UPDATE: The scorched earth strategy isn’t working, Hil. Her negatives have surged, which goes to show you that the “strategy” of Penn and Co., and the big donor bullies is hurting their own candidate even as the try to take Barack Obama down. (Wall St. Journal):
The negativity of the Obama-Clinton contest seems to be hurting Sen. Clinton more, the poll shows. A 52% majority of all voters says she doesn’t have the background or values they identify with. By comparison, 39% say that of Sen. Obama, and 32% of Sen. McCain.***Also, fewer voters hold positive views of Sen. Clinton than did so just two weeks ago in the Journal/NBC poll. Among all voters, 48% have negative feelings toward her and 37% positive, a decline from a net positive 45% to 43% rating in early March. While 51% of African-American voters have positive views, that is down 12 points from earlier this month, before the Wright controversy.
More ominous for Sen. Clinton is the net-negative rating she drew for the first time from women, one of the groups where she has drawn most support. In this latest poll, women voters with negative views narrowly outstrip those with positive ones, 44% to 42%. That compares with her positive rating from 51% of women in the earlier March poll.
I tried to lay off blogging about the swill coming out of the operation run by Mark Penn and his boss, the Senator from New York, but I simply can’t — the desperation has turned into such scorched-earth campaigning that it’s hard to digest. One can only believe that winning at any cost is the mantra going on in that shop.
Take this latest flap — wealthy donors sending a letter to Nancy Pelosi that’s no less than a street-thug mobster bat to the knees, an extortion attempt to silence the Speaker after she stated her opinion about the role of superdelegates: “If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party.”
Deep pocket, influential Hillary supporters who are big fundraisers in the party sent out the missive (obtained by TPM Election Central). Snippets are below the fold.
From the letter:
We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.You can read the full statement here. That sentence I highlighted is there for a reason — it’s poli-speak for “do my bidding or else.” Signing the letter — Marc Aronchick, Clarence Avant, Susie Tompkins Buell, Sim Farar, Robert L. Johnson, Chris Korge, Marc and Cathy Lasry, Hassan Nemazee, Alan and Susan Patricof, JB Pritzker, Amy Rao, Lynn de Rothschild, Haim Saban, Bernard Schwartz, Stanley S. Shuman, Jay Snyder, Maureen White and Steven Rattner (UPDATE: Cliff Schecter breaks down the background of each of these knee-cap bashers.).…We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.
Whoa. Is that BET magnate Bob Johnson up there on the list? The same Bob Johnson who unleashed this race-tinged attack against Obama?
At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent comments that Mrs. Clinton made regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not mean to take any credit away from him, Mr. Johnson said, when she said that it took President Johnson to sign the civil rights legislation he fought for.Unfortunately his mop-up job sucked big time.“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood - and I won’t say what he was doing, but he said it in the book - when they have been involved.”
My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.‘Nuff said. What’s going on here is her big bucks supporters, want her to win regardless of the long-term effect on the party — that not only superdelegates, but pledged delegates should be encouraged to jump ship to their candidate, and Pelosi was raining on their parade by daring to give her opinion.
The fact is that Clinton (or Obama) cannot win enough delegates to secure the nomination outright, given the remaining primaries, so delegate poaching (something she said she wouldn’t pursue) is on the table — and hot and steaming at that. The behavior is pathological at this point.
If I were any of these big donors, I’d be pissed at the crappy return on investment — her campaign is bleeding money, she didn’t wrap up the coronation on Super Tuesday, and it’s been one political blunder or another. They should be asking why Hillary won’t cut the expensive Mark Penn loose. About the only thing she can point to was a small bounce from capitalizing on the Wright situation (something she probably shouldn’t have raised, given her own affiliation with The Fellowship - read this Mother Jones article, or this sex-abuse convicted pastor).
Besides, candidates need to stop harping on the inane, intemperate comments of religious advisors to score political points. Who cares about Obama’s or Clinton’s religious affiliations as long as they aren’t affecting policy — we’re not electing them to enhance our spiritual awareness.
Oh that’s right, we’re talking about common sense and politics — my mistake.
***
Keith Boykin, who actually worked in White House as a special assistant to President Bill Clinton, and who attended law school with Barack Obama, has defended the Hillary Clinton campaign in the past. However the continuing use of the Jeremiah Wright relationship as a bludgeoning tool put Keith over the edge. And it was a struggle to accept that the Clinton campaign had crossed the line:
Maybe I’m too close to the two Democrats to be against either one. I went to law school with Barack Obama and worked in the Clinton White House, so I have connections and allegiances to both candidates. That’s why I’ve never understood the rabid Hillary haters or the angry Obama opponents. To me, all three candidates — including John McCain — are good and decent Americans who have served their country with distinction.***… [O]n Tuesday of this week, apparently dissatisfied that the Jeremiah Wright story had failed to derail Obama’s campaign, Clinton broke her silence on the issue and told a newspaper in Pennsylvania (188 delegates) that Rev. Wright “would not have been my pastor.”
She repeated her criticism at a press conference later in the day. “You know, we don’t have a choice when it comes to our relatives. We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend,” she said.
She ought to be ashamed. A month ago she stoked the fears that Obama might be a Muslim and now she plays on the fears of Pennsylvanians that the Illinois senator is a radical black Christian. I would expect that kind of nonsensical fear mongering from a Republican, but I’m disappointed when it comes from a fellow Democrat.
…As a New Yorker, I have been proud of Hillary Clinton’s service in the Senate, and I harbor no ill will toward her. If she somehow manages to wrangle the nomination from Obama, I will actively support her general election campaign. But I cannot remain silent any longer while my own senator destroys the Democratic Party, and her own reputation, in a desperate and degrading effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
It’s time for Senator Clinton to act like a leader that I know she can be. Hilary Clinton not only needs to defend Barack Obama, she needs to apologize to him.
Fantasist, liar or confused — more tall tales from Clinton?
I’m really tired, so tired, of this. It’s so embarrassing at this point, but she brought it on herself after her Indiana Jones lie about dodging sniper fire during a 1996 Bosnia trip with Sinbad and Chelsea. because of that whopper the press is now digging — and finding that Hillary is fond of telling tall tales — this time unearthing a murky fable that she tried to join the Marines.
Who knows what really happened or why, but the fact is that Clinton has damaged herself by raising the trust factor with her lies about death-defying diplomatic adventures in Bosnia. Her highly paid advisers should have known this was going to happen.
Also: read Jeffrey Feldman’s Frameshop post, Why the Smear of Wright Is So Wrong.
45 Responses to “Hillary Clinton campaign meltdown roundup: just stop it already”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
I’m still trying to figure out why we even have superdelegates to begin with. I’m assuming there must have been a logical reason for their existence once upon a time…
Here’s a capsule history:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/opinion/25ferraro.html
Mind you, it’s by Ferraro, but I don’t think it contains any chronological errors.
Pam
Unless Hillary or BO drop out, all of the votes cast so far will not count. The super delegates (or insiders, or big shots) will decide who the Dem candidate is.
As much as I detest Hillary, I’d cut her some slack on the delegate poaching. BO is doing the same. Althouse, who’s son, Chris, is a Hillary delegate, received a mailing from BO asking for his support.
From her Blog:
Chris emails:
I just got a flier in the mail from Barack Obama. It’s clearly a special flier for delegates. It has my full name, address, and “Support Barack Obama at your County Convention!” There’s no point in sending a message like that to anyone who isn’t a delegate; the county convention is where the delegates meet, post-caucus. So, they got my name and address from a list of caucus delegates, and the lists of those delegates say who each person has pledged their support for. In fact, Clinton’s campaign sent me a link to the lists that are sent to the campaigns, so I know what they look like. [ADDED: This list, which shows which candidate the delegate supports, is on line.] Technically, I could change my vote from Clinton to Obama, but the delegates were selected proportionately to represent the voters. Surely, he isn’t suggesting that I do this, since he so firmly believes that delegates, pledged or super, can’t go against the will of the people. Or is he?
He adds:
I’m not a “pledged” delegate yet. I’m not obligated to stick with Hillary until I sign-in at the convention and write “Clinton” by my name on the sign-in sheet, like voting at the precinct convention (the caucus). But the delegates were chosen at the caucus to proportionately represent both sides, so it would be against the will of the voters if I changed my mind about who I supported and then went to the convention and voted for Obama. Also, you could argue that it was computer-operated and they just plugged in the addresses of all the delegates, but obviously they would know that that would mean sending it to all the Clinton delegates.
Ann says:
Interesting. I don’t think the Obama campaign is doing something wrong, but this mailing shows that the Obama campaign is fighting to flip Clinton delegates in Texas. Is Clinton doing the same thing and will some delegates slip away? What’s really striking is that the effort of going out to a caucus in Texas on primary night doesn’t seem to matter as much as it should. And, as Chris said, it’s a tad hypocritical for Obama to encourage delegates to change sides, since he is the one who is trying to make a big principle out of binding the superdelegates at the national convention to the will of the voter.
After reading Ferraro’s OpEd, it’s clear to me my first impression of the “superdelegate” thing was correct.
Superdelegates are just another variation on an age-old issue: We want “democracy”, but often the people in charge don’t like what democracy produces. The People don’t always vote the “right” way you see, so some mechanism must be set up to “correct” these “errors”.
The Electoral College is one such mechanism, closed primaries are another, winner-takes-all is another, and it seems superdelegates are one of these too.
Real democracy is the one thing politicians fear more than anything else. That’s why it’s watered down as much as they can get away with to reduce the risk (to their careers) as much as possible…
Clinton should have called it quites in Feb. Already the Reichwing is putting plans in place for what they will “accomplish” during
Bush’s Third Term in officeMcCain’s presidency…I intentionally refrained from mentioning during the thread on bullying how I felt that the Clinton tribe in my area was using the local political machines to bully people into voting for HRC. The whole “we own your vote” and “not doing as we say makes you a traitor” stuff stuck in my craw.
This looks like more of the same sort of bully politics that I detest - the stuff that drove me away from voting for HRC and toward checking out Obama a bit more closely.
Actually, delegate poaching is virtually impossible. The campaigns select their delegates, and you can be damn sure they won’t be picking anyone who might change their vote. Plus, Democratic party rules state that pledged delegates must “in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” In other words, unless they decide that Obama is so corrupt that it would be immoral to elect him or that he has as much chance of winning as McGovern did after picking Eagleton, they are bound by party rules to dance with the one who brought them.
That said, of course it’s going to come down to superdelegates. The only way I can see a different outcome is if Reid, Pelosi, and Dean put significant pressure on Clinton to drop out–to the point of “drop out or we won’t fund your future campaigns.”
No, Ms Kate, It’s HILLARY who’s being bullied!! (emphasis mine):
Oh- and they pick on Chelsea, too. But Bill, for some reason, has been silent on this one. Hmm.
!) Delegate poaching is possible, Obama already did it. He took away delegates away from Edwards in Iowa.
2)Superdelegates exist as a tie breaker mechanism to avoid floor fights. I don’t see why people don’t understand that. You can argue that there are too many or are too big a percentage of delegates but to complain that there is a mechanism to deal with things like the current situation already in place makes no sense. I much prefer superdelegates to 12 guys in a room.
I prefer the superdelegate system. The pure primary system has produced candidates from the Dems who are pipedreamers and candidates in the Reps who are reactionaries. A pro-choice person cannot win the Republican nomination even though most of the country is pro-choice. A financially moderate, pro-capitalist candidate cannot win the Democratic nomination, even though most of the country does not want to continue huge deficit spending. The superdelegates want to win the White House and are more realistic and pragmatic than Democratic primary voters.
Hilary’s recent dishonesty problems may kill her candidacy because they highlight the negative part of her character many voters worried about. The superdelegates will be more sensitive to the possibility of her non-electability than thay will to an insufficient plurality of primary votes in favor of Obama. And that is how it should be.
I think I’ll just skim all these posts until the primaries are over, they always seem to boil down to people being personally insulted because Clinton won’t drop out, and go along with media for their construction of motivation and personality, something I certainly hope won’t be a feature of Democratic voter support in the general.
In my mind, these last couple of months have not demonstrated that the Democratic candidates will tear each other down, but that the Democratic voters are quite easy to dissuade.
I wish that everyone would just get up off the damn fainting couches already. It is a leadership race and a damned exciting one. This is democracy, messy, loud and exhilirating. When it gets too bad, take a break, watch a sunset, finish your taxes and get your blood pressure back to normal. At this point the whole thing needs to play itself out on the floor, if it was good enough for FDR then it should be good enough for Obama or Clinton.
Say what? Both Obama and Clinton are slightly protectionist, but but they are both financially moderate and believe in capitalism.
“Delegate poaching is possible, Obama already did it. He took away delegates away from Edwards in Iowa.”
After Edwards semi-dropped out.
I just don’t know what makes people think that Obama wouldn’t be doing the same things as Clinton if in the same situation and if given the opportunity. It’s called “campaigning.” I don’t enjoy the realities of campaigning in national elections, but don’t pretend that Obama is some angel who would never conduct political maneuvering to help secure a victory.
I’m not a Clinton supporter. I’m just sick to my stomach over how much hate is radiating from this campaign. Come November, we need to work as a team to defeat McCain, no matter which Democrat is running.
I’ve got more reading to do but business people I trust who are socially liberal on issues of feminism, race, abortion, etc., tell me that Obama’s stated positions on business, particularly on labor/management issues, are downright hostile to business.
I also do not have the impression that the the health care plans of either H or O are revenue neutral and I haven’t heard either of them say any social spending program we already have will be curtailed. If the health care programs will have to wait until the war is done, have either of them been frank enough to say that?
I’ll vote for either of them anyway because I can’t stand the social policies of McCain and his fellow travelers.
Where did you get your magic crystal ball that can predict alternate futures? Does it run on electricity?
“It’s my own personal opinion that, in a different world, Obama would do the same thing, therefore it’s alright for Clinton to do it”. Man, that’s one airtight argument.
* * *
Nancy Pelosi: “If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what’s happened in the elections, it would be harmful to the Democratic party.”
NBC News poll: If one of the candidates loses among delegates selected by voters but still wins the nomination by winning among superdelegates would you consider that nominee legitimate, would you consider that nominee not legitimate, or do you have an opinion either way:
Legitimate: 32%
NOT legitimate: 41%
No Opinion 20%
Where does Pelosi get off?!?!?
Here’s a link to the above poll, by the way:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm
I knew I forgot something.
SixtiesLiberal March 27, 2008 at 10:44 am
I prefer the superdelegate system. The pure primary system has produced candidates from the Dems who are pipedreamers and candidates in the Reps who are reactionaries.”
I agree, controlling party machine is requisite skill for a candidate. But the number is too big, 20%+ just doesn’t make sense. They should increase the number of pledge delegates. Re-Balance the ratio.
Primary vs. caucus. For big states. I think Texas has the right idea (tho’ the logistic and complexity has to be reduced). Primary tests a candidate skill to communicate over mass media. Caucus forces a candidate to persuade loyal party voters.
If part of basic campaign idea is to test a candidate over different terrain, then there should more complex set of tests to see how a candidate relate and navigate over various demographic. Combine best elements.
There is also too many television debates. TV has become pure “show” instead of an event to learn candidate position. Use public repository for special Q/A long session instead. That way a candidate doesn’t need to keep repeating TV debate for basic platform material. I think reducing dependency on corporate mass media is crucial for long term party survival.
It just doesn’t make sense paying republican leaning corporate media $100-200m each cycle. Why not use that money to build the party instead?
HRC is attacking Obama b/c he won’t take her offer of VP. (Nor will he offer her VP, but that’s a distant second choice for her anyway.)
She wants to be president. She doesn’t really care about the party or the people; she simply wants the job and the power that comes with it. So here’s the Conventional DC Bubble Wisdom:
If Barack wins, he’ll either go 2 terms or lose to a Republican, who then might go 2 terms. That leaves Hillary out–>no possible run at President until 2016 at least, and if Barack has two terms, the Democratic Party will probably back his VP in 2016 and not her. President Obama is the death knell to President Clinton II.
If McCain wins, he’ll fuck it up royally b/c people don’t want to stay in Iraq. Bush’s policies are failures, and he’s promising to continue them. He’ll be a one-termer, and Hillary will only be ~65 and able to run again in 2012.
2008 is her turn, dammit! Barack’s younger, he should wait for his turn in 2016.
But since he won’t play nice that way, better McCain’s one-and-out and HRC in 2012 than President Obama and no position for Hillary.
If she takes down the Democratic Party while she’s at it, so be it. That just means One Term McCain and a quicker route to Clinton II. If Barack loses, Hillary wins b/c she’ll say that *she* would have beaten McCain and will be the candidate presumptive for 2012.
I remember Bob Dole playing the “it’s my turn, dammit” card and look how well it worked for him.
A financially moderate, pro-capitalist candidate cannot win the Democratic nomination, even though most of the country does not want to continue huge deficit spending.
Huh? Bill Clinton ran on reducing the deficit. Al Gore wanted to create a “lockbox” so Social Security funds couldn’t be spent by the general fund. John Kerry ran on “pay as you go.” Democrats have been financially moderate and pro-capitalist for 15 years now.
The problem isn’t that Democrats aren’t nominating pro-business candidates. The problem is that Republican voters are more afraid of gay marriage than they are of an economic collapse.
That’s actually not her pastor - the original article calls him “the former Clinton” pastor, but they mean the former pastor of a church in Clinton, NY. It’s gotten all over the internet that it’s Hillary Clinton’s pastor. She’s still plenty hypocritical and shameful without that, though.
Man, the internet!
Regarding the “delegate poaching” point that was brought up earlier in the comment trail, it looks like it was all due to a screw-up on the part of the Texas Democratic Party:
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/working_the_delegates_in_texas.php
Update: Pelosi told HRC big donor to stfu.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_letter_a_dozen_top_clinton.php
“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Senators Clinton or Obama — our two strong candidates — before the convention in August. That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of Americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The Speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.
also
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/pelosi_overturning_will_of_vot.php
The poll starts to show that public really don’t like what hillary is pulling.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/poll-obama-mccain-most-likely-to-unite-nation/
Poll: Obama, McCain Most Likely to Unite Nation
When asked if Mr. Obama needs to address the race issue more than he has already, 26 percent of voters say yes, 32 percent said he has addressed the issue sufficiently and 31 percent did not watch Mr. Obama’s speech on race last week.
Despite the recent controversy over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., Mr. Obama is still seen as the presidential candidate most likely to unite the country. Sixty percent of voters say Mr. Obama would be successful at uniting the country if elected president while 58 percent said the same of John McCain and just 46 percent said as president, Hillary Clinton would unite the country.
However, as the campaign has unfolded over the last two months, each candidate has taken a hit on this issue. In January, two-thirds of voters said that Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain would each unite America, and 55 percent said the same of Mrs. Clinton.
Mnemosyne/SixtiesLiberal, what to you defines a pro-business candidate?
Oh, double negative. Sorry I read that wrong.
Keith Boykin really doesn’t need to defend John McCain. Thanks. The mainstream media has got it.
The cold harsh reality of regulation is scaring them. Perhaps they’d prefer the French method of dealing with aristos.
Ann Coulter lives in Bizzaro World if she thinks everything was roses and peaches during Rev. Wright’s life. Brown v. Board of Education changed nothing for years. As late as 1960, my friends in Chicago tried to fight gerrymandered school attendance areas that kept black kids from going to the school across the street from where they lived. The Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 in part to finally put some teeth in Brown v. Board of Ed. I’m not even going to talk about Dr. King’s assassination.
Well, Ann may be “post-racial” but I don’t think any black person can be. No foot was ever on Ann’s neck, or her parents, or her grandparents, keeping them down, treating them as inferior.
Good on Nancy Pelosi for not submitting to the Clinton shakedown/ implied threat (my emphasis):
Sorry, squashed; should have read yours before posting duplication.
I deeply regret ever supporting Hillary’s candidacy. For a long while I was one of those “wow, we have 2 great candidates! This is soooo exciting!!” people. Now, not so much.
Between her cozying up with Richard Mellon Scaife and her Bosnia fish/sniper story and her recent I’ll-take-this-to-the-convention-and-no-one-should-dare-stop-me attitude I am officially SICK OF HILLARY.
The Clintons are currently living up to every negative stereotype spun about them. The most remarkable thing is that I think they must know this and I think they just don’t care. They are completely trashing their own legacy and have no one to blame but themselves.
People need to quietly start chanting “sore loser, sore loser, sore loser” and get her to STFU and step down already.
People need to quietly start chanting “sore loser, sore loser, sore loser” and get her to STFU and step down already.
Just like the Republicans did with Gore in Florida, 2000. How’d that work out for everybody, BTW?
Read this exposé of Hillary Clinton’s dalliance with the religious right. Senator Brownback now thinks she’s “a beautiful child of the living God.”
http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
Oh, if only that were true.
“The Clintons are currently living up to every negative stereotype spun about them. The most remarkable thing is that I think they must know this and I think they just don’t care. They are completely trashing their own legacy and have no one to blame but themselves”
Are they? Or is the media initiating this “take them to the hangman’s noose” march? The Clintons are being crucified in the media for being negative, playing dirty, and painted as Machiavellian politicos. A New Republic editor suggests the impetus for this all out war on B & H is that Democrats are now finally expressing pent-up frustrations over Bill Clinton’s legacy, namely the embarrassment of the Lewinsky scandal at the end of his second term. And Hillary, of course, is not benefiting from this collective wrath.
I agree with those on the blog who remind us that politics is ugly theatre that we all participate in. Both sides of the current democratic tug of war are playing dirty - even the angelic Barack. It’s time for the media and all those “The Clintons are evil, power-hungry politicians who will stoop at nothing” to get real. And to quit with this “Is Hillary hurting the party?,” and “when we she step down?” bullshit (nobody is calling for Barack to do that) and let this play out in all its super delegate poaching dirtiness.
louise March 27, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Sorry, squashed; should have read yours before posting duplication. ”
woot? oh yeah, that …just saw it. I have super human ability not to not see post …
Aw, how cute- not only does she have her mom’s looks, but Chelsea has her mom’s “misspoken” gene… from MSNBC:
Didn’t she have a job or something else to do?
She wants to be first lady, louise. It has a career path associated with it now, and she’ll be 35 before too long.
louise,
This lie of Chelsea’s is of a different character than Hilary’s, it is information she gets from somewhere or someone else, which is faulty. She’s not misrepresenting an experience she had herself. Of course, the more she repeats falsehoods which have been revealed as falsehoods, the worse Chelsea looks.
I hope the press keeps exposing the lies of politicians. I keep hoping the exposures will start to hurt them enough that they will cut back on the lying.
And there’s the thing. Someone prepped her with the incorrect info and she’s been repeating it over and again. And who is doing that? The same folks prepping her mother.
100% agreed that it pales to Hillary’s situation.
*** UPDATE *** She just made the same comments about President Bush’s Middle East travel while speaking at West Chester University.
Ah. I was going to guess she figured the old folks wouldn’t remember if Bush had gone to the middle east or not. Unless she thinks neither college kids nor older people are paying attention.
Redmountain - I’ve heard the “Barack’s campaign is just as bad!” stuff from a lot of Clinton supporters, but I can’t actually think of any analogous situations. Maybe it’s my selective memory or I just haven’t read about it, but I can’t remember Obama doing anything nearly as underhanded as consistently pulling out the racist dogwhistles or making stuff up about her much-touted experience. Could you please enlighten me?
Nota Bene: I’m not saying this in a sarcastic way; I’m sincerely looking for answers. Thanks!