIC threshold, Hillary is stating what, to the majority of Americans, is obvious. She is not "framing to Republicans only hope." Quite the contrary, she is addressing what is a huge concern to the majority of people who will be voting in the GE - national security. You can try to reframe it all you want, but the fact of the matter is national security WILL be a factor in the GE and has nothing to do with "framing to the Republican's only hope." Actually, I think there isn't much doubt that either Hillary or Obama would win that debate as McBush has been a total failure when it come to foreign policy. Nice try though.....

by Rumarhazzit 2008-03-08 09:01AM | 0 recs
No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

There is no way she beats McCain on national security. That's a loser for her.

If it comes down to national security, voters will pick McCain over Clinton.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-08 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

But it won't come down to national security--it will come down to the economy. The economy is heading south and it's not likely to look any better before the GE.

In all likelihood people will be voting on bread-and-butter issues, and that's where Clinton does have an edge over both of her rivals.

by Inky 2008-03-08 09:14AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Based on what?

Kind of like how she has crossed the mythical "commander-in-chief threshold?"

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-08 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

I'm basing this assessment on a couple of things. First of all, whether you like it or not, Hillary is associated with the Clinton administration, which in turn is associated with economic good times. Second, as Paul Krugman pointed out, exit polls in Ohio showed that Hillary did best among people who felt insecure about the economy:

Meanwhile, Mrs. Clinton led by 12 points among the much larger group of voters citing the economy as the most important issue -- and by 16 points among those who cited health care. Mrs. Clinton's winning margin was twice as large among those who were worried about their own financial situation as among those who weren't.

Why has Mr. Obama stumbled when it comes to economic issues? Well, on health care -- which is closely tied to overall concerns about financial security -- there is a clear, substantive difference between the candidates, with the Clinton plan being significantly stronger.

More broadly, I suspect that the Obama mystique -- his carefully created image as a transformational, even transcendent figure -- has created a backlash among those unconvinced that he's interested in the nuts-and-bolts work of fixing things. Ohio voters were more likely to say that Mr. Obama inspires them -- but more likely to say that Mrs. Clinton has a clear plan for the country's problems.

And Mr. Obama's attempt to win over workers by portraying himself as a fierce critic of Nafta looked, and was, deeply insincere -- an appearance particularly costly for a candidate who tries to seem above politics as usual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinio n/07krugman.html?hp

Third, aside from the fact that McCain himself admitted that he he was no expert on the economy, there's that fact that voters generally prefer Democrats to Republicans when it comes to sorting out economic messes. And yet, even with that being the case, More Americans trust McCain to handle the economy than the fresh-faced Barack Obama:

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2008/mar/ 08/poll-clinton-mccain-best-economy-obam a-best-unity/

by Inky 2008-03-08 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Okay.

Then why would she make national security "front and center" in the general?

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-08 09:51AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

I don't perceive her comments the same way as you do. The way I read them, she's not "making" national security front and central; she's simply acknowledging that it will still be a front-and-central issue, so she's trying to promote her own bona fides as a potential C-in-C. She certainly didn't create the perception that McCain had passed the C-in-C threshold--that perception was already established in the public mind, as any opinion poll will tell you. What she did was to try to have herself perceived as McCain's equal on this front, so that she could then be free to attack him in her area of strength.

How does that old song go?

"You've got to accentuate the positive
Eliminate the negative
Latch on to the affirmative
And don't mess with Mister In-Between"

With all that said, it certainly wasn't my favorite sound bite from Clinton. But then again, she's probably a better tactician than I am.

by Inky 2008-03-08 10:10AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

But nobody talks about what makes her such a great tactician.

She will use the best tactics for her personal candidacy no matter what damage they may do to other Democrats.

by JDF 2008-03-08 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Tell that to the Obama campaign, which has done everything in its power to poison the well re Clinton and the AA community in the GE. I'm sure you will probably disagree with this article:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

But the tactics I saw on display by the Obama Campaign post-Iowa was one of the reasons why I, an Edwards supporter, found myself drifting into the Clinton camp after Edwards dropped out of the race.

by Inky 2008-03-08 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

It's always important to not take an opinion piece at face value.

Here is someone who tears that TNR piece apart:

http://halfricanrevolution.blogspot.com/ 2008/02/im-all-out-of-violins.html

by 1jpb 2008-03-08 11:27AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

I don't agree with everything in the original article, but I also found much to object to in the rebuttal you pointed me to. Case in point, your rubuttalist tries to dismiss Doris Kearns Goodwin's (among others) point that Clinton's statements about the heavy lifting done by LBJ in the overblown LBJ-MLK controversy was a simple and uncontroversial historical fact. To accomplish this, Mr. Rebuttal points to a well-known charge of plagiarism against Goodwin, as if that has any relevance to the argument at hand. Btw, if Obama wants to distance himself from plagiarists, he shouldn't use Lawrence Tribe's endorsement in his campaign ads and literature.

Trust me, I don't take anyone's opinion pieces at face value. I just know what I myself witnessed, and the TNR piece pointed to some, but not all, of the same ugly tactics I saw on display by the Obama campaign.

by Inky 2008-03-08 11:52AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Oh, and how about Obama's "Harry and Louise" ad--there's no way that McCain won't try to use that ad against Hillary in the GE should she become the nominee.

by Inky 2008-03-08 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

He isn't going to use Obama's words against Hillary. That is the difference. We are going to see ads with quotes directly from Hillary talking about Obama is not qualified to be President. There is a huge difference between disagreement on an issue and complimenting our opponent at the expense of a fellow Democrat.

by JDF 2008-03-08 12:26PM | 0 recs
The take-home point is...

She's better on BOTH the economy and national security than Obama, in the eyes of voters.  She's better on the economy than McCain, in the eyes of voters.  In any framing, she is the best option.

by Montague 2008-03-08 12:23PM | 0 recs
Re: The take-home point is...

If she were better on everything in the eyes of the voters than why do so many people vote for Obama?

Or do those voters "not count."

by JDF 2008-03-08 12:29PM | 0 recs
I'll give a few reasons

Because caucuses are overwhelmingly populated by wealthier people who don't worry so much about economic issues.

Because some Republicans are attempting to game the Democratic primaries.  (I'm not saying it's a big group, but without doubt, some are doing it.)

Because some independents are interested in the Hope TM campaign and go into Democratic caucuses and primaries to vote for him; many of these will be voting for McCain in the fall, no matter whom they support in the Dem primary.

Because many Democratic voters so far haven't come to know Obama well enough to realize his weaknesses; those weaknesses are becoming more apparent by the day.

Also, by "voters" of course I mean "enough voters to win."  Many voters vote against their own self-interest.  Many voters buy the smoke and mirrors of some candidates and vote for that.

by Montague 2008-03-08 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: I'll give a few reasons

There is no reason to believe that people who chose to vote for Obama in the primary would choose McCain over him in the fall. I don't understand why people believe this.

Yes, some of them will become convinced overtime that McCain is the better choice. However, they clearly saw something they like to begin with- now it is up to Obama to KEEP their support.

by JDF 2008-03-08 12:54PM | 0 recs
There are many reasons

Indie people who like Obama right now may shift to McCain for - one of many possible reasons - national security reasons.  They will still like Obama but come to believe that McCain would be a safer choice on the security front.

You are right that Obama must keep their support, but I don't believe he can.  I don't want to take that chance, either.  It's a great chance for losing.

by Montague 2008-03-08 03:03PM | 0 recs
Re: There are many reasons

Hmm... I'd rather take the chance with him than with Clinton who never had a chance at them to begin with.

I find it interesting that many Clinton supporters believe that Democratic voters will never come home to Obama BUT Independent voters will "go home" to McCain after voting for Obama in the primaries.

What I find to be a much more likely scenario is that if Obama wins the nomination and gets the chance to campaign against McCain most of the Democrats who are wavering now would eventually come to Obama and that because he is a superior campaigner he would keep many (thought not all) of the independents and Republicans who came to him in the primaries.

by JDF 2008-03-08 04:09PM | 0 recs
If they vote for Obama...

Why would they vote for a pro-war candidate who voted for the AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman, too?  No matter how much experience McCain has.  If they found that appealing, they would have gone for Hillary.

by Dumbo 2008-03-08 10:43PM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Are there exit polls showing what percentage of people bought her lies about Obama and NAFTA?

by Geiiga 2008-03-08 04:28PM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Except for his health care plan, Obama released policy positions AFTER Edwards and Hillary had released theirs - and with noticeable copying.

Stimulus plan - Obama released his AFTER Edwards and Hillary.

by annefrank 2008-03-08 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Whether that's true or not, do you think voters are keeping track of who releases what first?

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-08 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.
It goes to leadership, Bob - which should be important to Obama's most informed followers.
 
by annefrank 2008-03-08 10:28AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

How can you advocate for a Hillary/Obama ticket after basically trashing anyone who supports Obama in your sig line for months?

by JDF 2008-03-08 11:00AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Personally, I don't care who released their positions first, I care about whose positions are the best.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-08 11:06AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Hillary can't really control whether or not McCain wants to talk about national security

by nycal 2008-03-08 11:58AM | 0 recs
Based on her unwavering support

of NAFTA.  Yeah, that'll work.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-09 07:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Based on her unwavering support

Keep telling yourself that. Oh, and while you're at it, remember to convince yourself that Obama is a stauncher opponent of NAFTA than Hillary.

by Inky 2008-03-09 09:57AM | 0 recs
Inky, the Clintons are founding members

of the DLC.  You know, the right wing of the Democratic party that FDR wouldn't recognize.

"DLC strategists William Galston, Elaine Kamarck and Bruce Reed became top domestic policy aides in the Clinton White House. After the Republican Revolution of 1994, From told the Democrats to "get with the [DLC] program." The DLC quickly became the new Washington establishment, launching state chapters, creating a New Democratic Coalition in Congress and expanding its Progressive Policy Institute think tank. A top aide to Jesse Jackson groused of the post-Clinton Democratic Party, "The DLC has taken it over."

"Neither my staff nor I have had any direct contact with anybody at the DLC since I began this campaign a year ago," Obama wrote. "I don't know who nominated me for the DLC list of 100 rising stars, nor did I expend any effort to be included on the list.... I certainly did not view such inclusion as an endorsement on my part of the DLC platform." After realizing that his name appeared in the DLC's database, Obama asked to have it removed. The message was clear: The DLC needed Obama a lot more than Obama needed the DLC."

Fuck the DLC and any of the DLC darlings.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-09 10:35AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

I think she clobbers McCain back to the 19th century on the issue. From what I can tell, she's gonna give the GOP a red ass on the subject that it's gonna take 'em all eight years to recover from.

Clinton stipulating the terms of agreement between the Democrats and McCain is a good thing. You can't possibly think that Obama could successfully present himself as having more national security experience than McCain (well, maybe you can - delusion runs deep). By Clinton stipulating that he's her equal, she's carved out space for her to laugh at him when he tries to diminish her foreign policy cred.

by Little Otter 2008-03-08 09:15AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

She'll be perceived as stronger on national security than McCain?

How does that work?

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-08 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Who said she's be perceived as stronger? That's interesting. That's clearly not the intent of her comment and it's interesting that someone is taking it that way. I think it's delusional to expect cross party she'd be perceived as stronger.

What she did was stipulate that they would have equally credible background on security issues with voters. Pubs will find him more credible and Dems, her. So, now, when McCain attacks her, she's carved out her space to laugh it off and attack back.

It was a stragegic move that sets them as equals.

by Little Otter 2008-03-08 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

"What she did was stipulate that they would have equally credible background on security issues with voters."

Exactly. She artfully framed the issue as crossing a "threshold" of expertise in national security, establishing a minimum standard that she meets and Obama does not. After passing that threshold  McCain's immersion in the military strikes many voters as predisposing him to excess reliance on a military solution. They fear his temperament will make him too quick on the trigger.

I do not see how Obama can prove to voters that he can meet the minimum threshold, not based on a speech he gave in 2002. His "judgement" argument doesn't go the distance with voters when his inexperience is made clear.

by 07rescue 2008-03-08 07:34PM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

That is an excellent, and very astute point, Little Otter. I think you've hit the nail on the head with that "positioning" argument. A very good point. Thanks.

by Tennessean 2008-03-08 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

The MSM has already made a joke out of her "Foreign Folicy" "National Security" Bona Fides.

In Ireland, she was "window dressing"
In Kosovo, she "got there a day late."
in China, she "gave a speech at a tea party"

If this becomes an election about National Security between Clinton and McCain, she is toast.

If it becomes an election about our future between McCain and Obama, McCain might as well pack it up and go home now.

If you believe the election meme should be National Security, then we've already lost regardless of the nominee, the right choice is to make the election meme about change, hope, peace, the economy, jobs and our future.

But hey, go ahead and run on War and National Security, you will lose!

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-08 11:03AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

That's certainly the right wing fantasy of how her credentials will be presented. But the fact of the matter is that she was deeply involved in the development and execution of policy in the first genuinely successful Democratic administration in 50 years - and the clinton record on security issues is very, very strong. There isn't a Republican who can touch it.

The meme will be what it will be. No one gets to pick.

by Little Otter 2008-03-08 03:58PM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

But that is the problem. The "frame" of National security needs to be changed.  Unfortunately Hillary has already accepted the right wing frame, she really can't turn back now without looking silly at the least and something else at the worst.

The frame of the national security debate has to be totally re-framed , who will protect our INFRASTRUCTURE, our STANDING, our REJOINING the world community. etc.  it's not about CIC it's about the world community and our national infrastructure and interests.

The frame needs to be changed and Obama is the one who can achieve that.  Hillary can now only compete on the CIC threshold that she herself created.  That is a loser for the Democratic party no matter who the nominee.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-08 04:26PM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Right - reframed back to the Clinton frame - that's why she's so strong. Over 435 Americans (military and civilian) lost their lives to foreign terrorism during the Reagan/Bush years. During the Clinton years, fewer than 60 lost their lives to foreign terrorism. With Bush, it's up to thousands dead from foreign terrorism. Deaths from terrorism fell almost every year Clinton was in office. And we didn't have military conflicts either. It was a genuinely progressive era for foreign policy.

No one in the Democratic party is as strongly positioned as Hillary to deal with the national security issue. Remember, the PNAC wanted Bill to overturn Hussein and he refused to. He stopped the slaughter in the Balkans and is a national hero over there - without losing a single American life. Good deal.

The clinton record is outstanding. Nothing silly there at all. She's aggressive on diplomacy issues, and surefooted on military issues. She has massive military support (does Obama have any whatsoever?).

She's gonna kick McCain's  ass and he doesn't see it comin'. It's going to be brutal. And fun. I'm lookin' forward to it.

by Little Otter 2008-03-08 05:17PM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

No, the national security frame when it is a CIC, WAR, DEFENSE frame is a loser.  Clinton cannot beat McCain on that frame.

Obama has and will change the frame and narrative to infrastructure, peace through cooperation.  etc.

Terrorism is fear and a loser for the Democrats, besides being a basic pile of BS.

I'm sorry for trying to slap you into reality, but your girl just fell right into the right wing trap.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-09 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Actually, the logic Clinton is using is simple: Strong National Security but Strong Diplomat as well. McCain guide to "WAR: The NEXT 100 YEARS" will not out sell Hillary strong military stance but not overly aggressive war habits. At the point, Hillary is overcoming national perception with Middle American--not Liberal America. So, please, please--continue with your media bashing and net roots character assassinations.

Hillary for President in 2008!!!

by Check077 2008-03-08 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

"... media-bashing and net roots character assassinations."

Really? Discussing Clinton's chosen GE framing is now considered "character assassination?"

My, my...

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-08 09:55AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.
What is Obama's chosen GE framing?
He opposed the war when he couldn't vote.
He opposes universal health care for all.
What else?
by annefrank 2008-03-08 10:32AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.
He opposed the war when he couldn't vote.
Character is doing the right thing when no one is looking.
He opposes universal health care for all
I'm not sure what world you live in, but in the real world, he supports guaranteed affordable and accessible health care for everyone.  He just won't force people to buy it.
by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-08 10:55AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Obama never did vote against the war. That is the truth. In 2004 Obama said that he might have voted for the war if he had been in the Senate in 2002.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Yes, of course we all know he was not in the Senate and did not have to vote.  

We all, also know he spoke out against the war at the time the vote was being taken.  That's why I said:

"Character is doing the right thing when no one is looking."

Two years later he said he MIGHT have voted for the war.  OR.....

He might NOT have voted for the war.

what's your point?

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-08 12:14PM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

According to Obama, he was in the middle of a high stakes senate campaign (of course, being Obama he lied about which campaign it was) so yes, people were looking. The point of a politician giving a speech is having people look.

As for him doing the right thing, he was running for his part time job with the Illinois state senate in one of the bluest districts in the state. So there was nothing risky about him giving the speech. Dick Durbin voted against it. Obama would have run more risk by supporting it.

Nothin' brave there. Just a dishonest politician who wants people to believe that he was running for the US senate and took a risk when he gave the speech. I wonder why he tells such overt lies like that? Very strange.

by Little Otter 2008-03-08 05:20PM | 0 recs
Re: No, she is covering for her AUMF vote.

Thanks for answering a question that wasn't addressed to you.

And BTW....your answer was ridiculous.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-09 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: This issue is a huge loser for Obama

Bob's just making this argument because he knows national security an even BIGGER loser for Obama. And, that is why Sen. Clinton is using it against him. It's the perfect strategy to point out his lack of foreign policy and national security experience--a real problem for Obama.

Bob, did you vote for John Kerry in '04?

Just asking, because it seems that Obama supporters don't like to remember that Kerry's vote for the AUMF wasn't such a big deal to them way back then.

Only now, when they support a candidate who wasn't even in the Senate at the time, do they suddenly frame it as an urgent issue.

It's sort of hypocritical of Bob to complain about "national security" being discussed, when Obama is the one who keeps bringing it up, talking about a speech he made in 2002.

But, I guess Obama has to highlight his "national security" credential.

lol...

by Tennessean 2008-03-08 10:31AM | 0 recs
Re: This issue is a huge loser for Obama

Actually I pretty much choked on my vote for Kerry. I hated it and don't particularly care much for him  as a candidate. But its not like I had much of an option.

I think it is ridiculous to claim that his opposition to the war doesn't count because he wasn't in the Senate to vote on it. It isn't like he made his position ambiguous regarding the war and he was, you know, running for the Senate.

by JDF 2008-03-08 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: This issue is a huge loser for Obama

He was running for a part time job in the Illinois state senate in one of the bluest districts in the state. Are you under the impression he was running for the US Senate? Because if you are under that impression, you've been bamboozled! Hoodwinked, I say!

It was a part time job with the Illinois state senate which had no say on the Iraq war, nor had it's people suffered one of the worst terrorist attacks in American history. There was nothing particularly brave about it. He was a part time employee with an opinion and didn't need to consider anyone else.

by Little Otter 2008-03-08 05:23PM | 0 recs
It has come to this:

In my view, Hillary Clinton has forfeited the right to call herself a Democrat.

by kestrel9000 2008-03-08 09:23AM | 0 recs
Re: It has come to this:

Why is that?

by annefrank 2008-03-08 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: It has come to this:

kestrel9000, if you're going to say  that, you might as well as write 35-40% of the Democratic Party that will choose McCain in the Fall.

by Check077 2008-03-08 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: It has come to this:

Holy Hyperbole, Batman!

Don't be ridiculous...

by Tennessean 2008-03-08 10:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Well, this is not really ceding. One cannot ignore the reality. McCain is experienced, more so than Obama; his years in the military and years on the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Denying reality is not going to change the truth. Learn to accept it.

by American1989 2008-03-08 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Wait... are you claiming that Clinton beats McCain on national security among voters in a general election?

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-08 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Absolutely no contest, the only thing McCain has she doesn't is his military confinement, but who wants that experience, what no prison record?  What a shame.  She can't fly a plane either.  So what she can hire a pilot.

by democrat voter 2008-03-08 09:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Of course, he's a hot head. It is certainly a scary thought to have his finger on the button. No 3am phone calls for you John!

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

What she has ceded, by her own words, is that McCain's experience qualifies him to be president.  In fact, she only says she believes she has "crossed the commander-in-chief threshold" but that certainly Senator McCain has done so.

So she's saying that national security is front and center and that McCain beats her on that issue.

by jrooth 2008-03-08 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

No she is not. All she is saying is that people think she and McCain are qualified and they don't know about Obama.

Also, she is trying to get under his skin, and it is working.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

"Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that ..."

How you can read that as only saying people think this completely escapes me.

by jrooth 2008-03-08 10:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Look at the context:

"And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold," the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant's bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington.

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

Imperative in the minds of the voters, because it's going to be an issue in the general election. You'll have to ask Obama if he's made the sale with respect to his candidacy. That's how I interpret it.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Good comment, thanks MediaFreeze. I agree completely with your point.

by Tennessean 2008-03-08 10:56AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

When you read the whole quote it is obvious she's saying that the Republican Party thinks John McCain has crossed the national security threshold because they have chosen him as their nominee.

C'mon. You are being obtuse about this.

by Tennessean 2008-03-08 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

I don't agree.

If someone has demonstrated they can cross the commander-in-chief threshold, that plainly means they have demonstrated they are qualified to be commander-in-chief.  She says that Senator McCain has certainly done that.  I adamantly maintain that he has done nothing of the sort and in fact is supremely unfit to be commander-in-chief.

by jrooth 2008-03-08 11:01AM | 0 recs
She's gotten under a great many people's skin.

Ya know, blacks, liberals, small state voters, repentant republicans, independents, people who want party unity and a clean campaign.  She's certainly lost this yellow dog's vote.  

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-09 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

I think his whole "lifetime of experience" boils down to more than just a speech he made in 2002.

I'd call that hyperbole.  

And a great soundbite for McCain if Obama winds up being the Dem. candidate.

by nycal 2008-03-08 12:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

What she is doing is calling Obama's bluff on his substance.  He is not ready that is obvious.  National security will be on the agenda, no getting around that, but as a matter of fact, she actually does have more experience than either McCain or Obama because children, she spent 8 years in the WH and no one, not McCain or Obama or any of these bots can say that Obama has that experience.  In fact, no one but Clinton has that experience.  So factually she takes the discussion onto other grounds quickly, besides, she leaves it up to Obama to provide his credentials.  In one neat step she eclipses both men by declaring it to be so, and they have no comparable experience to put before the voters.  So if Obama has something to offer here, he better get busy offering it because so far all he has is a bunch of people declaring that he doesn't have the experience (a la Susan Rice)  and those who commit the mistake of saying she has no foreign policy experience can not provide anything to back up their guy when it comes down to it, what does Obama offer?  Words are cheap and that is what the guy's got.  When she has been there and done that, it is stupid to try to diminish her experience by simply trying to trash it, instead come up with something that makes Obama the better choice.  So far, I have seen nothing but the inspiration mantra, and it is wearing pretty thin by now.

by democrat voter 2008-03-08 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Who is going to buy the "eight years in the White House" stuff?

That's a myth:

Clinton's Foreign Policy Record Examined

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-08 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

I buy it. I think you learn a lot by being right in the middle of things. Certainly you learn about how things get done, and what it takes to push stuff through. You learn a lot about what the tactics of the opposition are. To me, that type of experience seems invaluable.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Yea, let's elect Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, Nancy Reagan, Rosalyn Carter or Betty For for God's sake.

No amount of time as First Lady, qualifies you to be anything other than FIRST LADY!

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-08 10:47AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

No it doesn't mean that at all, silly comment on the face of it, it means she has actually done something, more that these women you are citing because she did have her hands involved instead of standing on the sidelines and smiling a lot,  That is the difference and winning a senate seat twice, which none of those other women have done, so belittle her because she has done something is not a winning strategy.  To belittle because she spent 8 years in the WH is really small and quite a joke, she did do the work, there and elsewhere, so you are just whistling bast the graveyard of your candidate's thin resume.

by democrat voter 2008-03-08 10:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Yes, but even according to some Obama advisors--who used to be IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION--this particular first lady has vastly more engagement and experience on the national security/foreign policy issues than any other first lady in history.

She was intimately engaged in discussion of policy according to Richard Holbrooke, on foreign policy and national security hot-button issues.

She wasn't in the administration as a paid "staffer" or "cabinet officer," but you can bet your life that she was involved at some level in just about every discussion of POLICY.

From Health Care to Welfare Reform to Economy to National Security to Foreign Relations, Hillary Clington wasn't just a figure-head. She was actively involved, and she learned from that experience--about what it takes to be president, about what policies both nationally and internationally, will work best, and about how to guide an administration and a government.

You shouldn't underestimate this woman. She had what it takes to become a Senator, and to be a successful popular two-term Senator, and to be an influential, engaged, activist First Lady.

She's got experience John McCain can only dream about on National Security. And, she's knowledgeable about nearly every issue, according to insider Steve Clemons, and Larry Johnson, both of whom have dealt with her.

She's no lightweight. And, she's not "ceding" anything to anyone, much less Barack Obama, who hit the vote button wrong SIX times in Illinois. Sheesh. That's pathetic.

Security and Opportunity for the Twenty-first Century
Hillary Rodham Clinton

From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2007

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101fa essay86601/hillary-rodham-clinton/securi ty-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first- century.html

by Tennessean 2008-03-08 11:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

No, she's not like those other first ladies. Well, maybe a little like Rosalyn Carter. She is very much a partner with Bill Clinton. They are both policy wonks and they bounce ideas off of each other. He certainly made the decisions in his Presidency, but I think most everyone would agree that she was steeped in policy and strategy during his term.

I used to run a company. My wife didn't go to the office each day, but every major decision we discussed and strategized together. I know a lot of other business owners who's wives don't have a clue what they do. It's just a matter of how people are different and different relationships work.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 11:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

I find it funny people who suggest that HRC does not have a huge amount of experience in government and policy.  And the fact is she has more experience that BO.  I dont think that invalidates him for the WH but when i see someone try to undermine HRC experience it is just silly.

And i am so sick of the war vote thing.  While i didnt support the War in Iraq, which last what 6 weeks, was a huge success.  It was the occupation that was a mess and Bush's occupation for 40 year plan that was a HUGE mistake. That was Bush's fault and not HRC.  It is just wrong for BO and his supporters to blame HRC for this.  And McCain is going to point this out everyday.

The fact is if BO is the candidate McCain is going to go after him big time and he better have something more than he has showed the last two weeks. That is "you voted for the war and i didnt" will not go over well with middle america. The war is going to be front and center this election because McCain is going to make it an issue, pure and simple.  If BO cant respond he will get clocked.  

And blaming McCain for the war is a mistake.  All he has to say is i will fix it and you (BO) only want to pull out and then he will accuse BO of "Surrender".  If his plan is quick withdrawn he is dead meat.  While voters dont support the war they also dont support a 1972 type pull out.

If you look back you will see that the voters were against the war in 68 but McGovern still got clocked.  Be award the same thing can happen to BO. I am just saying BO antiwar edge will be history in the GE.  HRC can make the argument that she has a plan.  

david

by giusd 2008-03-08 12:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

When you spend too much time on myDD you start to think that there are no right wing attacks waiting to take out HRC.

McCain has said, and will repeat, that HRC makes foriegn policy decisions by putting her finger in the political wind.  He says, she was for the war when it was popular, against it when it was unpopular.  Then he goes in for the kill, the CIC must be able to make decisions based on security not  polls or else [insert fear mongering.]

And, you HRC supporters seem oblivious to the fact that the 9-11 report (Paragraph #274 (on page 48)) says it was Clinton foriegn policy failures that inspired Bin Ladin to attack on 9-11.  You must realize the Repubs will point to this and scare Americans about what happens when a poll driven triangulator makes foriegn policy decisions.

HRC cannot out-McCain McCain, this tactic is strategic suicide.

Before HRC started pushing this tactic Democrats where against fear mongering, now she's tricked her supporters into being pro-fear mongering.  This is a looser strategy, step back and look at the situation for what it is, and then go back to your principles.

by 1jpb 2008-03-09 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

You are free to believe whatever you want, but I do not think that Hillary's 8 years in the White house are any more important than any other first lady's.

Neither you nor I know just how much Hillary was involved.  We do know that there were quite a few things she had no idea about at all.

If you want to give her credit as some type of co-President, then she must also accept a role in all the wrong decisions and bad moves.  There is simply nothing to the idea that she transcended the bad and only took part in the good and she took part far more than any other First Lady.

You might even make the argument that Nancy Reagan was far more active than Hillary, we all know Ronnie had Alzheimers for Christ sake.

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-08 01:07PM | 0 recs
I buy it

The Obama bubble has burst. Live with it.

by Alvord 2008-03-08 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: I buy it

Thanks for your great insight.

sheesh...

by Its Like Herding Cats 2008-03-08 10:45AM | 0 recs
Re: I buy it

Obama bubble has burst?

He's ahead.

In the popular vote and in delegate count.

In the polls he consistently comes up as beating McCain by more than Hillary does.

He's the front runner.

by nycal 2008-03-08 12:02PM | 0 recs
Bob, you have done yeoman service.

You are to be commended for having a commitment and a stomach which is strong enough to be here in the very den of the DLC/hawk/woman at any cost democrats.  I couldn't manage it.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-03-09 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Hillary Clinton being first lady does not give her experience on National Security. You can argue that talking with her husband does, but guess what- Obama can talk to people too.

by JDF 2008-03-08 11:06AM | 0 recs
No...

She is not "ceding" anything. What she is saying is that she'd be a better Commander In Chief than Obama, something the polls say most of the country agrees with.

In the general election McCain is going to do the Winston Churchill thing against either of them, and nothing that they say now is going to change that one way or another. Actually, it will help to have this out now, because the public will tire of it by then, so you could say she's doing the Democrats a service.

In the general election the dominant foreign policy issue is going to be 100 more years of war or getting out of Iraq. On that I think we win.

Finally Bob, if you don't want people focusing on Obama's lack of CIC stature, why do you keep writing diaries about it?

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 09:57AM | 0 recs
Re: No...

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

by jrooth 2008-03-08 10:02AM | 0 recs
Re: No...

In the minds of the voters she and McCain have qualified, but Obama still has to make the sale. It's just true.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:04AM | 0 recs
Except it's not

by SleepingWillow 2008-03-08 10:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Except it's not

For many voters it is. That's what the polls say.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Except it's not

Well, as I said above Obama is ahead

He's ahead in the popular vote and in the delegate count

Polls consistently show him winning over McCain nationally by a larger margin than Hillary

So - with these statements by Hillary, what's going to happen if he's the Democratic candidate?

Does she take it all back?

She was wrong?

by nycal 2008-03-08 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Except it's not

He's trailing in the popular vote.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-08 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Except it's not

No, "Polls consistently show him winning over McCain nationally by a larger margin than Hillary" in fact this is not ture.  Rassmussen and Newsweek both show HRC running better.  So how can we take you argument when it is clearly incorrect??????

david

by giusd 2008-03-08 12:58PM | 0 recs
Re: Except it's not

Newsweek shows Hillary running two points ahead of McCain. Rasmussen shows a dead heat. ABC/WashPost shows Clinton up three points.

Newsweek and Rasmussen both show Obama beating McCain by a point. ABC/Washpost shows that lead to be eleven points. So, depending on what polls you're using, you're either both wrong, or just the guy above me is wrong.

What is clear is that these numbers have tightened up a bit on both candidates since Hillary started her smear campaign. Hillary's gearing us up for a repeat of 2004, where whoever wins, we all lose.

by Geiiga 2008-03-08 04:39PM | 0 recs
Re: No...

So if the people have an erroneous idea, the right thing to do is to adopt and reinforce that erroneous idea?

Great strategy.

Look, I would have no problem if she had said "Republicans will argue that ..."

But that's not what she's doing.  She's going around stating as a fact that McCain is the most qualified to be "commander-in-chief" when in fact he's badly unqualified given his horrible judgment on critical foreign policy issues.

by jrooth 2008-03-08 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: No...

That's not how I see it. As I posted a little above here look at the entire thing in context:

"And I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,"

....

"I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you'll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy," she said.

Imperative in the minds of the voters, because it's going to be an issue in the general election. You'll have to ask Obama if he's made the sale with respect to his candidacy.

It is indeed a "Republicans will argue that ..." arguement. That's how I interpret it, or at least that's how it can be interpreted. It may be the case that she left the interpretation open, to try to get Obama to take the bait. I don't know, but he certainly has taken the bait.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 10:44AM | 0 recs
Re: No...

And to me the plain reading of "cross the commander-in-chief threshold" is that one is qualified to be commander-in-chief.  Because she wants to make the "experience" argument against Obama, she is ceding that same "experience" argument to McCain.

The fact is McCain is supremely unfit to be commander-in-chief because his judgment sucks.  But you see she's deliberately denying that because that plays to Obama's strength.

by jrooth 2008-03-08 10:54AM | 0 recs
Re: No...

At least we can agree that it is open to interpretation. The fact that Obama has decided to interpret it in the most negative light just reinforces the idea that he is sensitive to the issue, and gives it more credence. He's playing it very poorly IMO.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 11:14AM | 0 recs
It's okay if Hillary does it

after all, she's a fighter. We're all supposed to applaud while she burns down the Democratic party

by SleepingWillow 2008-03-08 10:08AM | 0 recs
Re: It's okay if Hillary does it

Burns down the democratic party?  What cheap rhetoric is that?  Seems to me he is doing a fine job of that with all these republican voters, all by himself. Be careful with this destroying the democratic party rhetoric, because the party has been around much longer than you seem to have and it would take more than a simple declaration that we need a qualified person to be CIC to destroy this party.  Get a grip, she has been a democrat for a very long time, and doesn't look like she has destroyed anything, except maybe Obama's chances on this issue.  What Obama needs to do is come up with a better answer than I was against the war and I gave a speech and I'm not Hillary Clinton. Blah Blah Blah.  Because if he wins the nomination he better have some answer better than the one he has now.

by democrat voter 2008-03-08 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

Should she have said it? Probably not. Of course, Obama is just as guilty or even moreseo of using Republican framing on other issues.

Fact of the matter is, what she said is the truth. People don't see Obama as CIC material. At least one poll shows him losing on this issue by 35 POINTS! to McCain. Whenever you run as "weak and right" it's the risk you take.

If she meets the CIC issue with voters, she'll be much more likely to win the general election because it takes that issue away from McCain and allows the voters to focus on economic issues which are her strongest points.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-08 10:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

I seem to be out of the loop on this one.  What is this great experience she has that makes her the most qualified to be CinC?

From my viewpoint, none of them have any experience that would compare with CinC.  But that's just me.

Clue me in on the secret.

by GFORD 2008-03-08 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton

Well, for one, she's actually traveled outside the country extensively. Obama has not. Obama hasn't even held one meeting on the committee he heads. Don't you think that's the least he can do.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-09 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes

ahem.... Are you really stupid enough to think this wouldn't have been an issue if Hillary had not brought it up?  Or that she is "ceding the issue?"  She isn't ceding anything.  And furthermore, she will still beat McCain on the economy in addition to National Security.

by Mike Pridmore 2008-03-08 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes

That's not the issue.  Of course this argument would have been made regardless.  But now they have Hillary's words to support it.

Remember all the mileage the Republican got out of quoting "Democrat" Joe Lieberman as evidence of bipartisan support for Republican memes?  She's doing the same thing.  And the irony is that she's actually damaging her own general election chances by doing this, not just Obama's.

by jrooth 2008-03-08 10:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes

This is beyond silly.  She has more experience and she is trying to use that as a political advantage.  If this is so damaging to Obama then maybe he should not have run in the first place.  McCain doesn't need Hillary's help to point out Obama's inexperience.  You guys seem to think she should not play any of her advantages and just hand the nomination to Obama.  Get real and stop the whining.

by Mike Pridmore 2008-03-08 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to

That is absurd, surly you don't think Obama has past any threshold on national security, he is the hope and chance candidate, but not the experience candidate because he has none.  Clinton is not endorsing McCain she is dissing Obama and it shows by the upset bots.  She is right to point this out now because it will be an issue in the GE.  Obama can't avoid that if he is the nominee he will have to come up with something else because he won't have her there to kick anymore, that is why by himself he is a loser.  He has nothing to recommend himself on this very issue.  Not his voting record in the senate, and not his position a la his claim that America is wrong so elect me.  Not a smart strategy for the fall for sure.

by democrat voter 2008-03-08 11:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to

Why on earth would this get troll rated amiches?

It's not something I would normally recc, but I'll recc it to offset your troll. This is not what troll rating is for.

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 11:36AM | 0 recs
Ditto. nt

by Montague 2008-03-08 12:41PM | 0 recs
Ditto n/t

by DemAC 2008-03-09 02:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, Good Grief...

Sen. Clinton is pointing out to voters that she has the credentials and the qualifications to be Commander in Chief, and she is saying that John McCain has earned his party's nomination so basically he has "crossed that threshold" too.
Barack Obama should have to answer for himself whether or not he's qualified to be Commander in Chief.

Now, you can agree with Clinton or not on the CinC statement, but it isn't an endorsement of John McCain.

That is a ridiculous argument that even a 4th grade student would laugh at; get your thinking cap on and try to focus. No one buys that idiocy about an 'endorsement' of McCain...

by Tennessean 2008-03-08 11:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, Good Grief...

Well, 4th grade students and Keith Olbermann...

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, Good Grief...

Kieth is your measure, get a different measure, Obarduck is a sports commentator who is trying his hand at politics and showing he is a real As* when it comes to women in general and Clinton in particular.  He will be a real gas when she is president.

by democrat voter 2008-03-08 11:28AM | 0 recs
Re: Oh, Good Grief...

It was a joke...

by MediaFreeze 2008-03-08 11:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to

Hillary Liebermiller: Building a Bridge to the Republican Party

by amiches 2008-03-08 11:16AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to

It is s childish thing to make jokes about names, right?  When it comes to names Obama should get a new one too.  Anyone can make name jokes, give it up, it shows the mental age of 6 or so.

by democrat voter 2008-03-08 11:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Idiocy.  It s not "Republican framing" to say Obama is not ready.  He was a Senator for 30 seconds before starting his run for President, and he is grossly unqualified.  It is not "Republican framing" to point out that a vote for Obama is a vote for an inferior candidate sure to cede the defense and experience issues to McCain.  Since when is a candidate supposed to cover her primary opponent's ass, instead of pointing out his weaknesses?

by dhonig 2008-03-08 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Since it's Obama I guess. We aren't supposed to point out any weaknesses. We are supposed to stick our heads in the sand and let the GOP point it out in the general election.

by Ga6thDem 2008-03-08 12:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue framing to Republicans'

Please explain to me with Hillary's one full senate term and her 8 years of first lady experience how she is better qualified than Barack Obama? I fail to see how eight years of being the president's spouse somehow gives you some kind experience.  She didn't even have national security clearance.  You act as if the Clintons are not opportunists either.  

by SocialDem 2008-03-08 12:32PM | 0 recs
Just two issues

The two main issues in the GE will be the economy and national security. Hillary is very well equipped to deal with both and against McCain, she will be seen as far better on the economy. She can even be seen as better on national security since have the sense she'll do more to carry out the suggestions of the 9/11 commission than McCain.

Hillary is right to point out the national security issue vis a vis McCain. Obama has zilch.

by Nobama 2008-03-08 01:10PM | 0 recs
Clinton cedes GE issue-framing to Republicans

Hi Bob --

Are we having fun yet?

Guess the Clinton supporters have decided it's either okay to accept republican issue-framing or that Clinton won't be able to stop them from doing it.  But they don't mind because 2 terms as First Lady makes her superior as CinC to McCain although he has actually been in the military.

--G

by GFORD 2008-03-08 01:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue-framing to Republicans

They are just spinning, which is their right.  The fact is that Clinton has no leg to stand on going against McCain on national security.  Republicans can attack her from multiple angles on the issue (flip-flopping, triangulating, trying to be something she isn't, unenthusiastic support for war, rooting for american defeat, etc.).

Republicans only have one argument against Obama, experience.  It just so happens that it's Clinton's only argument as well.  Maybe if she had better judgment she would have a better argument.  But spin away guys!

by enozinho 2008-03-09 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton cedes GE issue

While I see the point you're trying to make, it would seem there is some faulty logic going into your conclusions.  You seem to assume that McCain wins the election on the national security issue, but that would presume our country wants to follow him into a continued fight to the end (which he's now further advocating in his own ads)...although the end in his eyes seems to be a purported military victory that nobody seems to think we can win.  As many have stated previously, Iraq is not a military issue any more, it is a political issue--at least that is what it should be.  But McCain seems determined to keep it a military issue.  And perhaps that is because as a few of Hillary's high-ranking military supporters have noted, he is looking at it from a figher's perspective, not a strategist's perspective--whereas she is and would be looking at it from a strategist's perspective.  I tried to find the text of that recent conference call she had with the press along with 18 of her senior military endorsers, but was unable to find it--perhaps someone could help me with the specific references?  

That is not to take away from McCain's years of military service--that should be highly respected and appreciated.  But let's face it, the Commander-in-Chief is not expected to be involved or competent in hand-to-hand combat--they're instead responsible for the grand oversight, direction, strategy, and international and diplomatic relations involved in whatever the situation might be.  And one after another of Hillary's high-ranking military supporters have said she is the only candidate that has the grasp of issues and demonstrated strategic thinking necessary to be an effective Commander-in-Chief.  To use an analogy, let's say you have the star quarterback of the Super Bowl winning football team.  I doubt anybody would not see the value of that player's talent as a quarterback on the field--but that doesn't mean that same player would be an effective head coach, because their experience is all about on-the-field playing.  Would they be the most effective at strategizing for defense though, or all the other aspects that go into winning a football game?  No.  That's the difference, as I see it based on how the retired brass have explained it, that Hillary will be able to argue with the Republicans.

by ChargedFan 2008-03-08 01:33PM | 0 recs
It's all about her, not the party

Actually Hillary is not "ceding GE issue-framing", she's proactively using it. Why? If she is not the nominee, she wants a weakened Obama, so that she can run against a 75 year old McCain in 2012. It's not that complicated, if you look at it from her point of view.

by NH Indie 2008-03-08 04:45PM | 0 recs
is there a way to block out diaries by

writers we don't care for?

by earthoat 2008-03-08 06:12PM | 0 recs
Re: is there a way to block out diaries by

Don't open them.  Don't read them.  Certainly don't comment in them.  Pretend they don't exist.

by Skaje 2008-03-08 07:19PM | 0 recs
But like turds, they always float to the top

by earthoat 2008-03-09 07:40AM | 0 recs
by earthoat 2008-03-09 07:46AM | 0 recs
If Obama hasn't cross the threshhold,

then how could he possibly be Clinton's VP?

I mean, you want a VP whose ready to become President, right?

by jaywillie 2008-03-08 07:35PM | 0 recs
On the concept of "framing."

Because looking at the security of the United States as a "framing" is an incorrect perspective.

The concept of "framing" presumes that issues per se do not exist, except as frames by the candidates. This grows out of some very brilliant analysis by Lakoff and others, which, though brilliant, is flawed. That the United States has enemies--those who seek our demise even through violent means--is not something "framed" by George Bush. It is fact.

That the United States has foreign policy challenges--foreign and military that must be met with wisdom and judgement (not alas the kind shown recently by Samantha Powers) is not a "framing" of Bush or McCain--it is truth.

That the principle duty of the President is to be commander-in-chief of armed forces is not a role invented or "framed" by Bush or McCain--it is our Constitution (Kucinish: "Read the Constitution").

A fundamentally important part of what Americans are voting for when they cast their ballot for President of the United States is this--and this, in fact, is how George Washington became the first President.

So if you wish to counter "framing" then you would do better to counter "framers," Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Madison than "framing."

If you do not have these skills, or they have not been tested, or do not wish to have the discussion in the campaign be about them, you can hope otherwise.

But hope is not a plan.

TULLIUS

by TULLIUS 2008-03-09 04:43AM | 0 recs
you never heard of Willie Horton, Swift Boat???

Thanks! you have given me and my friends another reason to vote against Obama!

(Thank you) X 1000000000

With friends like you he does not need enemies.

by indydem99 2008-03-09 05:06AM | 0 recs
Bob is 100% correct

High School debating teams know that "she who frames the debate, wins the debate."

It is ridiculous for a Democrat to cede this issue to McCain, who spent a town meeting in New Hampshire  mocking the Beach Boys and singing "bomb Iran."

Read his books - the guy never met a war he didn't like, including Viet Nam, and now Iraq. Decision making is the key to a strong CIC, and McCain fails.

McCain should be aggressively challenged on what he wants to do as CIC, not given a free pass. Even the most partisan Clinton supporters should see that.  

Clinton validating McCain as CIC was a blatant case of personal opportunism, the country and the Democratic victory in 2008 be damned.  

Bob is right. Even Jerome in his post the other day said he wouldn't defend Clinton's remarks, and he was right.

Winning takes clear thinking, these posts are 99% driven by emotion, not logic.

by NH Indie 2008-03-09 08:32AM | 0 recs
this diary is not frame analysis

I mean...it's a strong piece of candidate advocacy, but it's not accurate in its reading of the state of the framing in this race.

The framing has not been 'ceded' to the Republicans by the Clinton camp, which is not to say that the comparison to McCain is good politics. It's actually very bad politics by the Clintons for obvious reasons.  On that much I agree.

But...it's the McCain camp that's been ceding ground to the Clinton frame--and for some time.  McCain started doing that in mid-February when he put the 'ready on day one' phrase on his website, thereby stepping head first into a frame that Clinton pushed after Iowa.  

How are Republicans trying to frame this race? The frame the right is pushing involves the use of violent rhetoric that defines Obama as an internal threat to the survival of this country. It is not new framing, having been advanced by right-wing pundits and politicians for the past 7 years.  So far, the Republicans do not control the framing in the election, although they are trying to do that by pushing a violent frame up from right-wing punditry and media.  

If people are serious about pushing back against right-wing framing in this election, we need to do the work--which takes time and cannot simply be plugged into tautological arguments that end up with '...and that's why the candidate I don't like is ruining everything.'  I'm not knocking people's choice to advocate strongly for a candidate--I think that's very important to do.  But it's not framing analysis, which by definition requires a slight distancing from initial preconceptions about who one wants to win.

For those interested: here's a start.

by Jeffrey Feldman 2008-03-09 08:35AM | 0 recs
Clinton cedes GE issue

Sounds like the Clinton people dont want progressive democrats voting for Hillbilly.What if she was to win and become president?Do you not think she would be held accountable for what she did?We as a party didnt learn anything from 004.I was really mad after seeing bush win again.We keep putting the same old chumps up for president.I will vote for her if she wins against Obama,but wont like it.Reading what stupid people say about what they will do if Obama wins,stay home or vote for Mcmad.Go ahead!Your not a Democrat if you do that.

by brcr63 2008-03-09 07:53PM | 0 recs
The Framing is Ceded

When Obama is nominated.

Nothing Clinton says one or the other right now can stop that framing from taking hold in the General Election.

She's just pointing it out.

by Edgar08 2008-03-10 04:42AM | 0 recs
Just the same way, btw

the "Clinton is unlikable" frame has been pushed by team Obama.

Of course we all know "The Clintons are liars" doesn't help Republicans at all.

by Edgar08 2008-03-10 04:45AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads