Notice how the Clinton campaign tends to accuse Obama of things that can easily be applied to her? There's a term for that -- it's called projection. The Republicans are brilliant at it.

So why does Clinton hate Obama so much? Because she and her campaign know the very attributes they accuse him of are the things that are most true of her. And what if they aren't true of him? Where does that leave her?

Oh, puh-lease. When can we expect a similar release of "nasty talk" from obama's camp? This kind of reporting is really no reporting at all. *Of course* the candidates staffers *don't like the opposition*. That's politics. If you really liked the other guy you'd go work for him. I really don't care what the staffers think and neither should you. I'd love everyone to play nice but we saw a lot, lot, lot worse during the dean destruction--the kind of things that were said about dean by other democrats were horrendous--and no one suggested for one minute that that meant we shouldn't vote for those candidates. Get back to me when you've got some policy issues to discuss.

aimai

That's not necessarily true aimai. For instance, there are a fairly wide array of emotions one can hold towards a competitor within one's party (i.e. towards someone who probably shares a fair amount of assumptions with you). Bedgrudging respect, for instance. Or you can like the person, but not the policies. Or, of course, you can hate them rabidly. But it doesn't have to be the last, especially in intraparty contests (welll...unless Joementum is involved, then I'm not sure how you can avoid it).

I'll note that the person giving the supposed reason why Clinton staffers hate Obama doesn't appear to be an actual Clinton staffer, but an unaffiliated Democratic operative. So I take it with a giant grain of salt.

Having said that, I don't doubt Clinton staffers hate him. As someone who started out the primary season neutral and has moved steadily towards Clinton - I've grown to dislike him quite a bit, too. Not because he would deny Clinton, it's a primary and if that wasn't his goal he shouldn't be in it.

My complaint is that while accusing HRC of basically being a lying smear artist - and this was when she wasn't fighting back - he's the one who not only used the rightwing talking points on social security, but started personally attacking her using 1) Novak's BS column and 2) Gerth's 20-year pact crap, while basically calling her a polarizing liar. His position on Kyl-Lieberman is disingenuous at best (didn't vote, didn't mention the issue until the next day and then only after Edwards scored political points).

Instead of folks noting how far his campaign attacks and tactics have strayed from his rhetoric, they now blather about how Hillary's gone negative and how mean she is. It seems to me the Clinton folks have lots of reasons to hate Obama, just not the one quoted.

Some anonymous operative says HC is presumptuous? And you, and Corn, and Hayes all scratch your chins about what this terrible character flaw says about her? You all will fit in nicely at the next Hardball panel.

And why don't you go work for the Corner and spew this BS there.

aimai, you're asking for symmetry where it may not exist. Yes, some attacks from the Obama camp against Hillary are off base and wrong. But the sense of entitlement isn't there, as far as I can tell.

And Obama is much nicer (sometimes too nice, in my view) than his opponents. You're just not going to find the same dynamic. When he attacks, you get the feeling that he does it because he has to. I couldn't imagine him calling attacking your opponent "the fun part".

"It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?"

Wow. This is an astoundingly revealing statement, because it's unbelievably tin-eared, but even more for its boundless, puffed-up Marie Antoinette air of entitlement.

Aimai's got it. No doubt there's many among Obama's ardent followers who feel *he's* entitled to the job, that he's the only one who can possibly win/save the party/save the country etc., and who despise Clinton passionately. (If Tapped comment threads are any guide, there's lots of that sentiment going around.) Staffers are passionate and zealous -- it's not always pretty but it's normal.

Corn is trying to stir up shit here, methinks. (The "uppity" thing is surely him trying to imply racism.) He's only got two quotes from Clinton herself, and neither sounds particularly mean unless you're predisposed to imagine her saying them with an evil sneer. "Now the fun part starts." How is that sinister? Sounds ironic to me.

Joe buck,
I doubt very, very, very, much that Obama is as nice as he pretends to be when talking about republicans. And actually its my principle objection to him as a candidate--I'm not ready to make nice with people who have determindly attempted to destroy this country and I don't much like the voters they seduced either. But I am *really* sick and tired of hearing juvenile crap like "ohmygod did you see she said "now the fun part starts!" what a bitch!" sold to me as a sign of Obama's maturity. Could there be anything more stupid and childish than the accusation that "now the fun part starts" which was meant to be a sign that hillary can mix it up with the best of them is somehow a sign that she is mean?

The gender stuff is all over this. Hillary is faulted for not being a nice female pushover--faulted for not crying, for liking a fight, etc... and Obama--and I'll say it right now--is faulted by me for pretending to be *too nice and above it all* and in that sense not manly enough. But I don't believe that either description (hillary the bitch or obama the nice guy) are other than campaign identities. They aren't *real* they are manufactured. Anyone who thinks that Hillary is actually mean and obama is actually nice on the scant evidence of second hand reporting on what their *staffers* are like probably still needs day care. Grow up allready. These campaigns are campaigns for a big prize and the prize ought not to go to the person who can merely convince the slowest, neediest member of the voting population that they are a nice guy and you ought to want to have a beer with him. Or whatever nice guy (tm) slogan appeals to the lowest common denominator.

aimai

I wanted to follow up on the "source" of that quote. It's the unaffiliated Dem. operative who characterizes why the Clinton staffers hate Obama. The fact he is unaffiliated doesn't mean he's neutral.

That reporters, bloggers or others would then take that and use it to smear Clinton I think demonstrates the real problem she has. Every bad thing anyone says about her is automatically believed. Whereas even when Obama does something mean or says something mean, it gets characterized as him showing "fight."

She's going to have a hard time convincing most folks that Obama is a loathsome slimeball.

I don't think that's what they're going for at all. Basically, the ultra-short upshot of all the Clinton attacks on Obama -- "Barack Obama: Weak and unreliable." That's not such a hard case to make, especially against Obama.

I couldn't imagine him calling attacking your opponent "the fun part".

When I heard that line from HRC, I immediately thought of an old ESPN commerical featuring Evander Holyfield stalking through the hallways of ESPN World HQ looking for anchor Charley Steiner yelling: "Charlie! Come out and get your whuppin'!"

This is an astoundingly revealing statement, because it's unbelievably tin-eared, but even more for its boundless, puffed-up Marie Antoinette air of entitlement.

But please note it's a statement by an anonymous, allegedly unaffiliated operative, purporting to summarize the views of a campaign s/he is not part of, and just happening to make Clinton sound awful.

I'll grant that in general, yes, Obama is "nicer" as Joe Buck says. I like nice, too, but it's not clear that nice wins against Republicans.

Some anonymous operative says that a Top Dem has a character flaw based on a triviality beyond all human understanding.

Liberal blogger muses about true meaning of triviality.

Herd comes to believe that Top Dem really possesses that character flaw.

Repeat every election cycle.

We liberals really are too stupid to breed.

Whoever that "operative" in the article is, s/he is a moron.

When a reporter asks you a loaded question like, "You mean, he's, uh, uppity?" -- especially when asking about a black candidate -- ALL your alarm bells should go off. Answering 'yes' is the sign of someone with a serious tin ear, not only for their own sense of entitlement but also for not noticing the obvious racist overtones of the word "uppity" when applied to blacks.

That's the kind of stuff I'd expect from the Republicans, not one of us.

"Whoever that 'operative' in the article is, s/he is a moron."

Yes, and so is our host and the other bloggers who flagged this. And so is anybody who thinks that this incident somehow opens a window that lets us peer into HC's soul.

"Answering 'yes' is the sign of someone with a serious tin ear, not only for their own sense of entitlement but also for not noticing the obvious racist overtones of the word "uppity" when applied to blacks. "

Either a tin ear or an agenda. It never fails to amaze me that while folks will believe the most awful things about Clinton, few ever questions the motives of folks spreading crap like this.

Perhaps it sounds awful and implies terrible things about Clinton because it was meant to by, say, someone sympathetic to Obama. Not, of course, that the Obama campaign would ever stoop so low as to play politics in the middle of a political campaign. Not Saint Obama.

"Some anonymous operative says that a Top Dem has a character flaw based on a triviality beyond all human understanding.

Liberal blogger muses about true meaning of triviality.

Herd comes to believe that Top Dem really possesses that character flaw.

Repeat every election cycle.

We liberals really are too stupid to breed."

Yes, we do seem to often do it to ourselves. It would be funny if it weren't so predictable and pathetic.

Oh, look, David Corn has exactly the same source as Robert Novak.

"That's just not OK, if it's true."

There it is, in all it's glory. Our host DOES NOT KNOW IF THE TRIVIAL INCIDENT IS EVEN TRUE. But so what? He still ruminates away about what this triviality tells us about HC's character.

dogfacegeorge has it right. I believe the correct expression for this form of reportage comes straight from Peggy Noonan
"would it be irresponsible to speculate? It would be irresponsible *not* to speculate..." that hillary is a beyotch on the say so of someone commenting on what someone else might have said about someone else. Let the games begin!
aimai

Let the games begin!

This statement epitomizes what a mean, mean meanyhead aimai is.

When I went to UC Berkeley in 1969, my mindset was the same as that of the entire country, if not the entire world: A woman only could be a housewife, or a nurse, a nun, a secretary, a teacher, or a stewardess. That's the way it had always been; that's the way it always would be.

Let me tell you, there were strong, smart, brave, articulate women in Berkeley who clued me in FAST. They explained, witheringly, that it was stupid beyond measure for our society to waste half its brainpower. And the fact that society had always operated like that was no reason to continue the stupidity.

Now HC is running for president, and you see all sorts of blatantly sexist attacks made against her every day. And I'm asking all of you out there: Where are the strong, smart, brave women who should be fighting the sexist pigs like Chris Matthews? Sisterhood was powerful then; it better be powerful now, or we'll see HC go down in flames.

Now don't get me wrong - I don't know who I'll support, whether Edwards, Obama, or Clinton. But I don't want any of them run out of the game because of stupid pundit tricks.

Go go go dogfacegeorge. I feel the same way. Im an edwards supporter--really--but this crap about hillary has just got to stop.

aimai

HC said that Obama was a "talker" not a "doer." She said that he purveys "false hopes." She quipped that running for president is not a qualification for president.

Pundit conclusion: HC is "mean." Or, let's just tune in to the dogwhistle: HC is a bitch.

Here we are, in the middle of a presidential campaign, and pundits are getting the vapors because HC says Obama is a "talker." Like no male presidential candidate would ever dare say anything so vile about an opponent.

Where do these morons come from?

This sort of thing is why eight years of Clinton left the Democratic Party in such a weakened state. They truly only care for their own political fortunes, which may be, ironically, why Bill Clinton's agenda was so stymied during his two terms

How did running for president become a qualification for being president?

How did being married to a president become a qualification for being president?

Here's the thing about stories like this one: as much as I agree with Aimai and DFG, I have felt frequently that HRC isn't being straight with her audiences. Obama is ahead in the polls because his base MO isn't to dodge. He tends to give thoughtful answers to questions that aren't as obviously politically calculated as HRCs are. Obviously, there are all kinds of ways to spin HRCs dodges, but the fact is that they're there and part of the public record.

I think it's pretty unambiguous that after 2 terms of GWB people are more interested in straight answers than anything else. So, when rigidly press-controlling HRC creates a pattern of dodges that her rivals pick up on and magnify, it's incumbent on her to try to keep anything that leaks out the black box of her campaign squeaky clean.

Instead, we have a lot of things (the Obama=Osama email, the kindergarten release, etc) that make the audience (broadly defined) wonder what else she's hiding in there. As a result stories like this get traction because reporters and readers alike don't feel like they have a good grasp on the culture of her campaign.

Also, some people seem to be misunderstanding the "uppity" comment. That wasn't coming from a Hillary supporter; that was somebody else's interpretation of why Hillary's people don't like Obama.

In this light, it's not necessarily an offensive comment - at least, not to Obama. He or she is basically accusing Hillary's supporters of regarding Obama as an uppity Negro.

"It's his presumptuousness," this operative says. "That he thinks he can deny her the nomination. Who is he to try to do that?"

Wow. This is an astoundingly revealing statement, because it's unbelievably tin-eared, but even more for its boundless, puffed-up Marie Antoinette air of entitlement."
****

I agree with this. Irregardless of whether or not some anonymous source is accurate or not, it is believable to people because she keeps trying to shut down any and all criticism of herself, as if she already has the primary. We see her do this on stage, on TV, in debates. "Saying X about me is pulling straight from the right wing playbook"-- this just 2 or so weeks after the blow out about "the boys club" "piling on her."

We have another "decider" on our hands, kids. Don't anyone question the Queen.

Congress? What's that?

I've been around the candidates a little bit, that is the attitude of Hillary staffers toward everyone.

Democrats should be inclusive.
Hillary is exclusive.

A clinton campaign chair was sending around the smear emails on Obama being a manchurian muslim candidate.
Politico's Ben Smith has the details.
It's pretty sick and one staffer who received the email wrote about it on Daily Kos.
he thinks the campaign knew about it and may have been involved.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1207/Clinton_staffer_on_antiObama_email_chain.html

I am a proud, equal and independent female democrat. I am also insulted by the people using gender as an excuse because they don't like a story about HRC.
Listen, gender is not a factor in this election. People simply don't care and those that do are republican.
Hillary is not a victim. She is a wiley operative and can be dirty in campaigning. If she is caught or if she is doing something wrong, crying gender because it is not a positive story is insulting to me.
Hillary has never been a victim. But, she is counting on you to see her as such. She is banking on you crying gender when she doesn't get a positive story.
The fact is she is a political person who is very capable of being a dirty player.
People who don't like her it's because of her character and not her sex.
Hillary is not a good person from what I've seen and is very good at playacting and using people. She convinces people there is a conspiracy against her and hopes women think sexism if she is caught doing something dirty and it's reported.
If you want equality you need to accept the reality.
there is no sexism involved here. Hillary is capable of hating rivals and trashing fellow dems. Afterall, she was behind the attempted coup of Howard Dean this past year.
Do not kid yourself.
Do not insult my intelligence or yours by playing this game. When you do you are saying you are not equal to anyone else. Well I am. and I recall democrats of both sexes cheering when Pelosi took that gavel in Jan.
Maybe if Hillary was more like Pelosi, a democrat who can be a good pol without resorting to smearing fellow dems, playing dirty, ect. you'd see more cheering for her.
But, the negative feelings toward HRC is because of her person and lack of character and ethics and not because of her sex.

BDB said it very well. What are you Mr. Boyd, getting the vapors over? She said he was a talker, not a doer. There is already evidence to support that....his health care plan is a perfect example. Not covering everyone was a PRE-CAVE to Republican talking points and then he attacks her far, far better and more progressive plan...by using Republican talking points.

I quote BDB

"My complaint is that while accusing HRC of basically being a lying smear artist - and this was when she wasn't fighting back - he's the one who not only used the rightwing talking points on social security, but started personally attacking her using 1) Novak's BS column and 2) Gerth's 20-year pact crap, while basically calling her a polarizing liar. His position on Kyl-Lieberman is disingenuous at best (didn't vote, didn't mention the issue until the next day and then only after Edwards scored political points)."

The Novak lie was turned into an Obama smear. At first I thought they were foolish enough to fall for it....but then I realized they really couldn't be that inept. They knew Novak lied, but it was good way to smear Clinton by demanding she deny Bob Novak's lies. They did deny it quote clearly, and lo and behold it seems that there was some part of no that the campaign didn't seem to understand (on purpose) and demanded two more denials because they wanted to drag the smear out.

I have never been impressed by him....he is indeed all about talk and process and not so much about policy and change....but I must say that it was after that smear that I really began to be angry.

And the response of people like you, Mr. Boyd, is exactly why. He is given a continaul pass despite dirty campaigning. And in no way does her criticsm of him begin to measure up to the degree of smearing he and his campaign has conducted against her.

BDB is right .....yeah Obama go, go hit her, hit her, it's okay whether it's above or below the belt.

By the way, though it is of course unremarked...that as soon as Sen. Clinton took office in 2004, many people encouraged her to run for president, BUT SHE KNEW THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG AND SHE NEEDED TO FULFILL HER TERM....She didn't PRESUME herself qualified after 2 years in the senate. Another sign of bias and double standard in the media.

I can relate to Obama-hate.I look at him and see a complete phony.

His "lets hold hands and hug and get along" speeches really get on my nerves. I honestly don't think anybody would be taking him seriously as a presidential candidate if he weren't black. The guy is clearly unqualified for the job and if he were to be the nominee the GOP would eat him alive and spit out his bones with the media cheering on. The reason the media has been so kind to him is because The Russerts and Dowds of Washington hate the Clintons.

I just don't see the guy's appeal. Everything he says sounds phony. I find Edwards as the likable candidate. But even Biden and the rest are more likable and authentic than Obama.

There is almost a cult mentality to Obama supporters. They see him as the Messiah. The day he gets inaugurated the Right Wing Noise Machine will shut down, republicans in Congress will cooperate with Democrats, all our long standing contenitous policy disputes will be resolved with a hug, Oprah style.

Sorry, I just don't believe this crap.

"In fact, her mixture of legitimate criticisms (his lack of experience, his health care plan, his social security mess) with illegitimate ones (the bogus leadership PAC story, the baseless ad-hominem attacks on his character) seems to me more likely to make voters ignore everything she says and it makes her look petty, mean and vindictive."

1. The leadership PAC story was not bogus. It was true. And you compare.

But 2 attacks on character are not baseless. They are based on what he's said, written and done or more to the point not done. Attacks on character are by defintion..ad hominem.

"Character is of the man.
Argumentum ad hominem literally means "argument directed at the man" ".

Maybe the misunderstanding of the bald meaning of the term is indicative of something.

I have always thought that Mr. Obama was too much like all the other, too much talk and not enough doing, candidates of the past....Stevenson, McCarthy, Hart, Tsongas, Kerrey, Bradley. I didn't support them then for the same reasons I am not supporting him now.

"too much talk and not enough doing, candidates of the past....Stevenson, McCarthy, Hart, Tsongas, Kerrey, Bradley."

It is worse than that. It is Obama's constant hints that he is above other politicians. He is not ambituous, calculating like Hillary, Rudy, Romney and the rest. He is not running for president out of ambition, he was forced into it kicking and screaming. He is not tainted by ambition. He is too good, too pure, too saintly to be ambitious.

This is a guy who was in the state senate two years ago, arrived in Washington and immediately started running for president.

He is a complete phony.

"BDB said it very well. What are you Mr. Boyd, getting the vapors over? She said he was a talker, not a doer. There is already evidence to support that....his health care plan is a perfect example. Not covering everyone was a PRE-CAVE to Republican talking points and then he attacks her far, far better and more progressive plan...by using Republican talking points."

Oh, please. HRC's healthcare plan is to force everyone to buy insurance in the same predatory insurance market that's paying for her campaign and *call it* "universal healthcare."

If that doesn't turn out to be The Supreme Example in this campaign of "all talk and no action," I don't know what could be.

"I can relate to Obama-hate.I look at him and see a complete phony."

I hate Hillary for a much better reason. She voted for the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people in order to "maintain her political viability within the system."

And all these claims that Obama is the closet Republican in this primary would be hilarious if you idiots didn't seem to take them seriously. The Clintons ARE Republicans.

Name one instance where Hillary "took on" the right wing when she had a chance. We had eight years of rightwing Republican governance when Bill Clinton was president. The Clintonsvhave confused policy capitulation with victory simply because they survived politically.

I've got say, brewmn seems to have the more substantive point here.

You people are really quite frightening. I've not seen a comment board so heavy with Hillary folks. Yikes. Apparently, blatant racism is so totally ok. As is lying. I'm moving to another country if she wins the nomination.

"There's a fine line between tough and mean, as Corn points out, and I think Clinton doesn't seem to know where it is."

So when HC says that Obama is a talker not a doer, she is stepping over that fine line into meanness.

1. If this is the prime example of when she is "mean," then what could she possibly say that would demonstrate mere "toughness"?

2. If any male candidate said an opponent was "a talker, not a doer," would we have everybody dabbing their foreheads over how mean he was?

as he pretends to be when talking about republicans. And actually its my principle objection to him as a candidate--I'm not ready to make nice with people who have determindly attempted to destroy this country

aimai, how very insightful, painting ALL conservatives/independent thinkers with this broad brush. Your blind hatred of all those who disagree with you is very offputting. Try and broaden your horizens and go on discussion boards with people who disagree with you. You just might learn something. I was one of those neo-cons you profess to hate immediately after 9/11. No longer. I've come to the conclusion that all people are fallible, and being a rigid, unforgiving person helps nobody. This isn't an attack, it's a hand outstretched. It is up to you whether you choose to take it or slap it away.

Hillary says Obama is a talker not a doer yet Obama is the only one who has successful passed healthcare legislation.

Hillary says Obama is a talker not a doer yet Obama is the only one who has passed anti-proliferation legislation.

Hillary says Obama is a talker not a doer yet Obama is the one who was a community activist and organizer working right alongside those who have the least in society.

Hillary says Obama is a talker not a doer yet Obama is the one who took a stand out against torture, telecom immunity, Mukasey and the war.

Who is Hillary to think that she ie entitled to the nomination? Who is Hillary to go on TV and tell Couric. She will be the nominee?

After she told the American public 'ifweknewthenwhatweknownow" as her crystal ball excuse for the gross error in judgment on the war we are bogged down in.

When has Hillary taken a stand on any issue? Why didn't she stand up and fight the GOP propanganda machine when it told the public Saddam had WMD"s? Why didn't Hillary turn up the heat on the GOP when they wrote the Patriot Act and committed American soldiers to die. Why didn't Hillary speak out against torture and Gitmo if she is so capable of fighting the GOP and winning?

Her and Bill did nothing and said nothing about the war and now they want us to beleive they are against the war.

Hillary's response to Bush talking about WWIII and Iraq is to vote for the KL amendment and then claim she does not want to 'rush to war' and her vote was for diplomacy? How about not go to war period, Hillary.

Hillary's idea of doing is to use billions of taxpayer dollars in earmarks and not provide services to the needy and veterans in society.

Hillary's idea of doing is to Chair the India Caucus in the Senate and enable jobs to be outsourced to India.

Hillary's idea of doing is to have a healthcare policy that mandates insurance so the insurers can have windfall profits while she squeezes citizens to pay for healthcare they can't afford or want.

Hillary's idea of doing is to send problems like Social Security to a bipartisan committee for another 6 years instead of coming up with a solution.

Hillary's idea of doing is to attack, brawl, and fight without ever accomplishing anything. She loves to fight. The more Hillary fights the more Americans lose.

The Three Stooges:

1) A wife that's shocked and clueless that her husband's cheated on her... for the fiftieth time! Plays the victim well.
2) The Oprah candidate with big ears.
3) Slip and fall lawyer that can't even win his senate seat in his home state but loves his hair.

Wow! What a field! I'm impressed regardless of who hates who.

Bogged down in Iraq.

In his speech released yesterday Abou Omar Al Baghdadi the supposed leader of the Islamic State in Iraq which is Al Qaeda in Iraq said that only two hundered Mohajeroon are left in Iraq. Mohajeroon which means immigrants in Arabic are the foreign terrorists who came to fight in Iraq. This is yet the most stunning admission by Al Qaeda in Iraq that they are totally destroyed and from the tens of thousands of foreign terrorists they had, almost all of them are killed and captured and only two hundreds are left.

This is the quote translation of what Al Baghdadi said in his latest speech: "... with all that, the Mouhajeron in Mesopotamia left the world and went quickly to meet their lord after they sacrificed their money and their blood sometimes in the martyrdom operations and sometimes by throwing themselves in front of the enemy that only two hundreds Mouhajeron are left today in our beloved Iraq..."

Ps. Considering after the first attack on the WTC in 1993 Bill Clinton and co-president Hillary allowed Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden knowingly train another 20,000 fanatical terrorists in their training camps in Afghanistan the fact that we've killed 10,000 Al Qaeda in Iraq means were just about half way there!

After the first WTC bombing the Clintons did nothing and what did it get us? Our embassies bombed over and over, our military ships bombed, and in 2001 the terrorists finished up the job on the WTC.

Yeah, I can't wait for the Clintons to take back over our national security. Ou Obama who says he wants to go have tea with the smiley faced midget Hitler of Iran. Or John Edwards that says there is no war on terror. I suppose he could file a law suit against Al Qaeda that ought to stop them in their tracks.

Anyone who relies on information from Jeff Gerth, the Judith Miller of Whitewater, is a stooge of the right wing machine. Obama is naive and will be ground into tiny pieces by them if he wins the nomination.

thaaaaanks
شات بنت السعوديه

بنت جده