Apr 6, 2008 at 10:48 PM by David Pleasant
Which Hillary Clinton spoke in Montana today? Or, what position on the war would one like Hillary to take this hour, because when it comes to her position on the war in Iraq, it’s like the flavor of the month.
In Montana today, Clinton was asked about her vote to authorize the war and I Knew Nothing Hillary gave the answer. In fact, nobody in Iraq knew anything about what was going on in Iraq. Moreover, I Knew Nothing Hillary was comfortable with her vote, for this speech.
During a campaign rally in northwest Montana, Hillary Clinton defended her vote for the war in Iraq saying “I’m very comfortable that I made a sincere vote based on my best assessment at the time, and I am more than willing to be held accountable for it.”
“I have said on many occasions that if I had known then what I know now, I never would have voted that way.” Clinton said stopping short of saying that her vote was a mistake, something that anti-war critics continue to hold against her.
“It seems very self-evident today, all these years later that everybody should have known what wasn’t there, but even the Iraqis, their generals and their officials did not know what wasn’t there,” Clinton said.
Indeed. How could Hillary have possibly been expected to read the NIE on Iraq before authorizing a war? Certainly not a U.S. Senator that had eight years Commander-in-Chief experience, so she claims, before they were even a Senator.
On February 26, I Regret Hillary showed up in Cleveland for MSNBC’s Democratic presidential debate.
RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you’d like to take back?
Senator Clinton?
CLINTON: Well, obviously, I’ve said many times that, although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again.
I would certainly, as president, never have taken us to war in Iraq. And I regret deeply that President Bush waged a preemptive war…
[snip]
RUSSERT: But to be clear, you’d like to have your vote back?
CLINTON: Absolutely. I’ve said that many times.
On June 3, 2007, I Knew Everything Hillary was in control at the Democratic presidential debate in Goffstown, NH.
The three leading candidates also debated whether senators should have read, in 2002, the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which made clear there was disagreement within the government over the strength of Iraq’s weapons programs. Asked if she regretted not reading it, Mrs. Clinton replied: “I feel like I was totally briefed. I knew all of the arguments that were being made by everyone from every direction.”
Do they still make Neapolitan ice cream?
Apr 6, 2008 at 8:08 PM by Political Chase
Absolutely amazing. Hillary Clinton actually fired the man of many hats and many dollars.
Apr 6, 2008 at 7:49 PM by David Pleasant
After Gov. Ed Rendell subtly presented his money-spin on Meet the Press today (mentioned here), he argued that four states — OH, FL, PA, and MI — and the Electoral College system are the factors that should and will govern how the Democratic Party selects its presidential nominee. Interestingly enough, Tim Russert actually challenged the Rendell Rules with a few provocative questions.
Russert pointed out that a recent New York Times/CBS News poll (pdf) indicated most Democrats believe Barack Obama has a better chance of beating John McCain than Hillary Clinton (Obama 56% to Clinton’s 32%).
Poll, schmoll according to Rendell. Democrats have been applying the wrong rules and math.
"Well Tim, I don’t think they’re doing the electoral math very well. We elect the President of the United States. . .by the Electoral College. And and no Democrat can win the Electoral College without carrying three of the four big states — Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, and Michigan."
And now that the party has conveniently changed to the new Rendell Rules, Florida and Michigan’s invalidated primaries are legitimate. All Hillary Clinton has to do is win Pennsylvania and the campaign is over. Mark Penn can go back to Bogota, Colombia on April 23.
RENDELL: "Assuming Senator Clinton wins in Pennsylvania, she will have demonstrated — and she’s demonstrated — she’s running way ahead of Obama against McCain in all four of those states. And those are crucial. And that’s why she is the strongest candidate in the Fall, without question…
"It’s not just primaries. If you’d see the match-ups in these primaries and not just these polls. In Ohio, Obama trails McCain by 6 points. Senator Clinton is ahead by 5 points. In Pennsylvania, same thing. In Florida and Michigan, the same thing. She runs better and is more likely to carry those big states.
"You can’t win — a Democrat cannot win the presidential vote in the Electoral College without them. And that’s what the superdelegates are going to have to consider — whose the best candidate to put together the electoral map in the Fall."
Did you catch that? Superdelegates wait till the convention. And national polls or any other state polling means nothing. Just Ohio, Michigan, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Russert was kind enough to make note that Barack Obama is a candidate and there are a few states his campaign believes he will win, even if they are not applicable under Rendell Rules.
RUSSERT: "The Obama people counter, Governor, that they have a chance to win Virginia. They have a chance to win Colorado. They have a chance to Nevada. They have a chance to win states — broaden the electoral college map — that Senator Clinton can’t win."
That seemed to be a bit too complicated for Rendell and definitely not in accordance with Rendell Rules of only Four Big States, so he just starts jabbering about other states that Russert did not even mention. But Russert did not let it slide, and instead pointed out quite well how ludicrous Rendell Rules were.
RENDELL: Yeah, but, I don’t get that, because some of those states are Arizona and New Mexico, and Sen. Clinton won Arizona and New Mexico. . .So, I don’t understand that math that they’re saying, that their the best candidate to carry those states. They didn’t carry half of them of the primaries.
RUSSERT: So, Sen. Clinton could not win then, Missouri and Connecticut and Colorado and the 28 contests that Obama won?
RENDELL: Tim, don’t misunderstand me. I have disagreed with people who said Sen. Obama can’t win Pennsylvania. He can. And if he’s the nominee Bob Casey and I will be working together with every ounce of energy we have. But Sen. Clinton is more likely to carry Pennsylvania. She’s more likely to carry Michigan, and Ohio, and Florida, and the key states that we have to win.
Sen. Obama was losing, just ten days ago, was losing New Jersey to Sen. McCain and even in Massachusetts. No Democrat can survive with making those two states toss-ups.
As for Obama’s surrogate, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), he was weak and provided little substantive help to Obama’s campaign. He may be a wine-sipping elitist in Pennsylvania, but on the national scene, he might as well be a cookies-and-milk man.
Responding to Rendell’s BS, Casey points out if candidates are judged "based on polls a month ahead of time, then some of us would not be sitting here." He added, "I think Sen. Obama has the ability to as a general election candidate to get votes that Democrats have never gotten before. He’s already proven that."
So, there you have it, Rendell Rules. Live ‘em.
Apr 6, 2008 at 2:50 PM by David Pleasant
I’m sure you know that feeling of embarrassment you get when someone does something so wrong or ridiculous that you personally get embarrassed, but you had nothing to do with it? Well, Clinton’s whoppers have become so frequent and outrageous that it embarrasses me and I have no reason to be embarrassed other than I’m a Democrat. Yesterday, Clinton really laid one on saying she opposed the war in Iraq before Barack Obama did.
There was peace in Northern Ireland, the rant in Ohio over NAFTA, sniper fire in Bosnia, the Watergate firing, and the revelation just yesterday about the Ohio hospital and "related" deaths. That’s not all by any means, but it is more than enough. Moreover, I don’t believe I’m the only one getting a sense of uncomfortableness with all of this. Matthew Yglesias says, "please stop."
There is something seriously wrong when the press exposes Clinton’s whopper about the Ohio deaths deaths at 5:25 AM yesterday, and then she lies falsely claims in a stump speech later that day, among other things, she opposed the war in Iraq before Barack Obama. Moreover, she pointedly said, "that happens to be the facts." She can’t claim sleep deprivation this time after adding that to her lie untruth.
Jake Tapper has the details, but here is an excerpt.
In Eugene, Ore., Saturday. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., attempted to change the measure by which anyone might assess who criticized the Iraq war first, her or Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., by saying those keeping records should start in January 2005, when Obama joined the Senate. (A measure that conveniently avoids her October 2002 vote to authorize use of force against Iraq at a time that Obama was speaking out against the war.) She claimed that using that measure, she criticized the war in Iraq before Obama did.
But Clinton’s claim was false.
Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."
It’s an odd way to measure opposition to the war — comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama’s opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton’s vote for it.)
But even if one were to employ this "Start Counting in January 2005" measurement, Clinton did not criticize the war in Iraq first.
Apr 6, 2008 at 12:04 PM by Political Chase
(Update I and Update II below)
Top Clinton supporter Gov. Ed Rendell (D-PA) was on Meet the Press this morning and he may have given a little insight to Team Clinton’s post-PA primary spin.
Tim Russert starts off quoting Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) and others declaring a big Clinton win in PA. Russert tosses it to Rendell as you’re saying she is "unbeatable." Rendell responds heartedly with an "ah shucks" type of approach. He starts to downplay their success at whatever level, and starts talking about how much the Obama campaign is outspending Team Clinton. He goes on to say how tough it is and there is only so much they can do when they’re outmatched 3:1, etc.
It sounds to me like this may be part of the spin Team Clinton plans on putting before the credentials committee. We’re more electable and I can prove it. See what I accomplished and was overwhelmingly spent. So, give me the nomination and the money that goes with it and my performance will be three times better.
There’s more to come, it was a rather interesting segment. But for now, here’s the video on the money spin. Watch it.
Update I: Rendell may have let one slip. He said if Hillary does not win in Pennsylvania he will be joining Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) to support the party’s nominee. (See next update.)Casey was also on the show and recently endorsed Obama. It’s not in this video, but will be in a post to follow.
Update II 5:09PM: The first update is a bit misleading. Rendell made a big pitch that Clinton should be the nominee based on her winning four states in the primaries: Ohio, Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. In spite of it being patently false because the Michigan and Florida primaries were deemed invalid, Rendell claimed Clinton had won three of the four states, and would win Pennsylvania next. All of this was heatedly debated, and Rendell summed up that part of the interview with: "[It is possible for Obama to win Pennsylvania] and if he’s the nominee, Bob Casey and I will be working together with every ounce of energy we have. But Sen. Clinton is more likely to carry Pennsylvania. . .Michigan, and Ohio, and Florida."
So, while not a direct statement, there is an implication of "after Pennsylvania," given Rendell’s four-state argument. I’ll have more on this soon with the appropriate video.
On a side note, it’s interesting that Rendell is no longer touting Texas since late results gave Obama more delegates there than Clinton.
Apr 6, 2008 at 12:24 AM by David Pleasant
It’s 3:00 AM and you’re confident staffers are safe and asleep. But there’s a phone in the Chappaqua House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world. The Wall Street Journal needs your response to a story they are about to run.
Mark Penn, your chief strategist, has been caught in a meeting in Colombia. The Journal tells you Penn has a contract with the Colombian government. He’s helping them get congressional approval for the Colombian Trade Bill.
You know all the world’s leaders. You know the military. You told voters you’ve been tested and are ready to lead in a dangerous world. You rebuked NAFTA and the Colombian bill in your campaign. And excoriated Barack Obama when he said you previously supported it. The press has since proven you supported NAFTA but you still deny it.
Now, the man who wears many hats and you’ve also paid $10 million has delivered this shocking blow. What will you do when you answer the phone?
Nothing.
It’s 3:00 AM and Alvaro Uribe Velez’s phone is ringing. He’s the President of Colombia. The person on the phone tells President Velez that Mark Penn said meeting with his government was "an error in judgment."
What does President Velez do? He fires Mark Penn.
