Politico Says Obama Snarfed Hillary’s Winning Platform. We Say, He Still Ain’t Hill.
By Ani on May 8, 2009 at 6:10 PM in Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Chicago politics, Current Affairs, DNC, DNC idiocy, Democratic Nomination, Hillary Clinton
(Bumped up from yesterday evening.)
In his article Obama morphs into old rival Clinton, Politico’s Alex Conant posits that all Obama’s campaign promises which distinguished him from Hillary have now been thrown out the window:
A year ago today, with returns rolling in from the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, the late Tim Russert so famously declared, “We now know who the Democratic nominee will be, and nobody is going to dispute it.”
Russert was right, but Hillary Clinton, nevertheless, kept campaigning for several more weeks, fueled by her supporters’ convictions that her proposals were better than Obama’s. After barely 100 days in office, it now appears Obama agrees: Since taking office, he has dropped virtually every position that distinguished him from Clinton. Granted, there were not many policy differences between Obama and Clinton during the campaign. But those that existed were sharply debated and helped Obama define himself as the pragmatic change agent that many voters now believe him to be.
Change agent, my foot. The late Timmy was right, much to our chagrin and dismay. And perhaps, much to the dismay of his lefty supporters, who now see what we Hillary voters saw coming all along: She had the better platform. She knew it. Obama knew it, and what’s more the DNC knew it. The only difference is, they wanted a brand, not a leader. Barack Obama is the face they wanted on the jar of spaghetti they were selling to the American people and to the world – not hers. It is as simple as that.
Politico, who did as much electioneering for President Obama during the primary as anyone, should now also admit that, unlike Obama, Hillary was indeed honest about her platform and held the best and most sensible positions on important issues. She was always running as the general election candidate and never bamboozled anyone into believing she held one position in order to cull votes from another candidate, only to drop that position like a hot potato once those votes were in her pocket.
Politico, in this self serving little treastise, omits serveral other important points, however. Whatever policies Obama is adopting now that may resemble Hillary’s does nothing to diminish the fact that he is also maintaining plenty of policies of George Bush. Hillary never reneged on FISA, as Obama did, nor would she ever go so far as to expand these wiretapping provisions as Obama is doing. She would never expand Bush’s faith based initiatives, as Obama did. She vowed to put an end to signing statements. Obama is using them.
Conant states:
Take Iraq. …[U]nlike Clinton — [Obama] had a hard date for ending the war. Clinton repeatedly questioned the wisdom and sincerity of Obama’s pledge to remove all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. It was the biggest difference between the two candidates — and one of the top reasons Obama won the nomination.
Yet just weeks after entering office, Obama largely dropped his campaign plan. Rather than withdraw all combat troops on a set timeline, Obama opted for a conditions-based withdrawal that will leave as many as 50,000 troops in the war zone at the end of 2011 — exactly the sort of drawdown he maligned Clinton for proposing.
Well, of course, because, as her husband famously said, Obama’s plan for Iraq was “a fairy tale.” But Conant is also oversimplifying the differences in their plans here.
Health care is another example. While Obama was outflanking Clinton on the left on Iraq, she made up for it by criticizing his health care plan as inadequate. Both candidates claimed to support universal health care, but only Clinton’s plan included a government mandate that would force all Americans to have health insurance.
Primary voters will recall Clinton and Obama endlessly debating this, with Clinton accusing Obama of leaving about 15 million people without health care and Obama warning voters that Clinton’s plan would require “harsh, stiff penalties on those who don’t purchase it.”
Just as with Iraq, Obama is now moving toward Clinton’s position. His budget outline proposes a health care plan that “must put the United States on a clear path to cover all Americans.” That strongly suggests a mandate, since any volunteer system would see some opting out.
But does that mean Obama is adopting Hillary’s exact plan, which was always better and far less expensive than his own?
Lobbyists are another case in point. Obama criticized Clinton for her connection with them and she said “a lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it not, represent real Americans.”
…Obama promised to ban anyone who had recently worked as a lobbyist from serving in his administration. But that promise was broken even before he took office, when the president-elect chose several lobbyists for high-level posts, including deputy secretaries at the Defense and Health and Human Services departments. (Ironically, Obama even nominated a lobbyist to be an assistant secretary of state under Clinton.)
Conant also states that Obama capitalized on the old “Hillary is divisive and polarizing” moniker hung around her neck by the Republicans, intimating that a Hillary Clinton presidency would be a return to partisan politics. I guess that’s why Obama met with Republicans a couple of days after being inaugurated to arrogantly proclaim, “Well, I won.” So much for the new era of bipartisanship.
As Obama confessed at his prime-time press conference last week, he’s fallen short on that front, too. Since taking office, the president’s agenda has been demonstrably partisan; nearly every bill he has so far signed into law passed Congress on a party-line vote. If Clinton were sitting in the Oval Office instead of Obama, it’s hard to imagine how Washington would be any more partisan.
And since Hillary Clinton has a proven record of reaching across the aisle, I doubt she would have conducted herself in such an arrogant fashion. Conant concludes:
Clinton lost the battle for the Democratic nomination, but a year later, it appears her campaign has won the war of ideas within the Democratic Party.
She won more than the war of ideas. She won the damned primary. If the DNC hoi polloi wasn’t so busy putting their finger on the scales to tip them toward Brand Obama, perhaps the American people would have had a chance to see that.
One week prior to the election, John King of CNN excoriated his colleagues in the media, blaming their “obsession with Hillary Clinton” as the cause for not vetting Barack Obama properly. That is no excuse, of course. While this national obsession of ‘blame Hillary’ may have died down in other circles, as Secretary Clinton is now enjoying untold popularity, higher than that of the President, places like Politico have not caught up. Is this article trying to capitalize on her great popularity now by saying that Obama is more like her — thereby basking in some of her current glow, or are they tacitly blaming her unseen, magical and all powerful influence for him reversing course on his campaign rhetoric. This doesn’t quite work for me, as even Prof. Jonathan Turley came out recently to note that President Obama is expanding policies beyond those of George Bush. I do not believe Hillary would do this.
Furthermore, there is a big difference between a leader and a brand. A leader is someone who proposes smart policies from the beginning and makes every effort to see the entire chess board in so doing. A leader does not just pick a policy, run it up a flagpole to see if he can get away with it, then if there is a hue and cry, drop it like a hot potato and pretend he was never trying to do it in the first place.
Does anyone believe Hillary Clinton, were she our President today, would have made the rookie mistake of reneging on closing Gitmo, then bow to pressure from the left the next day, sign an Executive Order to close it, then get stuck leaving it in place, possibly returning to military tribunals after all, only after the fact realizing she had nowhere to put these prisoners? That no one wanted to take them? No. That was President Obama’s rookie mistake.
Unlike our current President, a President Hillary Clinton would have thought through the ramifications of such actions and figured out where she was going to put these prisoners before making such an empty proclamation. You know, Senator McCain would have thought it through, also. And even said as much when he was interviewed about this very situation months ago. That is the difference between leadership and a brand. That is the difference between experience and empty theories or armchair quarterbacking.
A leader lets you know who they are up front and then stands by those principles. It is not only a matter of platform, it is about understanding how to execute that platform. Even CNN’s Anderson Cooper acknowledged, re the current AFPAC talks, that Hillary is “large and in charge.”
Further, leadership is about understanding the real facts on the ground. Platform notwithstanding, I suspect Hillary would have known better than to try and ram every part of the agenda down the American gullet at once. Since she has a far better understanding of the economy than he, I am confident that finding the financial floor and helping the housing situation would have been her first priority. I also doubt she would have stood before the American people to terrorize them into thinking America was on the verge of collapse.
I wonder if President Obama is figuring out Hillary knew what she was talking about after all. He’ll certainly never admit it.
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Thank you very much for this excellent piece, Ani. Hillary is smelling like a rose next to Stinky. We are the ones paying the price.
Ani, thank you for repeating that HRC won the D primary, notwithstanding the DNC made BO their nominee.
jbjd: right you are! She WON!
When will you guys get over it. Hate to use that phrase that you hate, but you ask for it daily.
Hillary most certainly favored faith based initiatives….do your research. She may have done it differently, but she definitely said she was in favor.
Hillary didn’t both to show up to vote for FISA the first time around, remember??
The problem with your article is every statement is based on YOUR opinion. Hillary would never have….how do you know??? Bill went so far to the center after being elected its become the theme of his whole presidency! Once in office, things look very different.
and you know what…so what??? if a president has to change his policies for whatever reason, its because things look a little different from the White House. SHould he compromise as a matter of practice? Of course not, but he’s not compromising on everything –
He knew Hillary had good ideas and knew she was successful – he made her SOS, what more could he have done?
And, she DID not win the nomination. Get it through your thick skulls…she played the MI and FL primaries as well or better than Barack. The votes did NOT count and they shouldn’t have. she knew it and he knew it and so did everyone else.
so get over it. You sound like a miserable person and these same posts get a little tedious.
The point is Obama did renege on nearly everything he promised. The point is she had a little more sense and didn’t have to renege because she never took those positions in the first place — which he did just to get votes. Let’s stick to the topic at hand.
I hope he figures it out because we don’t need Bush3 in there taking care of Wall St. and those groups who backed him before everyone on Main St. It is not as rosy a picture as you seem to think.
I’m glad she is doing such a great job at State. I am however not getting over the fact that he excoriated Bush as well and now is extending and even building upon Bush’s policies re wiretapping and the ridiculous spending.
I am surprised that doesn’t bother you.
We are talking about leadership ability — and yes, we do have some empirical evidence about Hillary keeping her word and doing what she says she is going to do.
I am, however, glad for you that you are so happy with our new President. Truly, let us hope we can all share in your joy soon.
BO = GWB3.
I was going to respond to Ani’s comment, but I think this is a better point to do so.
There has not been a “GWB2″ yet. The FIRST President Bush was George H W Bush (note the extra initial there), while the last President Bush was simply George W Bush.
If you want to suggest that Obama is simply a repeat of George W Bush, then he would be GWB2. Ani’s use of “Bush3″ is a bit better but the the President Bush was infinitely superior to his son; Bush the Elder was, by no means, a man I supported as President but, at the same time, I genuinely believe he did NOT put corporate interests ahead of the public welfare as Bush the Lesser so blatantly did. (The Elder Bush’s most disappointing moment came in 1980 when he reversed course on the economy when he caved on “voodoo economics” in order to accept the VP slot under Reagan. His later support of the anti-abortion movement was almost as disappointing but I never sensed any deep-seated or heartfelt support in his words the way Reagan projected.)
Honestly, if someone like me who was unhappy with Bush the Elder is willing to defend HIS name from being linked to his cokehead of a son’s name, I wish others would be as careful when they attempt to paint Obama as being nothing more than Dubya Part 2. Please.
Obama = Dubya II.
The Michigan votes did end up counting – they gave some of hers to him so he could win, remember?
And I used to think that same way about politicians changing after getting into office – that once they found more out, they adjusted their approach. But now I know how very “professional” a campaign is, how there are umpteen experienced advisors around who DO know what’s going on. I no longer believe for a second that they don’t have input during the campaign about what it’s really like in office, and what kinds of things the intelligence really says, etc. I believe Obama (as Ani already said) ran as a primary candidate, saying whatever he had to, to get the most votes. Then he flipped to run for the presidency (and then the flips since then…). Hillary did always say what she believed in; she ran for the general – she didn’t try tricking people for votes.
Obama is a politician’s politician – he did a beter snow job than most – he really made people think he was above it all, all the while manipulating the h*ll out of them. And I think you’re *still* snowed.
The answer: I will never get over it. He and the DNC cheated, and I will never forget, and I will never stop reminding people. Sorry if that’s inconvenient.
I used to think like you, that politicians changed in office because they learned more facts. I now realize how they have umpteen experienced advisors during a campaign, people who DO know what it’s like in office, having served under other presidents, people who DO know what the intelligence says, etc. I no longer believe that flip flops are due to having learned more. I agree, he ran for the primary, saying what he had to to get votes. Hillary said what she meant (and KNEW what she was talking about), and ran for the general.
Obama is a politician’s politician. He acted like he was above it all, and all along he was manipulating you better than the best of them. I think you’re *still* snowed.
I will also never forget and never get over it.
This election has completely changed my opinion about politics in the U.S. It’s too bad, too. I’m patriotic, and I used to think most politicians were too. But now I question the ethics of every politician. Each one should have to take a test on the Constitution, should also be tested on campaign laws and U.S. history, etc., etc. They should have to renew their credentials through more study also, as do most professionals.
I will NOT forget what the DNC did last year, ever.
Well, I’d agree that politicians should have to take those tests, but the ones who should be tested first are those who mostly loudly proclaim how “patriotic” they are, followed very closely by those who continue to claim that this country was founded on “Christian values” or “God’s law(s)”.
But, let’s go a tad further. ANYONE who files to run for ANY elected office should have to take a basic civics test (though I would also suggest a number of various tests be available*) and a grade of less than 80% is declared a failure, barring that person from running again for at least 2 years, unless the person is willing to go before a board and pass an oral exam. Then, anyone who’s appointed to an elective office (to fill a vacancy, for instance), should be required to pass a similar test but allowed a slightly lower threshhold (perhaps as low as 70%), unless that person’s already holding an elective office (if there’s an “upgrade”–say from state to national level–then the test should only cover material applicable to that level’s needs).
Now, for the Federal Judiciary or any appointed posting (such as the Cabinet), there’s probably less chance for any type of testing since the Constitution allows for those offices to be at the President’s discretion (with the “advice and consent” of the US Senate, of course).
Of course, ANY sort of testing would require amending the US Constitution as well as most State Constitutions since virtually all of them already have their eligibility requirements for elected offices.
*Mainly to avoid having someone memorize the test answers but also to account for the specific office the person wants to run for. Obviously, someone running for a state or local office should have more detailed knowledge of their state’s constitution and civil and criminal codes or city’s charter than they would need to know details about the Electoral College or how many people are required for the US House or Senate to conduct official business while someone in Alabama who’s running for one of the state’s US Senate seats is less likely to need to know how the details and procedures of California’s I&R process affects that State’s Constitution.
call me crazy, but sometimes when 0bama is doing something presidential, like signing some legislation, he has an expression on his face that says ” I cant believe i got away with this”
Time will never make a wrong right.
You’ll just never get it.
Naomi: get it through your thick skull that Obama cheated and corrupted his way through the primaries. He never won anything.
Your rhetoric demonstrates why Hillary Democrats (real Democrats) don’t like Obama and his ilk.
Sorry, the comment was from lorac. If you had a brain you’d remember that Obama got millions of votes from MI and FL even though his name was not on the ballot and he also was GIVEN (by Howard and Donna) some of Hillary’s ELECTED, PLEDGED delegates, because, in Donna’s words, they were afraid he didn’t have enough to win, and he didn’t.
Sorry, it was Naomi.
This is why I explicitly say, HRC not only received more popular votes than BO but also amassed more pledged delegates as the result of votes cast directly for her.
The votes did NOT count and they shouldn’t have
Tell that to the 3 million voters who went to the polls in Florida, who were disenfranchised as the result of a primary move passed by Florida’s republican legislature.
You know, you really should listen to yourself… that’s what the republicans were saying about al gore…. Oh get over it. If you really mean that then, you are really morally bankrupt. Not only will I NOT FORGET, but i will never vote democratic again@#
So take your sanctimonious crap and you get over the fact that you picked a LEMON !
Jo
So, you would punish an entire party for the ills created by a few? Really? If there’s a Democrat who represents YOUR values better than a Republican in a contest, you’d be willing to vote for the Republican (or hope that enough others would vote for the Dem to offset YOUR vote) JUST to spite the party?
Wow.
I could neither support nor vote for Obama/Biden last year (in large part due to the DNC’s shenanigans but my own feeling that Obama really wasn’t ready at THIS time; in the end I saw a 3rd party which was more in line with my own views), but that didn’t stop me from voting FOR other Democrats on the ticket. (Most notably, I voted for Vivian Figures for the US Senate seat currently held by Jeff Sessions–the GOPer who’s currently been in the news for his new position on the Senate Judiciary committee. Interestingly enugh, Sessions won MORE votes in the Senate race than did McCain–who won the Pres contest in the State–with FEWER overall votes cast in the Senate race. I even wrote in another Democrat’s name in place of Bobby Bright who eventually won the AL-2 Congressional seat; my write-in vote didn’t actually affect Bright’s win, but his win was VERY close against his GOP opponent.)
I for one vote candidate, issue, character and record. Not party.
I was a lifelong Dem till 2008 but that changed after their shenanigans. In future I will certainly vote for Dems again — but only those I feel have earned the slot. I will never again vote a straight party ticket — particulary if it is not deserved.
SOS is a consolation prize. How dare you expect us to be happy with it! The nomination and the Presidency were stolen from her just because the DNC decided that now was the only time a black person could be President. Think about it, when will the political environment ever be so toxic for republicans again that coke head who attended a racist anti american church for 20 years and hung out with terrorists could ever be President. So, John McCain, a very good man, and 2 good women Hillary and Sarah Palin, had to be destroyed just so an unqualified black man could President. So we will never get over it!
I’ll tell you what he could have done! He could have used that so-called *brilliant* mind of his and stayed the hell out of the 2008 presidential election. He should have listened to himself as he stated after winning his US Senate seat – “I’m not ready for that”, referring to being POTUS. Michelle, to her credit, said the same thing.
I believe YOU are the one with the thick skull here. And, Btw, instead of lecturing the writers and commenters at NQ, you need to start all over with your research. You didn’t learn ANYTHING the first time. You don’t even know what happened! Maybe then you will understand this group is much more interested in saving our democracy not to mention our country than we are merely crying over spilt milk.
She cut a bear knuckles DEAL for SOS with her 18 million votes;… as she had him by the proverbial gonads.
Ani,
This is a great post. Thanks!
My opinion: He knew all along that she was smarter, more knowledgeable, and more accomplished than he ever could be. The thing he also knew was that he wanted to be President and he was willing to play dirty while she wasn’t. He and the DNC decided to play dirty because they were afraid of losing, even with Bush’s disastrous polls at the time. (In my opinion, the two years Democrats in control of the House under Bush were so totally wasted by Pelosi because she was afraid. She didn’t want to try anything until she had a President and then made sure she would get one, no matter who or what she had to step on.)
It’s just a crying shame that we could have, should have had Hillary in charge. I’m going to go scream and cry now.
I think you are right, Diana. I would only add, in addition to being willing to win at any cost, Pelosi forsaw the role she has today with B0. Her role with Hillary would not have been so prominent.
You can tell, she considers herself a star everyday. Her style has changed noticeably – she is expertly coiffured` each day and designer dressed. Besides all of the superficiality, she is, regretably, the most powerful person in Washington – both behind the scenes as well as on the scene. She is on a roll with her agenda!
Good article, Ani, going over point by point, comparing campaign platforms. I’m going to send it to some of my Obot acquaintances. I’d like to title it—”I tried to tell you then (during the primaries last year),” but I am going to say, “I told you so, now.” They still won’t want to hear it, but it’s worth a try. It does my heart good to see Hillary being recognized for her wonkish hard work and being rated at a higher approval rate than “0.”
One of my friends who was a strong Hillary supporter and is still a die-hard Democrat doesn’t like to receive the somewhat anti-Obot articles that I send him as he says that “O” is the president and there’s nothing we can do, but I keep sending them anyway. And, this is one of the best—good job! Thank you!
I know this is off the main subject ,yet not……….On CNN tonight on Roland Martin he had FATHER FLAGER ,one of OB’s Chicago ministers on giving adviseabout young children in chicago getting murderd.. Next will be rev. wright and all those he wasn’t aware of their hateful racists rants. I almost fell off my chair !!
Hear, Hear, Ani. Excellent recap of what we all knew from the start. Hillary Clinton was the most experienced and talented candidate to come down the pike after an eight-year famine.
And then there was Obama, not even a close runner-up in leadership skills or resume facts and figures. We were slammed by the DNC and McCain was betrayed by his won party.
The health care issue will be interesting. Unlike HRC’s passion for a universal, single-payer plan, I understand that Obama&Co are favoring some sort of insurance-company based reform. In fact, I read somewhere else that Pelosi said [to the public], “if that’s what you want [single-payer], make us.”
What is this a grade-school tug of war. Make us??
Everytime I read an article like this one, I get angry all over again. But I saw the clip of Hillary at the Trilateral Committee yesterday and she was so awesome, I felt better immediately.
If some of the press is now beginning to turn in HRC’s direction? For me, it’s too little, too late. I’ll never forgive them for what they did or the BS they threw out as news for months.
John King should be ashamed to admit that the press never did a proper vetting, and then make excuses for it. Or even better, pulling Hillary Clinton into that excuse.
Thanks for the article, Ani. We will never forget!
Funny how now that it is becoming clear that Obama is just the flip side of Bush, the MSM are trying to morph his policies to HRC’s.
I wonder if that’s the latest strategy, Trixta. But then, I give little credence to what I hear or read in the MSM anymore. They’ve been blowing smoke and writing fiction for years.
Ani, this is simply outstanding.. Great post!
Obama didn’t JUST start stealing Clinton’s ideas, which Politico would know had they been paying any attention at all during the primary. But I guess I can’t fault them TOO much – even the NY Times would pretend that Clinton and Obama having the same positions weren’t because he copied hers word for word (which he did on several positions), but because there really wasn’t that much difference anyway, so go for the less experienced, unqualified guy instead! Brilliant! Not.
But this post was – thank you so much!
I’m not known for making any positive remarks about GWB — however — I must say that he had more leadership ability and “training” than 0zero at this point in GWB’s Presidency.
Ani — you did a super job of show what a unqualified jerk 0zero is — and THAT we knew it all along.
Front pagers — you guys were spot on in your assessments of 0zero!
0bots — WE TOLD YOU SO!
Actually, it’s pretty disgusting that Politico is being so condescending – they were in there ALL of 2008 fueling 0zero’s chances like all the rest. Occasionally one of them would have maybe a half-way decent thing to say about Hillary, but mostly they kept up the heated fenzy in his favor.
0 is so out of his league it is pathetic. Today when all the cable outlets switched to his usual nothing remarks, I cringed hearing him say as he ALWAYS does, ‘MY secretary this, MY secretary that, MY administration’. MY, MY, MY, MY – translation – it’s all mine! I went running for the remote to switch to anything else but him. Even Bush had the courtesy to say, ‘THIS administration’. I have never heard any POTUS before use all the MY MY MY’s.
Yes, Fran, I agree, and as I mentioned above, Politico basically electioneered for him throughout the campaign, not only on their website, but whenever BEn Smith appeared on TV, he would do this as well. It was rather pathetic. They sacrificed much of their credibility on this.
Obama is a thug The Clintons were and are the democratic party— Some of those sell out media outlets are paying a price— Guess what so will Barry Obama The sun has shone on his ass long enough He is going down, down, down, and so is Jackie O What bullshit And when he goes down down down he can take that freeloading mother and law with him
Ed Schultz and Stephanie Miller are paying for it.
Their audience has shrunk. This is especially important for Ed Schultz, seeing that he was able to capture a larger group of demographics than anyone else.
I’m not listening.
The problem is Obama doesn’t understand the whys and hows behind the positions he stole. We are still in very deep trouble.
Yeah, Sonic, this is why BO is inarticulate when it comes to giving impromptu discussions about his policies and positions.
Yes Obama is the brand, created, crafted, developed and continually evolving by his creator, brand manager David Axelrod, the man who loves power from the back room.
Nothing passes though Obama’s lips unless it is Axelrod approved and or manufactured.
The president without a backbone really is David Axelrod, making $ millions at taxpayers expense as an advisor and not being held accountable to anyone, hiding behind the scenes.
And do not think that Axelrod has cut his ties with the corrupt Chicago Mayor Daley, he hasn’t. Corruption breeds from the brand creator and spills out like Chicago politics!
I admit my paranoia about Washington. Axelrod gives me the creeps, but I’m not inclined to give the credit to him for what has happened since Obama took office. First of all, I don’t think he is intelligent enough and, second, Mayor Daley has very localized influence I would imagine, but I agree someone else had to give a freshman senator with no record of legislation or experience, the most powerful job in the world.
I agree, Elise. Axelrod knows very little about policy. He is all about window dressing – the rallies, the celebrations. He’s the frustrated “movie director”. He wouldn’t have any better ideas than 0zero about the legislation or policies. Neither does Robert Gibbs. That’s why the WH daily briefings are so disasterous.
Axelrod, Gibbs & Plough accepted the credit for 0zero’s campaign, but it should be getting clearer by the day that these three were the front men for the 0bama campaign. They by no means ‘ran’ his campaign other than on a superficial basis. The campaign was run by the DNC, the Dem leadership, and MoveOn.org. That’s where the money and strategy came from.
and don’t leave out the D side of the Senate!
Obama is just trying to save his ass. He’s going to go down in history as a disgrace.
Excellent post Ani, and I agree, Hillary Clinton would not have proclaimed the closing of Gitmo without a well thought out plan. She would not have rammed trillions of dollars of socialist programs down our throats with no means to pay for them. And certainly not during a recession! As for the mortgage debacle, I would like to believe she would have asked for accountability from Dodd and Frank, but we’ll never know that. I do believe she would have made a concerted effort to include Republicans in Congress in the decision making process.
I truly believe if Bush and the Republicans had not been so arrogant themselves the last 8 years, we would not have a socialist president and congress right now. I hope they have seen the error of their ways and get it together.
My Mom did tell me we’ve had far left kooks for President before and we got through it. So take heart all, we will get it back on track. Fight on!
I have been saying for weeks now, all the points Obama was hammering Hillary on, he has now reneged. It’s exactly what I expected. His advisers are trying to make him into Clinton, but it’s too painfully obvious that he doesn’t have the stuff. The difference is the Clintons really cared about America, Obama hates America. It shows.
I don’t know what all the people around him are thinking to promote these crazy policies.
The difference between the Clintons and Obummer is that the Clintons are real intellectuals who know how to do critical thinking, who can read, write and understand legislation and its final effect on people, who are articulate without a speechwriter, who can explain the policies so that people who are not policy wonks can understand them, and finally, and most important, care deeply about the country and the people in it. Obummer has none of these qualities, even though he pretends to and claims to. He does not have the work ethic of either of the Clintons, and he doesn’t give a damn about anything but himself and what he can get out of the office.
I think that what spurred his entry into the primaries was the revelation of how much Bill Clinton had earned since leaving the Presidency, $100,000,000. Clinton left office $3 million in debt and wrote a book or two, Hillary wrote one, and he did speeches around the country and the world. People bought his books, and hers, and he was booked solid for speeches for a long time after he left office. Still is, from what I can see. He started his foundation to help people in much worse economic and political circumstances than are found in this country, and by doing so has earned the love and respect of people around the world. Obummer saw that magic number, $100 million, and he figured that he could get that if he was President and cashed in afterwards. I think that was his motivation to run, not any patriotic motivation, he is greedy.
I also think he is in for a shock when he leaves office. I doubt anyone will want to buy his memoirs, for which he already has a contract, by the way. If they are as badly written, with as much fiction, as his first two books, they will end up on the remainder shelves. And who is going to hire a speaker who has to have a Teleprompter to get out a coherent sentence?? Who wants to pay tens of thousands of dollars to hear,”Uh..uh..um..you know..um..uh”? Even George Bush is more articulate than Obummer without his Teleprompter, and that is a very low standard indeed. So, I don’t think Obummer will get the bucks he is counting on after the office. He will have to make do on the pension, unless we manage to impeach and convict him, and whatever his books earn. Poor thing. And poor us for having to endure him while he is in office.
“…his memoirs, for which he already has a contract”
“So, I don’t think Obummer will get the bucks he is counting on after the office.”
I don’t know a lot about the publishing business, but it strikes me as strange that he would sign a contract NOW – wouldn’t the average person think they could get a better deal AFTER their 4-8 years of “brilliance”?
Makes me wonder if your first statement has anything to do with your second statement. Maybe he has the same belief you (many of us) do – that he won’t be very marketable in the future….
It’s the same company that is publishing Bush’s memoirs. This is from the Vanity Fair article about Bush’s trip to Canada to give a speech.
Oh, and Ani, if you notice, he’s set a pattern already of talking like he’s going to be tough and do the right thing and then he backs down and caves into the special interests. Bush redux!
No wonder Arlen Specter joined the Obama crowd. He pulled this stuff all through the Bush years.
I read Tom Ridge may be put up by the gop to run against him. :fingers crossed:
http://hotair.com/headlines/?p=39274
“After careful consideration and many conversations with friends and family and the leadership of my party, I have decided not to seek the Republican nomination for Senate,” Ridge said in a statement, adding later, “The 2010 race has significant implications for my party, and that required thoughtful reflection. All of the above made my decision a difficult and deeply personal conclusion to reach…
bummer
This sums up very well what many of us thought all along. Great job.
Remember what Hillary said during the primary in her closing speech in TX? She said it didn’t matter who ended up winning the primary, her concern was if America would be Ok. Turned out, a fraud is a fraud.
Remember Johns Edwards? Isn’t Karma a bitch or what? Give it time, we will see who is doing the right job for America.
Ah, the Texas debate brings back some memories. Remember towards the end when Hillary extended her hand to Obama in a gracious gesture? The media went nuts, wondering: “Is she quitting?” LOL. The very next day, on the trail in Ohio, Hillary learned that the Obama campaign was again passing out those Harry and Louise fliers. She got really angry (rightfully so), approached the camera and roared: “Shame on you, Barack Obama!”
The media again went nuts. “She’s got multiple personalities!” The media just couldn’t deal with anything Hillary did that didn’t fit into the nice little pigeonhole they had prepared for her.
Hillary should be President. This article underlines why. I understand, because of social injustices, that AAs and the DNC dreamed of a day when a black person could become president. But did they have to destroy Hillary to make it happen?
I think you’re right, but of course, we’ve never had a female president, either, and women are 52% of the population, not 12%. So obviously either would have been historical and a start to righting social injustices. They could have let US pick the winner (well, we did, they just stole it back), and we would have had a meaningful and reparative presidency. They didn’t have to decide for us, which historic presidency we would have. (not that you disagree, just ranting)
By the way, another great post, Ani! I love how well you can put thoughts into an organized and understandable essay.
funny, I thought he perfected bowing and
taking it up the @ss from the Saudishandholding just like Bush.What a tremendous article! And the bots wonder why we don’t just “get over it”? What a tragedy for our country this whole thing has been.
What is amazing to me is that, in the face of the massive marketing and selling of the Obama “brand” to the public, Hillary still broke through and connected with and inspired so many voters. She completely broke free of the image that the media, the republicans, and then her own party, tried to stick her with: that she was cold, calculating, polarizing, and would say or do anything to win.
The nauseatingly ironic thing is that she isn’t
but Obummer is exactly that.
One correction Ani. Bill Clinton’s refer to ‘a fairy tale’ was to Obama’s continuous reference to his ‘being against the Iraq War from the beginning’ during the campaign. Just to remind all, Obama apparently gave a speech in Chicago saying he didn’t think we should go to war in Iraq while running for the Senate in Illinois. I say apparently because it wasn’t reported, and he later videotaped such a speech to use as campaign evidence of it for later. Obambi was never a leader in any way shape or form of opposition against the Iraq War. He never marched against, spoke out against it in any op-eds in print or on tv, never gave a speech on the Senate floors of Illinois or the U.S. Senate. When Hillary famously said during a debate “All Sen Obama has done is give a speech” the press should have looked for more evidence of his supposed opposition to the Iraq War. We now find him escalating the Afghanistan War, and still in Iraq for many more months. How do you Obots think the Afghanistan War is going to turn out? Join together with the Bushies and let’s hear it: Victory for the U.S.! (in about 20 years)
Yeah, he gave that speech in 2002. Then in 2004, when the democratic ticket was Kerry/Edwards (who both voted for the war), Obama actually stated his position on Iraq was the same as GWB’s. And, as Bill pointed out, he took the 2002 speech off of his website.
Thank you for your comment.
I’ve recently read an article in which the writer argues that if (if only!) 0 had been in the US Senate, he would have voted to attack Iraq. No dem can afford to look soft on war/defense and without some flak at re-election time. Also, it was the popular vote and 0 is not a stand alone guy.
I don’t remember Hillary’s political ads spelling out 0’s changing positions. I would have challenged his flip-flopping here.
I see we’ve gotten the periodic “when will you guys get over it” comment. About ~~NEVER!~~ will be when.
If he was so against the war, why did he vote for every funding bill for it while Bush was in office? It would have made no difference in whether or not it passed if he had voted against the funding, as Hillary did. His actions belie his words. As usual.
Great piece Ani and of course Hillary would NOT have terrorized the citzens of NYC and NJ with a flyover, bowed to the Saudi King, Gave Brown DVDs,flown 2 pizza guys in from St Louis for Pizza…….
Oh yes, I forgot all about that…:)
See why I put Hill as my SOS??? It’ll keep her on my leech whenever I want!ADMIN: I had a lot of reasons for opposing your candidacy, but I didn’t know that spelling was also an issue for you.
LOL. I think he meant he would “leech” off Hillary whenever he wants – which of course he’s been doing since the primary. He leeched many of her plans and proposals – and of course he would never have been able to bluff his way through a debate with McCain if he hadn’t been clobbered by Hillary so many times.
Right on!! Great article.
Obama was like a 7th grader running for class president promising 3 hour recess, french fries and pizza every day in the cafeteria, no math and four day school weeks.
you did a great job in pointing out why he is NOT hillary!
Excellent post Ani. You hit the nail on the head, point after point! He Still Ain’t Hill!!!!
How anyone can watch videos of both the President and Hillary Clinton on an almost daily basis and not come away with the clear understanding of who is poise, confident, and in charge every time – Hillary! And that is because she has study the problems first hand and come to an understanding of complexities required to formulated a solution.
I’ve never understood the media’s enchantment with his “ability” to bring together diverging views. If you don’t understand the problem from the beginning or even the core issues, I don’t see how you know who has a credible view. And even more important, a credible solution.
But it was definitely clear through out the campaign that he lacked core convictions on almost all the major issues.
Love the imagery that evokes of the Democratic party all sitting around a giant bowl of pasta and slurping up the noodles with their napkins tucked into their necklines to keep their shirts clean.
I’m thinking they are already looking for bigger bibs.
Didn’t Hillary actually win the Indiana primary? I remember sitting up late for the results, as ACORN tried to cheat Obama into winning, but I think she eeked it out at the end. The article is very good. Hillary is and always will be the best!
Yes, Hillary absolutely won the Indiana primary.
Yep, she won it despite some shenanigans by Obama people in certain counties.
My favorite Hillary wins were the ones where Obama had all those high-profile endorsements. MA was sweet, where Obama had the governor, Kennedy and Kerry. And California – where Obama threw in all of his celebrity power, with Ted and Caroline Kennedy, and Oprah.
Of course, who could ever forget the night of Ohio/Texas. I’m a grown man, but I teared up when Hillary gave her victory speech.
“She won more than the war of ideas. She won the damned primary. If the DNC hoi polloi wasn’t so busy putting their finger on the scales to tip them toward Brand Obama, perhaps the American people would have had a chance to see that.”
Thank you, Ani, I love the imagery and will never, never forget what happened last year – or forgive.
HILLARY is my hero………..
Excellent post Ani. We know, Hillary knew very well the difference between “campaigning and governing” because she had been there, at the WH and so
she chose to act responsibly and tell the truth to the American people. She knew
that campaign promises are pandering to the base and are met with reality
once on the job. More than ever I have the utmost respect for HRC for she chose to look me in the eye and talk to me as an adult, tell us how things would realistically be. Unfortunately she lost…because people prefer pies in the skies, empty oratory and groupie attitudes to honesty and wise leadership.
And because of the DNC & BO’s shameful cheating; of course.
We know, Hillary knew very well the difference between “campaigning and governing”
That’s for sure. With Hillary, we certainly wouldn’t be watching this endless superficial campaign that Obama is running.
It seems to be all about distraction with Obama and his media. They want us to watch the campaign – NOT what he is actually doing. They want us to see Obama as a cool, hip regular guy who has a dog and goes out for cheeseburgers. They want us to view Michelle as a down-to-earth gal who digs in her garden wearing a $540 pair of sneakers.
However, we are more like Toto who pulls the curtain back while the Wizard of Uhhs says “pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
“The Wizard of Uhhhs” love it!!!
That is all too true.
Since the American people have been lied to many times before by many different politicians with this “pie in the sky” type of rhetoric, you would think by now people would be a little more skeptical and prefer reason to romance.
Guess not.
BO is the best politician i have ever seen in my life. That is why he is a president
aw, how old are you John, 5 yet?
But the Constitution requires, he must be a NBC.
Yeah, I agree – he’s a politician, but I truly fear that’s all he is. We need a leader. We need someone who has core values and the courage to stand up against their own party if it’s in the best interests of the American people.
By the way, are you old enough to remember Richard Nixon? He was a pretty good politician too…
He’s President because he is black!
I was a lifelong democrat who always contributed to the party every year. Although the dems continully call me for contributions since the election, I tell them I was a Franklin Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, Clintons type democrat not the left-wing, lying, loony, liberal democrat that I despise then hang up in their faces.
HILLARY ROCKS!! I saw her conduct a press conference with Obama’s press secretary standing near her. She was awesome!!
Ani, President Obama is Everything To All and how dare you forget it.
Gosh. What was I thinking!!!
When BO said “What she said” in reply to a question in one of the Primary debates, that pretty much summed up what has happened since. I’ll always think of him as the the little creep who sits next to in a test & steals answers from the smart, geeky girl while he puts her down. Smarmy, misogynistic, low-life plagiarist is what he’ll always be to me. Great article! And no, I won’t be getting over it. Period.
Thanks to comments by Warehouse553. As a person of color, I agree with you 100%. I did not vote for Obama and I am glad. I saw through him. He is a
chicago politician and a conn man. I disliked him from the beginning. Hillary should have been president. Even McCain would not have messed up America as this clueless fraud is doing.
One Big A.. Mistake America
America is paying for what the DNC, Pelosie, Reid, Dean, Kennedy, Edwards, Kerry and Donna B conspired to do.
Thank Ani for another fine article. Please continue reminding us. Let’s never forget that Hillary was the better candidate, that she was cheated by the DNC’s rulers: Donna, Dean, Pelosi, Reid et al, that she won more votes, that the rules were bended, twisted, recreated, etc. so that the One would get the nomination. To Naomi, and whoever else who wants to dispute with petty arguments, the bottom line is: Hillary was ready to lead, no disputes there. We, Hillary’s supporters will never forget and I for one will take any opportunity to remind those who suffer from amnesia that she was robbed the nomination.
I took out the word “President” cause he is not president ! He is a “FRAUD” for the first time in America history we have no president or first lady!!!! where is his birth certificate??? Still wanting it. oh, is the one ready that’s sitting under light to dry?
that real BC was “bought” by rahm emanuel when he went to africa right after the election. i cant think of any other reason why he went there.
I believe that the Republicans are holding off on the birth certificate issue until Obambi becomes politically weakened, and they gain some strength back, and then they’ll spring it in a coordinated way. I don’t see how its possible with the self-discrediting the Repubs have done to themselves over the last 15 years, but Obambi’s ineptness gives me hope (there’s that word again!).
Thank you, Ani, for this excellent analysis. It breaks my heart that the DNC got away with this.