Hillary Clinton: Obama's 'turning point'

[babylonsister]

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2009/06/hillary_clinton_obamas_turning.html

Hillary Clinton: Obama's 'turning point'
The president's erstwhile adversary says he made some history today
Posted June 4, 2009 8:30 PM
The Swamp

by Mark Silva


Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former first lady who once was considered the Democratic Party's most likely candidate for president - and who sharply challenged her rival, Barack Obama, over his contention that the United States can make headway in negotiation with its fiercest adversaries - today praised the president for making "a very significant turning point'' with his appeal to the Muslim world from Cairo.

"He planted seeds, he encouraged people to have to have a conversation and to think hard about their perspectives and points of view,'' Clinton, secretary of state in the Obama administration, said today in an interview airing this evening on FOX News Channel's On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.

"I think he also challenged Americans,'' Clinton said of Obama. "He went right at how we can't have stereotypes for other people, as we don't want to have stereotypes about us... This was a speech that I believe will be viewed historically as a very significant turning point....

"One of the most important points that he made was how if the Palestinians had pursued a different path of non-violence, of following an example of a Gandhi, or a Dr. Martin Luther King, who knows where we'd be right now,'' Clinton said. "That violence is not the answer. It does not change hearts and minds, it hardens them."

Clinton, who traveled through Cairo with the president today, said the team's teamwork is essential to the mission at hand: "This is a very important part of our new diplomacy, our outreach, our policy of engagement and partnership."

"It is really critical that we make clear, as the president did in this magnificent speech he gave, that we want to work with people all over the world, regardless of religion,'' she said. "We have no feeling of hostility or conflict with Muslims everywhere... I thought that it was important that we all be here to send a strong signal that America is doing what the president said we would do in his inaugural address. You know, stretch out his hand and hopefully people will unclench their fists."

Clinton, it could be said, has found religion.

[geiger]

1. I like her comments. She is not campaigning anymore. There is too much at stake. eom.

[babylonsister]

2. I do, too. I'm so glad this relationship happened, and I was a doubter

at first. Their mutual respect is evident.

[Captain Hilts]

4. I think they developed respect for each other in the campaign. They were

the best two candidates the Dems have seen since Bubba. Since Johnson.

Smart, quick, and fighters.

I wish that Gore and Kerry had had half the fight in them that Obama and Clinton had.

[geiger]

7. excellent points.

[karynnj]

13. Kerry was a far better candidate than HRC ever was

If he had the wall of media support and party support she came in with, he would have won in a landslide.

In fact, Kerry was the best surrogate in the 2008 primaries - far outclassing Bill Clinton.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Hey, I'm in polling. I'm not basing my observations on emotions. nt

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blm]

30. I'm into FACTS - Fact: Clinton ran in 92 when Poppy Bush needed to lose and so ran a lousy campaign

Kerry ran in 2004 with Clinton using his high profile booktour to DEFEND Bush.

How did those facts poll?

[karynnj]

33. Big Deal

I worked in statistical analysis for Bell Labs and AT&T for over two decades. I assume my credentials are competitive with yours. I listed many things that were not "my emotions" - you list NOTHING to prove she fought harder. I seriously doubt opinion polling could measure who fought harder.

How do you poll on who fought hardest? How do you correct for what the media did? In today's world the majority of the electorate sees the election through the filter of the media.

The fact is Kerry won his nomination and Hillary lost hers - and you know that Kerry was one of the people who helped make that the case. HRC had enormous advantages and LOST and lost ugly as well.

[ClarkUSA]

69. Show us the "polling" that backs up your claims, then.

[wisteria]

112. You polling does not consider all the extenuating data nor does it consider the mood in the US.

It was almost a given that any Dem candidate was going to pull off a win in 2008. Why do you think Clinton waited it out? There was speculation she was going to run for years before 2008.
Nothing emotional about the facts surrounding Kerry's run. Go revisit some honest history and consider the obstacles that hindered Kerry that were not of his own making,and then you will see how hard he fought and how close he came to unseating a war time president. Hey, many people still believe he won Ohio and he should be our president now.
Please do not sloth off a true patriot and praise those who waited until the fight was easier.

[ClarkUSA]

25. Facts reinforce your impressions, as Kerry actually won the primary AND nearly won the presidency.

And Kerry was definitely the best surrogate for his friend Barack in the 2008 primaries. Bar none.

[JerseygirlCT]

82. Or as some of us maintain, WON the presidency. nt

[wisteria]

113. Yes! n/t

[wisteria]

108. The truth- yes, you are speaking the truth. I think most of us know why Clinton is where she is. n/t

[wisteria]

110. Yes, the difference was she was given overwhelming support from the party

and much of the press, whereas, Kerry was not.

[blm]

10. Bullshit - Kerry had to fight on his OWN with both Clintons siding with Bush and Bill defending

Bush vigorously throughout his summer2004 booktour from the very attacks Kerry and the left were making against his leadership on terrorism and Iraq war.

Clinton didn't HAVE to fight so hard in 1992 - especially since Kerry's uncovering of IranContra and BCCI assured that Bush1 didn't WANT to stay in office and face certain impeachment after Dec 1992 release of Kerry's BCCI report. Better to have Jackson Stephens' boy in Arkansas get in and cover those matters up for them while wearing his donkey mask,

Gore and Kerry had to run against the RW machine at his most powerful. Clinton and Obama ran against it at its weakest.


THREE TIMES in 2003 and 2004 Kerry called for Rumsfeld to lose his job, and Clintons and other wellknown Dems refused to back him up, even after Abu Ghraib, managing their TV time to fight for Bush's positions while staying silent about Kerry's.

[karynnj]

16. Not to mention - Kerry, a genuine war hero defended Bill Clinton when his patriotism was questioned

in the primaries - though I would bet that Senator Kerry might have been rather unimpressed with young Bill Clinton's snarky "some people loath the military" letter sent to the ROTC guy who had kept him out of Vietnam when Clinton no longer needed him. (For the needless nastiness to a man who had gone out of his way for BC, as well as the sentiments)

Here is Kerry arguing against his friend, Bob Kerrey attacking Clinton on Vietnam.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/karynnj/18

Clinton may be a 2 term President, but Kerry is by far the better person.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

101. You have a point there.

[Beacool]

29. I guess that the guy whose first public appearance after his bypass

was to campaign for Kerry was a different Bill Clinton.

No need to trash the Clintons to support Kerry. They DO belong to the same party, you know.......

:eyes:

[blm]

35. End of the campaign boiler plate stuff...nothing close to his VIGOROUS DEFENSE of Bush

in every high profile interview he did earlier. Bill Clinton and Joe Lieberman were two of the best known Dems and had access to microphones and cameras that few other Dems would ever get back then. They used it to vigorously defend Bush - you know it.

And WHy did Bill even GET to be president? Because JOHN KERRY'S years of work uncovering IranContra and BCCI, putting Poppy Bush into the position of HAVING to lose in 1992 to prevent further exposure of his roles in BCCI in what would be CERTAIN HEARINGS and CERTAIN IMPEACHMENT after the release of the Dec 1992 BCCI report. Lucky for Poppy Bush that Jackson Stephens had his boy in Arkansas ready to go, eh?

[Beacool]

36. End of campaign boiler plate stuff?

The man was SICK. Why is that so hard to grasp for some of you?

Bill loves campaigning, for himself and for others. He's in his element on the campaign trail, but the months leading to his quadruple bypass were hard on him. He was not feeling well.

Geez......

:(

[blm]

39. Did it make a difference? Kerry's years of work HELPED Clinton win 92. Bill's years supporting Bush

especially during his highprofile book tour helped who?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

102. Exactly right.

[karynnj]

55. Hey - Read the thread in ORDER

It was a Clinton person, who completely out of context to the thread gratuitously attacked both Kerry and Gore - neither of whom had anything to do with the thread.

Of course, they are from the same party - and IT GOES BOTH WAYS. Kerry helped Clinton in 1992 as one of the Democrats who had credibility having served in Vietnam. Sure, Clinton campaigned for Kerry about 6 weeks after surgery. It also was CLINTON who wanted to do it. This was a reasonable length of time and it was clear he loved the applause that he got. That was after kibbutzing negatively that Kerry was not speaking too much on Iraq and terrorism - when he should have spoken about the economy. This was repeated every show by Begala and Carville. The fact was Kerry should have spoken more on his own credentials on terrorism - including the fact that he was per Richard Clarke one of the few people who had any understanding of non-state terrorism in the 1990s - and he wrote the money laundering legislation passed after 911 then.

[Baby Snooks]

106. No they don't...

The Clintons belong to the Republicrat Party. Which apparently Barack Obama belongs to as well. And the dynasty continues.

[wisteria]

115. That appearance was all about Clinton letting everyone know he was alright,

even after he used up valuable press time at Kerry's expense, while in the hospital. The Clinton's always have to be the center of attention. Actually, since they are all on the same team, wouldn't it be gracious of the both of them to allow others to gain some recognition and respect. I personally resent that our party and the press still focus so much on Bill and Hill. They had their time, but are not gracious enough to relinquish it others.

[quickesst]

62. Clinton fever....

...must be some bad shit.

"Gore and Kerry had to run against the RW machine at his most powerful. Clinton and Obama ran against it at its weakest."

FACT: Gore and Kerry lost to the stupidest man in politics. One rejected a president who left office with a %66 approval rating. The other couldn't stay off the sailboards, out of the sperm suits, and both had the public appeal of a wooden plank. Both would have been good presidents, but neither wanted it enough to fight for it. You can't defend that, and by the time Florida came around in 2000, and Ohio came around in 2004, both should have been so far ahead that stealing the elections wouldn't have been an option for the rethugs.
Clinton fever, the only viable explanation available for seemingly logical people to spin tales of what could have been, and the failure to process events of the past, opting instead to create their own versions. For emphasis, let me repeat the simple fact many choose to ignore.

GORE AND KERRY LOST TO THE STUPIDEST MAN IN POLITICS. Thanks.
quickesst

[karynnj]

65. Bush may have been stupid - but he had significant help from the media

and around half of the country had bonded tightly to him after 911. This was unlike in 1992 or 2008, where the percent of people wanting a change was huge - 80% in 2008. (In 1992, Bush 1 was at 33% approval.)

The fact is that Gore conceded only when the Supreme Court made its decision. You can't appeal the Supreme Court. What was the alternative?

As to 2004, the Republicans used methods that were not illegal to suppress the Democratic vote. RFK's claims include estimates of votes not cast due to inadequate number of voting machines and other devices. There were not enough validly cast votes for Kerry to use to appeal the official results.

The fact is that elections are not all the same. It is not clear Clinton would have won in 2000 had he been allowed a third term. It is also very likely that if Gore or Kerry were the 1992 nominee they would have won - possibly by bigger margins than Clinton did. Bush was at 33%.

[karynnj]

12. Kerry did - otherwise he wouldn't have done anywhere near as well as he did

I can't believe that you are using an article where HRC is praising Obama's historic moment in Cairo, a moment that all Democrats share and one that fulfilled some of the expectations set by Kerry in endorsing Obama, to attack Gore and Kerry. How pathetic. I debated responding, because HRC's comments on Obama are uniting, but I then decided that I will respond because your comment is completely unjustified. I will look back though and will self delete this any time in the nest half hour if you delete your attack.

In 2004, there were not enough people willing to risk change. Gallup in fact, had a poll the weekend before that election which showed 59% of people answered the country was going very or fairly well. The economy was not yet bad for most people. Kerry had rally after rally - in each he put out a vision for a better alternative and spoke with idealism, enthusiasm and optimism. (In fact HRC took enough of his words that the NYT listed several after HRC accused Obama of "xeroxing" Deval Patrick) The problem was that little of that made it through the media filter. Only people at the rallies or watching C-SPAN saw it. He was outstanding in all three debates. The first one so much that even the hostile media couldn't spin it for Bush. If Kerry had the media coverage of his rallies that Bill Clinton had, I am certain he would have won.

In addition, to eliminating the normal positive coverage, the media condoned and facilitated a smear campaign. Never has a candidate faced a media so willing to propagate lies. Kerry's military records were in order and he had ALL of them on his web site. He had medals that the NAVY gave him thirty five years before he ran for President. There was not a Kerry story and a SBVT story, there was an official NAVY story and a SBVT account. The SBVT were NOT asked for proof -and never produced any - of claims that contradicted the official record. They were caught in many lies - enough they should have been completely discredited. In 2008, when Corsi's book came out on Obama, the Obama team put out 41 pages of inaccuracies in it and it sunk the book in all but the RW media. In 2004, Kerry had done exactly the same thing, putting out 36 pages disputing accusations. Both did this within one day. The difference? By 2006, the country started to reject smear politics - as could be seen by the 3 freshman Congressmen who were vets who won in spite of swiftboating.

In addition, Kerry ran a near flawless campaign for the nomination - without any media or party support in late 2003. I can find many articles in the last half of 2003, enthusiastically advocating for Dean or Edwards, and even Gephardt. There were articles calling for Gore or Hillary Clinton to enter. The only one I saw in 2003 on Kerry - and I later googled extensively to find anything - was that Atlantic Monthly excerpted parts of Brinkley's Tour of Duty book. This really wasn't either high profile or a case made to elect him. As to party support - if he would have had it, he would have had money without mortgaging his house. In addition, it was Dean, who had the endorsements of Gore and Harkin - the two biggest endorsements out there other than Clinton, who called Clark the only star other than HRC in the party.

Kerry won Iowa by actual retail politics - and did the same in NH. The real test was then winning in the next set of states - SC, OK, MO, ND, NM, AZ, and DE. This was a set of states that should have been very bad states for a Northeasterner and after NH, Dean announced he was concentrating instead on the next batch because they were more likely. The media had a slew of John Edwards, "sunny" "Clinton without bimbo eruptions" articles - clearly poised for Edwards' victories that they could herald as the momentum changing. Kerry won 5 of the 7 - in spite of Edwards winning only one, CNN wrote it up as a big victory for Kerry and a smaller one for Edwards - giving him equal coverage. The NYT even had an op-ed after WI, saying the Democratic nominee was "John", but it could be Kerry or Edwards - this after Kerry had 16 primaries and Edwards 1.

You can praise HRC all you want, but the fact is that she lost a nomination where she started with most of the party support, name recognition and many in the media who were pulling for her to become President since 1992. It is true that she fought very hard when she saw she was losing - and often not in commendable ways. Where Kerry ran a high road campaign in 2004 with no less energy and intensity than HRC's primary run that he can be proud of, HRC's campaign became ugly an dmean spirited at the end. She is VERY LUCKY Obama has given her the opportunity he did.

[Captain Hilts]

23. Man. You've got an emotional stake in Sen. Kerry - and I too am

a Kerry supporter - that I cannot match for any candidate.

Peace.

[karynnj]

37. Nothing I wrote here is anything other than factual and all can be backed by links

As I regularly see you in the "Isn't HRC gorgeous" threads admiring her pant suits, I suggest you look in the mirror.

I do think it important that Kerry get credit for issues he pursued and actions he has taken.

You started this with your idiotic gratuitous attack on both Kerry and Gore for NO REASON other than to spin the idea that HRC is great.

[Beacool]

34. Luck, my ass!!!!

Obama barely made it through the finish line, and that thanks to the super delegates. His pledged delegate count was razor thin and due mainly to the caucuses, not the primaries. If the Dems had a similar primary process as the Repugs, she would have been the nominee in February. She stayed until the end because she EARNED the right to do so. She won most primaries from March - June, when the media finally started doing their job and vetted the guy.

No one, except Hillary and Obama received respectively as many votes in a primary in the history of this country as they did. Yep, a woman and a bi-racial man.

The left and the media were positively rabid against Hillary, but people kept voting for her despite it all.

You may think that Kerry is the best thing since sliced bread and I have no problem with that since he IS an honorable man. But, there is no need to piss on Hillary just because you don't like her.

Hillary was more than qualified to be president, luck had nothing to do with Obama choosing her as SOS. He actually respects her intellect and discipline.

[karynnj]

38. I don't notice you saying the same thing to the person who started this

I never said HRC wasn't qualified and she KNEW the rules of the primaries. You play the game you're in -

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

103. Rules, like taxes, are only for the little people, don'tcha know?!

[CakeGrrl]

52. I'll save this post for posterity

:-)

...and add a recent comment by the POTUS in this week's article about choosing his SoS. When assured that all was roses with Hillary, his response was "She's not over it yet." He may respect her intellect and discipline, but he went forward with that nomination with eyes open, as he should.

[Metric System]

56. Yes, because he, like apparently everyone else, can read Hillary's mind.

[Beacool]

57. And I'm sure that so did she.

She's been playing this game a lot longer than Obama and knows quite well how it's played.

;-)

[CakeGrrl]

83. Obama is POTUS - 'game' over. n/t

[Nedsdag]

74. Gang, let's stop fighting the 2004 and 2008 races.

It's OVER people! Give it up!

[TheBigotBasher]

95. Beacool

That is nothing but PUMA style revisionist rubbish. HRC had lost after Super Tuesday, the following Primaries completely removed any statistical chance she had. Her campaign led ny Penn, then went headfast into the most extreme nasty race possible. A campaign that if it had not been a Clinton would have got them expelled from the Party.

HRC supporters claim bitterness, but there is a reason Obama supporters do not bring up the Primaries. I shall leave it at that.

[karynnj]

116. nicely said

and here, some are taking that nasty end of the race as a virtue and using it to attack to honorable Democrats, who have worked hard for Democratic ideals for about 4 decades.

[TheBigotBasher]

117. There has been a lot of PUMAesque revisionism

going on off DU about the Primaries and the DNC Rules Committee anniversary.

I responded to each of the points that those revisionists made on my own blog (I even got a visit from one of the Chief PUMA bigots).

Obama won the Primaries, the Popular vote (there was no popular vote contest) and it was clear from Super Tuesday that he had won the nomination. The continuing campaign was more about boosting the pockets of Mark Penn than helping the Democratic Party.

I will always be ashamed of what certain Democrats did to the reputation of Rev. Wright for their own purpose. Sending ABC dozens of tapes in order to find 5 seconds of controversial video was a disgrace. Rev Wright served America, he medically tended a previous President and counselled the Clintons' during their difficulties.

Back on topic, the article and interview of Hillary was good and I am far happier having her "pissing out of the tent and not in". She is a good Democrat. (Some strange votes (flag burning etc),

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

64. I think Obama always respected Hillary.

[Mass]

72. Unwarranted attack on Gore and Kerry. They had the fire. Conditions were different.

This is a fight that should be finished by now and Democrats do themselves no favor attacking each others like that. I do not think the attacks in the other direction are good either, but you started it.

You of course understand that the fight between Obama and Clinton is what brought the fire. Gore was virtually unopposed and Kerry won the primary very easily, so the fight was less intense. Complain on the weakness of the field in 00 and 04, if you want, but do not use that to say that Gore and Kerry were lacking fire.

[JerseygirlCT]

81. I agree - except

I think each of them is better than Bubba.

More willing to put aside personal achievement in the face of necessity and the country. Not that either is without an ego, but I think both are more mature than he is, even now.

[wisteria]

109. Your comment shows you have not actually followed the presidential campaigns

of any of those you mentioned. I am sorry, but you lack of knowledge shows ignorance. However, if you are just stating your uniformed personal opinion- you are certainly able to do that, but as for facts- you have them all wrong.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

111. yes, ditto--excellent points!

geez, you remind me of the shocked feeling I had when Gore and Kerry just gave up, supposedly out of decorum... or something....


I love seeing mutual respect in action, especially among good leaders.

[Beacool]

3. No surprise here.

When Hillary chooses to be in a team she's a loyal team player. If she ever decided that their views were too divergent, she would simply resign.

All this drama and concern was just media generated.

:shrug:

[ronnykmarshall]

9. I always knew this would happen.

Even is the darkest days of that thing last year, I knew those two in one way or another would team up for the best for the nation.

[Beacool]

17. Yep, you said it.

Hi!!

:hi:

[joshcryer]

58. Oh yeah. Convincing people of that here was a lost cause.

:shrug:

[democracy1st]

5. thanks for posting

[Adelante]

6. Very nice job by the SoS

Thanks.

[ronnykmarshall]

8. Countdown ....... 10....9.......8........7

[TheCoxwain]

11. Congrats ... how does the earth look from where you are?

[ronnykmarshall]

15. Um ... it's raining?

[Beacool]

21. It's raining here too.

BTW, notice how the usual gang can't stand a nice thread on any Clinton. They always have to show up to piss on it or give left handed compliments.

:crazy:

[nichomachus]

26. Give it up

Seriously -- this perennial victim thing is getting a little old.

[Beacool]

28. These perennial Clinton attacks are getting even older.

Victim? Never!!!

x(

[karynnj]

66. Look at the root

What started it was a completely gratuitous OFF TOPIC attack on Kerry and Gore. (I offered when I first posted to remove my defense if she removed her attack) She didn't.

Clinton supporters can't expect to attack others and then play innocent.

[ronnykmarshall]

41. Why I wrote the countdown.

I've been away from my PC for an hour and saw that the expected ones have arrived with the same bullshit.

[foo_bar]

45. "They always have to show up to piss on it"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8452374#8452694

[Number23]

48. Nice catch. Not that it's all that hard to trip that one up.

:)

[Beacool]

49. That was his uncle's interview.

:shrug:

[blm]

51. of course....and some of the past support of Bush's policies were done in interviews...

and votes....and behind the scenes influence...and by deepsixing matters that required further scrutiny. But, those posts hit your resentment wall, don't they?

[karynnj]

68. You don't think media that asks the questions and edits the results

had a part in this? This is FOX NEWS pushing an agenda using an elderly man.

[karynnj]

67. Wow - that Fox News pushing an elderly great uncle

to say things in a way he likely did not mean them is pathetic. I saw his greatuncle, who was honored at the 2008 convention by sitting with Michelle Obama and being pointed out and applauded in John Kerry's wonderful speech. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05udZa68P4U ) I read some interviews given then and he was intensely proud of his great nephew.

[Flying Dream Blues]

84. I figured there was a "story" behind the Faux News report that someone was so anxious to share. nt

Edited to remove a name.

[Flying Dream Blues]

76. Yes, the usual suspects and all that. So tiresome! nt

[babylonsister]

18. Nah, I think most people appreciate

what SoS Clinton is doing now. Bygones.

[ronnykmarshall]

42. I agree.

But there are two maybe three that still show up everytime anything positive is posted about SOS Hill.

[blm]

43. That's true, and, it is HRC who had a turning point here with this statement and with the job Obama

has given her. TRULY supporting progressive foreign policy positions has not been a strong suit of hers in a very long time. I am thankful for the many of us who have been holding her feet to the fire and calling out the proBush positions of the Clintons for so long. I also applaud her turnabout.

[blm]

14. Glad she had her own turning point - using her position FOR the right foreign policy instead of

continuing the agenda pursued by Poppy Bush and his cronies for the last 4 decades.

Finally. I hope she sticks to listening to her better angels.

[PBS Poll-435]

19. Those are very clear and very strong words

I really like the team that we have in place.

[karynnj]

20. The title on this seems slightly off

This is not an "obama turning point", as this is very consistent with the direction and the words that Obama has always had. I assume Hillary, in her excellent remarks, is speaking of this as a turning point for American policy or a turning point for the world.

I know this is a nit, but it is significant because this is what Obama ran on and what other Democrats before him spoke of.

[AtomicKitten]

27. Excellent point. It is exactly what he ran on, a theme he's punctuated for a long time. n/t

[blm]

44. I applaud HRC finally seeing that progressive foreign policy works and a leader doesn't HAVE to bow

to Poppy Bush and his cronies on the global field just for the privilege of playing.

[AtomicKitten]

47. I agree and am hugely relieved that Pres. Obama has set a new course. n/t

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

105. It's never too late to learn my mom always said.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

104. Seems like it's more of a turning point for Hillary. If so, that's commendable.

[PBS Poll-435]

31. Why does a positive article about a very positive event become a flypaper thread?

:shrug:

[Beacool]

46. Because it's about Hillary.

If it had been about any Democrat other than a Clinton, there would have been paeans to their wisdom, probity, etc.

Same old sh**, different day.

:eyes:

Forgot to add that I directed that at the usual crowd, not at everybody who responded.

[RollWithIt]

53. Some people will never let it go, even though the whole Obama-HRC thing was GOOD for Obama

People forget that Obama got top page headlines for an extra THREE MONTHS after McCain wrapped up the Republican nomination. Heck, I still like the theory that the Obama and HRC people worked TOGETHER during the last month because they'd already come to an agreement on Hillary as Secretary of State.

[karynnj]

71. Although a longer campaign may have helped him build skills in responding

The negative attacks hurt his hurt - look at the USA today/Gallup and NBC polling. His favorables fell from mid March to mid June - while his unfavorables rose. ( http://pollingreport.com/obama_fav.htm ) This likely was because of the 3 am attack and others. They did rebound once HRC finally backed out and the numbers were always very good.

[PBS Poll-435]

89. And because of the extended primary season, Obama was READY to deal with the expected attacks

From the conservatives. He was already vetted and ready to go after June.

[karynnj]

70. Examine the root of the comments you dislike

When a single HRC supporter admits that this comment (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8452681&mesg_id=8452712 ) was OT and divisive, I will take your comments seriously. There would likely have been no negative comments on an essentially non-controversial HRC statement that contained many admirable words of praise. (My only comment would have been the one I made on calling it a "turning point" for Obama - which I pointed out was neither true nor what HRC said.)

A turning point for a person is when he/she changes opinions/strategies/goals. This speech was consistent with everything Obama said in 2007 or 2008. Now, it could be a turning point for Muslims perceptions of the US. Though Obama's less covered speech in Turkey may have been a first step. A few months ago, an Iman originally from Turkey spoke at an interfaith event at a synagogue. He spoke of hearing from people he knew from Turkey changing their opinion on the US in ways he never thought would happen in his life time.

The change also looks more severe because of how far our policy moved after January 2000. But this is the strongest outreach to the MiddleEast Muslim nations that I have seen since Jimmy Carter.

[PBS Poll-435]

88. That is divisive? OT?

Ok............


I happen to agree with the comment that you linked to. Why were they the two best candidates? Not people, not Senators, not political heroes, candidates.




They, together, got more primary votes than any Democrat in history. And then a Democrat won the election and added to our margins in the House and Senate.

[karynnj]

114. That you don't see it as divisive says everything

The fact is that Kerry and Gore both got a significantly higher percent of the vote even if you look just to the point they won the nomination. That just indicates that they were FAR more popular than any other candidate running in the years they ran. That the votes were lower simply means there was little contest - very few people vote in June primaries (I know NJ until last year was in June) when the nomination was decided in April. To suggest their commanding primaries wins were less than HRC's loss is very strange.

As to the general election, elections are not like duplicate bridge - you don't play the same hands. There are models that take in things like the economy and other conditions and predict which party will win. Those models pretty much predicted the Democrats would win in a landslide in 2008. Obama did win and did so in a very classy way that has made it easier to heal a deeply divided country. The same models showed that Bush was likely to win by the margin Obama did - when in fact, Kerry came VERY close to winning - and he did so with everything stacked against him, including variables not in the model - such as a biased media. Kerry exceeded the expectations - but, not enough to win. (That all it would have taken was a fair election in Ohio shows had things been fair, he would have won an incredible upset victory.)

Saying that Clinton, who took all her advantages and lost to Obama while showing a very ugly side, was a better candidate does not convince me. As to the House and Senate wins, Kerry's actions in 2005 and 2006 were among the most helpful for those wins. (You might want to look at the fact that HRC switched her Iraq plan in 2007 to be a variation of K/F which she trashed in 2006 - even to parroting language Kerry used on pushing Iraqis to make the hard decisions they needed to make.)

The fact though is that as I said that comment led to me and other Kerry supporters disagreeing with what was said. The fact is that it was a gratuitous insult to two very honorable men - who have both fought very hard for things they have believed in over their entire adult lives. They did fight every bit as hard as HRC did. (In fact, what bothered me in the very late primaries was people equating throwing mud to fighting hard. What I saw, with Gore and Kerry, was each working as hard as they could to sell a vision. I watched 2004 and 2008 very closely - and if you looked at Kerry's schedule he was working 16 hour days. If anything, he was out more per day than HRC was.)

To say that Kerry and Gore didn't fight as hard to win a general election as Clinton did to win the nomination is a pretty offensive attack on them - especially Kerry, because of the damage Bush had already done. The fact is he worked his heart out - as did his family and they did it even as the media allowed a character assassination of both Teresa and John Kerry.

[PBS Poll-435]

118. LOL

Seriously, I really appreciate the fact that you wrote so much to me. And I can see the passion.


Kerry is a statesman. I always knew that. I really admire how he ran the campaign, but he didn't FIGHT like he should have. He was a veteran, a statesman, and a decent person. But he let the RW define him as a loon pacifist that wouldn't protect America.



As far as Gore, he was not a good candidate until many years later. He found his voice, his sense of humor, his passion. The 2009 Al Gore would have beat Dubya in a walk.

[scheming daemons]

32. Great words from Hillary

...

[Cha]

40. Excellent observation,

SOS, Hillary!

[DutchLiberal]

50. Gee, Hillary, what if Israel had pursued a different path?

You know, what if Israel hadn't built all those illegal settlements for their colonists on Palestinian land? What if Israel hadn't built a Berlin Wall version 2.0 on Palestinian land? What if Israel hadn't made the lives of the Palestinians miserable on a day to day basis? What if Israel hadn't violated 69 UN resolutions? And what if the United States hadn't backed it all the way through? Who knows where we'd be right now?

[RollWithIt]

54. Ok, she said violence..... that means suicide bombing, rockets into windows, etc

This does go both ways of course but I think blowing up someone on a bus is a little worse then building a settlement on an empty hill?

[DutchLiberal]

96. Eh, you think colonization, stealing land and resources is nothing?

It is the *reason* why some people think it's a good idea to blow up buses.

[Kaleko]

59. Exactly.

[Skidmore]

60. Happy to see that Hillary recognizes

the importance of the spoken word.

[Skidmore]

61. Happy to see that Hillary recognizes

the importance of the spoken word.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

63. Congrats to Hillary for coming around to Obama's way of thinking . . .

It takes a big person to admit they were wrong about someone. Again I congratulate her.

[Beacool]

73. Where in the interview does she say she was wrong?

She never objected to have a dialogue with our enemies. Her point was that a president doesn't directly meet with an "enemy" (specifically Iran) without preconditions and other people having paved the ground first because we don't want the US president to be used as a pawn to propagate an enemy's agenda. She was not wrong then nor now. Obama hasn't meant with Ahmenidajad, has he?

;)

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

86. "Obama hasn't meant (sic) with Ahmenidajad, has he?" No, but he's willing to, which is the point...

... of the Obama Doctrine: being willing to meet one's enemies without preconditions. And if Ahmidinejad loses the elections, then I expect President Obama will be willing to meet with his replacement without preconditions, too. Of course Hillary hasn't apologized nor do I expect she ever will, but since she now supports what she used to dismiss, it clearly indicates she's "coming around to Obama's way of thinking."

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

94. You got it exactly right-no need 4 Hillary 2 apologize as long as she's on message w/ Obama.

I have to say I'm a little surprised, but impressed.

[ClarkUSA]

97. It was expected that as SoS she would be a reliable mouthpiece/cheerleader for the Obama Doctrine.

I always said she would, because after all, it's good politics for her to fill that donut hole in her resume in time for 2016. President Obama's special envoys and senators like Kerry do the heavy lifting behind the scenes without much fanfare: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8447790&mesg_id=8447882.

It's obvious that her job is not to make policy, it's to sell President Obama's foreign policy vision. That's what he mainly hired her for, although she does go off-message at times (see above link for details.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

100. I honestly didn't expect it on this critical issue & still worry about Hillary going her own way but

in this case she acted admirably and I commend her for it. If she keeps this up, and continues learning from Obama, I agree Hillary will establish herself as the front runner in 2016.

[AtomicKitten]

120. I agree.

Now somebody needs to hand the clue phone to some of her bitter supporters still holed up in the hills fighting the primary war.

[Skip Intro]

91. You are exactly right. She didn't hold the view the author attibutes to her. Some here have

selective memories and/or are playing dumb.

The whole bruhaha around the issue centered on Obama's quick agreement to meet any of our adversaries without precondition. Without precondition is the key phrase. Hillary said she would not meet them without precondition.

Less than 48hrs after that debate, Obama had changed his view to mirror that of Hillary's.

I don't want to start the primary wars over, but damn, the truth is the truth...

[Beacool]

92. Thank you!!!

Hillary has not changed her views. It was she who kept using the expression "sticks and carrots", recently I heard Obama use it too. Their foreign policy views are similar. If they weren't, she wouldn't have taken the job.

:-)

[Beacool]

93. Oops, meant to say "met".

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

85. Whose "turning point" is it really? Sounds like Hillary is gung-ho for The Obama Doctrine now.

Who woulda thunk it? :rofl:

[BlooInBloo]

78. Um, *who's* "turning point"?

:rofl:

[PresidentObama]

79. Great article, great words by Clinton. Don't know why some choose this thread to bash her.

Primaries are over. Election is over.

We won.

I'm so proud of President Obama and Secretary Clinton!

[JerseygirlCT]

80. I think both Clinton and Obama

have risen to the occasion in a way that is heartening, if amazing, to see. (Amazing just because they've both been asked to rise higher than most people ever are...)

[Cha]

87. Good point and one that

doesn't go unnoticed by me.

[Skip Intro]

90. Great quotes from a great woman in a misleading article. The author is full of shit.

Hillary never "sharply challenged her rival, Barack Obama, over his contention that the United States can make headway in negotiation with its fiercest adversaries." Yes, she criticized Obama for his answer to a debate question on the same subject matter, but campaigned herself on diplomacy over force. The author sets up an untrue and revisionist frame, and then uses quotes from Sec. Clinton to try to "prove" his false premise.

Maybe Mr. Silva should find a journalism class.

[elleng]

98. 'Clinton, it could be said, has found religion.'

Interesting that a commenter 'complained' that HE had spoken of/concentrated on RELIGIONs in his speech, instead of 'worldly' things.

[ErinBerin84]

99. It was

nice to see Obama and Clinton abroad together, considering where we were a year ago.


Greta is creepy.

[wisteria]

107. Honestly, why ask the person who lost what kind of a job the winner is doing?

Obviously, he continues to do better than she did.

[PBS Poll-435]

119. They are on the same team

Where are you?