Hillary Clinton uncovered: The smoking gun memo
Atlantic.com has an extraordinary property - a large number of original memos from Hillary Clinton's Presidential campaign, which they have put online to accompany Joshua Green's assessment of her campaign's failings.
I didn't entirely agree with Green's thesis.
He argues that the memos show the candidate is entirely unable to make up her mind. Should she or should she not attack Obama? Should she or should she not pitch to the "invisible America" identified by her chief strategist Mark Penn?
My translation is that she was remarkably focused. She followed Penn's strategy, which wasn't altogether a bad one, but still lost. She lost because she wasn't likeable and because she faced an extraordinary opponent. If she hadn't had the monumental bad luck to face Obama, she would have won the nomination and Penn and the gang would have been labelled geniuses.
What about all the disputes? They are standard campaign debates. They only look bad if you lose. To make his case Green would have to present us with the equivalent Obama memos and show that they didn't have similar disagreements.
That having been said, Green deserves congratulations for a fabulous piece of journalism.
There are quite a few striking memos that he has uncovered (The full archive is here). Penn's claim in December 2006 that Hillary must be "more Thatcher than anything else" is one that caught my eye.
And then there is the smoking gun - a memo that shows it was an explicit (and in my view pretty disgraceful) part of Hillary's strategy to target the idea that Obama is, well, basically a foreigner.
Here are the words from Penn's March 19th 2007 memo:
All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared towards showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting that in a new light.
Save it for 2050.
It also exposes a very strong weakness for him—his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited.
I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values. He told the people of NH yesterday he has a Kansas accent because his mother was from there. His mother lived in many states as far as we can tell—but this is an example of the nonsense he uses to cover this up.
How we could give some life to this contrast without turning negative:
Every speech should contain the line you were born in the middle of America to the middle class in the middle of the last century. And talk about the basic bargain as about the deeply American values you grew up with, learned as a child and that drive you today. Values of fairness, compassion, responsibility, giving back.
Let’s explicitly own ‘American’ in our programs, the speeches and the values. He doesn’t. Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy Fund. Let’s use our logo to make some flags we can give out. Let’s add flag symbols to the backgrounds.
Blimey.
As I see it, that memo shows nothing unusual at all. It's a strategy memo, and politicians get down to the nitty gritty when they plan their strategy. The possible effort to make Obama seem less than American is no more low rent to me than Obama surrogates from both inside and outside his campaign turning Hill's "MLK/Johnson civil rights" comment and Bill's "Obama's war stance a fantasy" in NH as racist when clearly neither comment was the least bit racist. That's actually what started the entire "race" issue debacle, though too many conveniently forget that and point to Bill's comment in SC about Jesse as the beginning of it.
So, I'm not real disturbed by any of their strategies as outlined in this memo. I tired a long time ago of the media's tendency to paint Hillary as mean and spiteful and to paint Obama as so above it all. He wasn't, and he isn't. He will likely get my vote, but I won't ever pretend that his campaign was sweet and clean while hers was evil and dirty, as too many of his supporters love to do.
Posted by: Linda P. | 12 Aug 2008 17:47:24
The real problem is that Clinton was never able to relate to the American nation that she wanted so much to "own". Bill had the ability to reach out and really touch people, but Hillary never gained the respect she thinks she deserves. I think it is a shame that at this point in time she can only blame others for her demise, such at Edwards. Get real! There is no posibility that 2/3 of his supporters would have converted to her side. I was one of those loyal supporters but I cannot see voting for Hillary or Obama. Sorry Edwards, You had my vote this year and the past election until you teamed up with the wrong cast. Maybe in 2012.
Posted by: Gene from Chattanooga | 12 Aug 2008 19:07:40
Funnily enough, I am actually quite relaxed about Hilary's brand of "Obama is foreign" argument as its based in reality and Obama's history. Its weakness is that it skates close to the "Obama is foreign" argument that masquerades for "Obama is black" or "Obama is Muslim" and ergo unamerican or part of the america we don't like or speak about. Also, the use of this argument corrals believers of all of the above into the same tent - and that in itself is problematic. Being British these types of argument always look petty as pretty much everyone around us comes from somewhere else, but in an America where huge swarths of the country have never travelled outside of it - its a legitimate campaign device.
Posted by: Corrupted Mind | 12 Aug 2008 22:52:22
What has Barak Obama accomplished, managed, created, lead or experienced that has prepared him to be the President of the United States? We do not need someone who needs OJT leading this nation. Go back to the Senate, Obama, learn that job first. Gain some real experience and then come back to us when you have grown up.
Posted by: JimmiP | 13 Aug 2008 06:53:05
While it is always nice to have things documented, I do think we knew most of this about Hillary.
She had a gigantic advantage over Obama in the Democratic primary: priceless name-recognition, an ex-president hubby, and a hubby known as a great fund-raiser.
She blew it to a man who most people had never heard of. That has still not sunk in for the remarkable event that it was.
She made a lot of noise about generalship but in fact before our eyes followed bad strategies and tactics and demonstrated relatively weak leadership.
As for Obama, despite his charm and intelligence, had Hillary demonstrated the required skills, he could not have won.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | 13 Aug 2008 14:22:20
Hillary tried and she lost. Get over it. More people voted for Obama then her or Edwards because they beleave/hope he can be the change this country needs to get heading back in the right deriction. Also please show me one prior president that really had " the right expierence" to be president. Fact is nothing can prepare you for that challange. The people vote for the person they feel will do the most to help them or stands the best chance for making the changes we need. If we voted based on " experience" how would a govenar of texas ever been elected?
Posted by: Benjamin | 13 Aug 2008 15:19:20
"..Go back to the Senate, Obama, learn that job first. Gain some real experience and then come back to us when you have grown up.JimmiP | 13 Aug 2008"
Rather poor judgement Jimmi. America do not need experience or intelligence but lots of money and anyone can become president. GWB, Ronald Reagon. Certainly Obama would be a better choice!!
Posted by: Balwant Munglani | 13 Aug 2008 16:15:39
He pulled together a team that realistically analyzed and engaged the playing field.
She didn't and her attempts to re-interpret the rules is the kind of administration I've grown very tired of these past seven years.
Posted by: Observer | 13 Aug 2008 17:43:54
There is truth, and the appearance of truth. Neither Democratic candidate seemed too interested in the former virtue. Theirs was a race of competing facades.
And in that kind of race, there really are no rules of any substance. He who faults Penn for an ad hominem attack against Obama doesn't realize there has to be a man to attack.
Posted by: Mike | 13 Aug 2008 18:36:18
The memo is just about people who is trying to figure out their stance for attack. which is ok. Obama is as American as they come, he is the emerging new identity of Americanism, a symbol to which everybody in the world can connect. Please vote for Obama, visit WHYOBAMA08.ORG!
Posted by: Aiken Blue | 13 Aug 2008 18:37:35
I think you make a mistake, or you don't understand the nature of the memo. It's not Hillary Clinton that suggests to portrai Obama as a kind of foreigner; it's her adviser penn who does.
Maybe Clinton flatly rejected that idea; there's no sign in the memo's that she accepted that advice and carried it out.
Maybe Hillary didn't want to 'personaliz' Ovama as (a kind of) foreigner; maybe she called that unworthy.
It's not a smoking gun for Hillary; maybe for Penn. Who says Hillary listned tot thàt advise ?
Posted by: iede | 13 Aug 2008 19:33:58
Greetings: This WWII Vetern wants to kow: Where was our CIA to warn us of the Soviet invasion of Georgia?? They have spy satellites to watch the world, and warn of
unusual massing of troops and equipment to prepare for invasion of
another country, in addition to the usual spies. Were they asleep, or practising for the Olympics?? Some one should be held accountable for allowing our country to be caught unawares. When they say we need boots on the ground somewhere, I hope they aren't planning on my feet in those boots. Sayonara intelligence.
Posted by: Kenneth B. Smith, P.E. | 13 Aug 2008 21:58:43
The US could be mortally wounded if they elect a left-wing President, which is the truth re Obama, with a left-wing Congress/Senate.
America do need McCain who has competence, intelligence and maturity, as does Clinton. They do not need a left-wing spin machine who aligns himself with rappers and black racist groups. All that glistens is not gold.
Posted by: George Sittingburns | 14 Aug 2008 01:06:54
Disgraceful? You've got to be kidding!
Look, I am in no way a Hillary supporter (nor am I a McCain supporter for the record) but I see absolutely nothing wrong with this memo.
This race is for the President of the United States, not president of the world. I want somebody who is drenched in American culture and values. I want someone who identifies with American citizens, not the Citizens of the World. And if those values put America "out of step with the rest of the world" please remember - America has been out of step with the rest of the world since 1776. That's what made this country great.
Posted by: Buster | 14 Aug 2008 02:08:32
In my opinion, Hillary underestimated how shrewd and ruthless Obama is in his campaigns. Her opposition research must have shown this, and Hillary should have listened to Bill and Mark Penn who wanted her to go negative early. The Republicans who watched her be defeated by Obama now know exactly what to do...and they're going negative...early.
Posted by: Suzanne | 14 Aug 2008 04:39:51
Penn's decision to paint Obama as a non-American ignores proven historical impulses--nations often go with an outsider in times of crisis. Napoleon was from Corsica; not France; Hitler was from Austria, not Germany; Stalin was from Georgia, not Russia; and Alexander was from Macedonia, not Greece.
Obama may not be a conqueror, but the United States is in crisis, and he brings the vigor of the hybrid, the wisdom of someone who has studied America with new eyes.
Posted by: MarcLord | 14 Aug 2008 04:50:19
Wake up and try being responsible, Daniel. It's been made abundantly clear that H. Clinton did not--did not--pursue the suggested strategy of targeting Obama as a foreigner.
However, you write, "...it was an explicit (and in my view pretty disgraceful) part of Hillary's strategy to target the idea that Obama is, well, basically a foreigner."
I'm far from a raging fan of H. Clinton, but it's disappointing to see that you're comprehensively wrong on a point of considerable significance.
Posted by: rob hough | 14 Aug 2008 06:44:22
Rather poor annalogy Balwant. GWB and Reagan (sic) were both elected Governors of two of the most populous states in the Union (Texas and California respectively)prior to becoming U.S. Presidents. Obama, btw, was an unelected local community organizer who, self-admittedly, was not even very good at doing so. Jimmi is indeed correct in his judgement.
Posted by: MacC | 14 Aug 2008 07:01:12
NOW Americans want "experience" in office, eight years after electing the experienced baseball owner and Texas oil man.
And, presumably, W's "experience" in office made him a better choice than John Kerry in 04. ...And not the negative dirty-trick/name calling that Republicans have shamelessly used to win so many elections. (Which is why the Hillary memos are a story: "Democrats do it too?! I'm shocked. Shocked." )
Maybe it stops here. Or at least appears to.
Obama, on occasion, defended Hillary against bad press, and seemed to take the high road. Maybe Obama's experience with compassion, hope, and (I believe) getting things done in U.S. neighborhoods can win the day this time.
This is what makes Obama different and exciting -- for progressives, at least. He is smart and doesn't seem to want to play dirty.
Whether Obama gets buried by this "foreigner" muck is a question. Or, on the other hand, whether the badly battered Democrats can actually rise above this silly game, pull together, and elect their candidate without distractions like parentage and "dress code" issues.
This is part of the "change" I, for one, am hoping to see.
Posted by: Tom Ash | 14 Aug 2008 08:18:39
America is close to a financial titanic desperately printing money to keep the good ship America afloat. McCain, a Bush follower in many respects, will put it beyond the tipping point. A frightening prospect for America and the Western world in general.Obama whether US voters like him or not is the best real hope they have left.
Posted by: Brian Gazeley | 14 Aug 2008 10:02:41
Thank goodness Hillary survived the sniper fire! She should have a combat medal, she is SO brave!
In other news, Obama brings NOTHING new to the table...take a look at his voting record. Where's the change? If Obama were white, none of you would have ever heard of him. You don't like hearing it, but you know it's true. Yet you fawn over him as though he is some sort of an 'answer'.
Yes, he represents change alright...look how he tracks to the center in response to polls, as McCain tracks further to the right. If this went on much longer, they'd be arguing over which of them would serve as the other's veep. What a joke; are these two the best this nation can come up with? Nearly all of the candidates were jokes this time around, it seems to get worse with each passing year.
Posted by: Col. Kurtz | 14 Aug 2008 12:08:21
I'm afraid that both Clintons are fundamentally flawed and dishonest. If that's what the USA electorate want then that's their choice.
What Bill Clinton does in his private life is up to him, but when he lied to cover up the Monica business, he was quite content to watch another man go to jail for telling the truth. That's the part that I and I would imagine many others, will never forgive.
Posted by: Citylocal Fife | 14 Aug 2008 12:19:55
Her biggest handicap was and is her husband. Which is the reason she will never be the VP nominee. Imagine having Bill as "mother-in-law" second guessing every decision.
Posted by: Andrew Milner | 14 Aug 2008 15:09:58
"What has Barak Obama accomplished, managed, created, lead or experienced that has prepared him to be the President of the United States? We do not need someone who needs OJT leading this nation. Go back to the Senate, Obama, learn that job first. Gain some real experience and then come back to us when you have grown up.
Posted by: JimmiP | 13 Aug 2008 06:53:05
"
Hahahaha, that made me laugh to much - just as if G.W. Bush had ANY actual real experience... if he had, he surely lost it the moment he became "Pressitdent of the Americas Nations" - what a hero. not.
Posted by: Proud-not-to-be-Republican | 14 Aug 2008 15:19:47
Such a huge amount of vitriol for Obama. The funniest thing about all the Hillarites claiming they will vote McCain into office so that Hillary can face him in 2012 is this: She is the most polarizing political figure in American politics. She gets no cross-over Republican vote, like Obama does. She would bring die-hard Republicans to the polls to vote against her, whereas Obama vs. McCain is causing many of them to sit out the 2008 election. Their plan is incredibly obtuse and would lead to Democrats being whipped, just like they were in the 80's. However, all this conjecture utilizes one thing that Hillarites just don't possess: rationale thought. They are crazed zombie robots bent on their own delusional perspective. I'm a cross-over Republican and would NEVER vote for a Clinton. Her supporters just don't get it. The insane usually have a tough time with reality.
Posted by: Chuckles | 14 Aug 2008 16:07:26
Where do the Dems and Media find these candidates? Both Hill and Obama make W look like a genius. Incredible. Year after year the Dems keep coming up with candidates so far left of center they couldnt get elected in Europe. Again as in the defeat of morons like Algore,Lurch,Duckakis, most sensible Americans will be forced to vote against a candidate, the socialist anti american candidate and vote for the Republican.When will these people learn? England and Europe are running as fast as they can from socialism and the Dems and US Media are running towards it.
Posted by: jack | 14 Aug 2008 16:27:38
Is anyone else worried about Hillary's phrasing? "Make this a new American Century, the American Strategic Energy Fund." Sounds familiar...almost as if she's working on a PROJECT for a "New American Century." If you don't know what I'm referencing, Google away. You'll have to find an archived version though, as CheneyCo have pulled the original site down.
Posted by: Tired of Two-Party | 14 Aug 2008 17:03:21
All this "TALK" is cheap!
Let's see if y'all really show off your AMERICAN Values by voting in November.
My money's on Obama!
Posted by: Uncle Benny | 14 Aug 2008 20:01:47
Hillary was used- to draw fire.It was decided during the bungled aftermath of the 2005 hurricane by powerbrokers that an African American candiate would carry the Democratic standard into the 2008 general election.What a cynical device by her adoptive Democrats.Sen.Clinton also faced manipulation of the "open" primary races by her former party, now rivals,the Republicans.
Posted by: JP in Texas,U.S.A | 14 Aug 2008 20:44:35
"more Thatcher than anything else"?
In her dreams!
Posted by: Proud to be Repulican | 14 Aug 2008 22:49:53
Hillary lost big support with her arrogant claim "it's inevitable". Her sincerity was synthetic and people sensed it. The Kosovo gaffe was proof that she is an accomplished liar. Surprisingly voters still have standards although the bar is not always very high. Hillary wasn't as good at limbo as Obama.
Posted by: John Taylor | 14 Aug 2008 23:00:28
Hussane is the only American with a Tennessee title for a birth certificate. I could not have entered the first grade with this title, and I live in Tennessee.
From the commet Hillary made a few weeks ago she may have the birth certificate from Barry in Indonesia. Do not put it past the Clintons to show the U.S. his real certificate.
Posted by: George Grimes | 14 Aug 2008 23:10:30
Come on you yanks vote already!
Posted by: Dylan Powell | 14 Aug 2008 23:22:50
In my experience, the Clintons have expended the past good will amongst their "so called supporters" a good deal of them voted for Obama in order to deny the Clintons another term of office. I experienced listening to a telephone converstion when she was first running for the Senate between a prominent Democrat donor and Hillary, she had rung him and his secretary transferred the call [the call was on speakerphone in order to impress me of his connections] in response to a polite "Good morning Hillary" she opened with "Where is my fucking cheque?". Obama has been made to look good by the anti Clinton Democrats and the Republican voters in the crossover states. America is still not ready to elect a black President and Hillary would have been a stronger Democrat candidate.
Posted by: Grant | 15 Aug 2008 01:02:21
I am amazed that she received one vote after the huge Bosnia lie. I guess Americans do not consider honesty as a virtue anymore.
Posted by: NormalNorm | 15 Aug 2008 01:51:28
It's true, had she won her advisers would be hailed as geniuses. She lost by a slim margin, and to be honest she exceeded my (and everyone else's) expectations at first for the seeming discipline of her campaign. She did win every single debate, remember. Obama was a challenge she couldn't have predicted, and his team was talented and had an apparently better grasp on the arcane primary system. They spent way too much money in Iowa (a horrific managing mistake that was too big of a gamble) and that basically paralyzed them for the rest of the primary. Media obsessions, predictable though they were, certainly were no help. The bottom line is, neither ran a terrible campaign. For Democrats they were astoundingly on-message and modern. He just won, by a very slim margin. In an age not so obsessed with image--perhaps if she were a man--she should be considered the heir apparent to the vice presidency.
Posted by: Tony | 15 Aug 2008 02:15:32
I see most of you are still locked in the mindset of the fallacious two-party system.
NOTHING matters until we destroy the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, and restore money to hands of the people, not the Jewish Supremacist bankers.
Repeat NOTHING...Jewish supremacists control McCain, Obama and Clinton. We have NO government for, of, or by the people until this tyranny is removed!
Google "money masters" for a video which will explain everything to you regarding just how your Liberty was stolen from you!
Posted by: Bob | 15 Aug 2008 02:35:00
Hillary was used to having the media on her side, this time it went overboard for the lightweight Obama.
=================
"..GWB, Ronald Reagan." Certainly Obama would be a better choice!!
Posted by: Balwant Munglani
All of whom were successful and popular state governors, Obama has about three months in the senate to his name where he never even called a meeting of the subcommittee he chairs. He is the most unqualified presidential candidate of modern times.
Posted by: Stan | 15 Aug 2008 04:07:37
I would like my president to be concerned about what think. The rest of you can get stuffed.
Posted by: Dave in Sacramento | 15 Aug 2008 08:09:03
If any of you honestly think Barack Hussein Obama would be a good choice for President of these United States, you are complete and utter morons.
He is transparently a Marxist/socialist, and has Anti-American tendencies and beliefs which should be obvious to anyone with a sixth grade education.
A vote for Obama is a vote for the eventual downfall of the U.S. and the Constitution.
Posted by: Joe | 15 Aug 2008 08:34:48
Sorry, doesn't look like any smoke or gun to me.
They were engaged in a battle, so obviously each side looks for the other's weaknesses to exploit. This is exactly what happens in business; you look for weaknesses in your opponents case and get to work on them.
The section you quote from Penn's email is neither extreme or sensational. There's no 'Blimey' about it at all.
Posted by: Arundel | 15 Aug 2008 09:11:57
Barack Obama did not attend an American public school for even one day in his life. After Indonesia, he was eased through private schools, where students don't have to really earn their grades. That alone sets him apart from the mainstream of this country, and gives him the elitist attitude.
Clinton should have talked up the issue of educational reform, and then watched Obama stand there with his mouth open, because he has no such experience.
Posted by: Ken | 15 Aug 2008 09:45:13
Dave in Sacramento
Wouldn't you like a president who is concerned with raising literacy standards? Then you might be able to get the help you need to write a coherent sentence.
Posted by: Esther | 15 Aug 2008 12:01:12
"He is transparently a Marxist/socialist, and has Anti-American tendencies and beliefs which should be obvious to anyone with a sixth grade education"
I'm sure that's exactly what someone with a sixth grade education thinks.....but those of us who continued in full-time education after the sixth grade might beg to differ.
Posted by: Shirley | 15 Aug 2008 12:29:37
Isn't this rather interesting how this election process has been playing out? A year ago, Hillary was touted as the presumptive nominee for the party and an automatic shoo-in. Because of all of trumpets and pomp and circumstance, she lost to a junior candidate.
Now, we've got
Obama who is touted as the presumptive winner of the general election and an automatic shoo-in.... isn't this deja vu?
Derrrrrr......
Posted by: historical reader | 15 Aug 2008 12:45:38
She hasn't lost yet.
Posted by: BlueMax372 | 15 Aug 2008 12:56:03
Ken
I don't know what school you went to but I'd be interested to hear how you came to the conclusion that students in private schools don't really have to earn their grades. By that logic parents are paying for their children to have a worse education than the one they would receive in a public school. In the private school I went to (in the UK) we worked our asses off and sat the standard government examinations. Are you an an old school member of the British Labour party masquerading as a Democrat?
Posted by: Faisal | 15 Aug 2008 14:06:05
Who cares? They're a couple of pinheads that don't belong anywhere near the White House.
Posted by: Robert | 15 Aug 2008 14:14:34
Obama was an honored law professor at the University of Chicago for 12 years teaching constitutional law. What could make him more American. He has had the advantage of a larger and more diverse gene pool. He is the Tiger Woods of American politics. McCain is an inane old man who would rather lead us into a new war than than build our economy and a future in renewable energy. Anyone who thinks things are bad now, and they are, will find out what bad really is if McCain is elected. He is still unable to get on the internet by himself. He does not have the intellect or judgement to run our country. ahansa
Posted by: robert dacosta | 15 Aug 2008 14:33:21
I agree with Linda P. and Gene. I thought that between the two, clearly Hilary presented more comprehensive and realistic plans. But her public presence failed to inspire many would-be supporters. On the other hand, Obama is doing what he can to be specific (for which I applaud him--like his visits to problem areas in the world, etc), but his proposals suffer from vagueness and glittering generalities. Clearly, he's a more inspiring speaker than Hilary and I plan to support him this year, no matter what McCain comes up with. But I'd like to see more detail and realism in the way he wants to implement his plans. The problem is that his website and speeches tout semi-specific plans for everything and totally specific plans for nothing. He should choose several major areas and make them his with direct, number/data-based plans for success. Inspiration only gets so far. Perspiration and specific details matter much more in passing national legislation. Roll up your sleeves, Barack. It's time for a Dem in the Whitehouse!!
Posted by: Brett | 15 Aug 2008 15:49:41
im not a big fan of Obama, but im even less of a fan of hillary.
that stratagy is pretty vile. you could also say that there is nothing more american than being diverse.
we're all immagrants here...
Posted by: tyler | 15 Aug 2008 16:21:32
Funnily, what could outdo Obama is not the 'muslim connection' everyone has at the back of their mind. It's the actions of Russia at the moment - the 'old skool' enemy who is acting to type currently. Who you gonna call when the Ruskies are getting frisky? A 'let's all hug the world President' or a Vietnam vet thawed out from the ice of the Cold War? The Georgia incident will play right into the hands of the McCain campaign.
Posted by: Gus Swan | 15 Aug 2008 16:29:58
Bob,
"NOTHING matters until we destroy the unconstitutional Federal Reserve, and restore money to hands of the people, not the Jewish Supremacist bankers."
How did Hilary vs. Obama become a Nazi bookburning? Jews are no more running a conspiracy today than they were "conspiring" in Europe 1933. I'm a Presbyterian, but, like most rational people, I just don't see the skinhead attitude as moving our country forward. Didn't we learn anything from the Holocaust, or was that a fabrication too? At the same time, you probably support Israel against "all those 'crazy' Muslims" in the Middle East. Ludicrous. Major corporations, most of whom are run by WASPs, own most candidates. Moreover, the two party system (though a bit flawed) provides a lot of continuity in our system. I agree that three or four parties would give more choice, but look at countries like Italy or Argentina that constantly struggle for political consistency. They have dozens of parties and rely on short-lived coalitions to get anything done.
As for your "unconstitutional" Fed? The Fed may be powerful, but it's not unconstitutional. As much as we might question it, the elastic clause ("necessary and proper") allows its existence. Besides, without regulation of some sort in the economy, Thomas Hobbes' greatest fears would come true. Dog would eat dog. If you want proof of laissez-faire capitalism gone awry, you needn't look any farther than Britain in the Industrial Revolution or the USA during the "Gilded Age" or its so-called "Roaring '20s." It's clear that lack of regulations allowed economic downturns to get horribly out of control. The unfathomable gaps in wealth that arose caused immense turmoil. In Britain it led to strikes, riots, Luddites and Chartism. In the USA it led to exploitation of all types of immigrants and impoverished WASP workers as well as the Homestead riots and other unrest in the 1880s and 1890s. Please read some history before you spout your anti-semitic, anti-government nonsense.
Posted by: Brett | 15 Aug 2008 17:38:16
Penn's memo is nothing short of barely concealed racism. Penn's opinion of Obama is that he is not really American because he is not white. Yes Penn we saw the racism in your campaign.
Posted by: Mike | 15 Aug 2008 19:33:57
US voters have an inability to assess things objectively using informed, rational criteria. As a result, strategists find it easy to exploit their general ignorance by appealing to all sorts of irrelevant, emotional factors. This was so evident in the Clinton strategy. She hit Obama beneath the belt as often and as viciously as she could. US politics are so depressing!
Posted by: kenken | 15 Aug 2008 20:13:27
George Sittingburns, I bet you would never criticize a white candidate for dealing with a rocker. Such a hypocrite. Face yourself.
Posted by: atanta | 16 Aug 2008 01:04:38
Hillary's claim of the "Invisible America" is basically the racist America that she knows exists and she tried her best to light the fire in their bellies with her surrogates. She stood by her surrogates, when the words came out of their mouths about how Pennsylivanians will not vote for a black man to run the country. There is a saying that a monkey will use its babies hand to test out something that is either hot or will bite. It is saving its own hand in the process. Hillary without letting the words come out of her voice box used her surrogates voice box to spread the message. Once the message is out, she promptly distanced herself from her surrogates. Now she wants to rally "her" people in a divide and conquer mentally at the convention. She basically wants to voice to her "invisible Americans" that McCain will run a one term presiedncy and she will be waiting to grab the white house in 2012. She is a very dangerous lady indeed. Obama on the other hand is hoping to catch a couple of extra votes by just being nice to Hillary even though he knows very well the downside to letting her rally and roar during the convention. He is of the type that he can catch a few more flies with honey than swating them with a swat.
Posted by: Joan Summers | 16 Aug 2008 01:10:42
Funny how you white people and especially women just overlook the lie's that Hillary told, and then you say she is tough and tenacious because of how she ran her campaign. What's funny is she lied, she was underhanded, everything you say Barack was she is. He never criticized her. Find me an example. You just can't accept a blackman being president. Just say it because your arguments are stupid.
Posted by: atanta | 16 Aug 2008 01:10:59
well, hillary's campaign was dirty. i saw some of the ads she ran and they were first hand fear mongering. the obama camp did no such thing, not that they were saints or anyhting but they did not pull the "we think americans are dumb enough to fall for this nonsense" fear tactics/gimmmicks.
Posted by: Well there | 16 Aug 2008 03:23:07
one more thing. if a plan in a presidential run was carried out then the candidate agreed to it. i'm tired of people taking the blame for hillary's mistakes. it think that actually cost her the election. she never carried any responsibilities for her mistakes and lies and so she kept making them over and over rather than correct them. at the end of the day it's all her fault as she is an adult that knows what's right what's wrong and if she claims did not know then the question becomes how could she have been fit to run the country!
Posted by: Well there | 16 Aug 2008 03:30:53
I went to the same high school as Obama. It was not a piece of cake. It's academic standards were formidable. Obama is brilliant, and a nice guy.
Posted by: Hawaii Born | 16 Aug 2008 04:43:43
"America is close to a financial titanic desperately printing money to keep the good ship America afloat. McCain, a Bush follower in many respects, will put it beyond the tipping point."
Obama is the check kiting Titanic driver in waiting. Anyone who doesnt see how Obama's $900 billion in spending promises, his tax rate hikes (caring not if they even raise money) and his giving drivers licenses to illegal aliens and no preconditions when talking to despots. Obama is ready to give away the store. And what does he to back up his claims to lead? Nothing! The man has done nothing, and he in no way shape or form is ready to lead the country. He will be a total and utter disaster and one has to be a true moron not to see it coming. I am shocked and awed by the level of stupidity among the Obama supporters, and their willingness to flush the country down the toilet to turn America into an Obama Nation.
Posted by: Travis Monitor | 16 Aug 2008 05:15:53
Voting is compulsory in Australia, with fines levied against those who do not exercise their democratic imperative. Voting in the US is optional, and I wonder how different the result would be if it were not. I also wonder what would happen if McCain picked Condoleeza Rice for Veep.
Posted by: Gerry Kay | 16 Aug 2008 08:20:39
Hillary Clinton was a member of the Young Republicans in college. Look it up. We are all being scammed. There is no two-party system. It's just Coke and Pepsi... slightly different flavors of the same concoction.
Posted by: JSF | 16 Aug 2008 16:41:35
"Bill had the ability to reach out and touch people"
I find American humour not lacking in irony at all
Posted by: John Wood | 16 Aug 2008 18:17:17
Senator Clinton was never going to win this race because Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazille and the rest of the corrupt democratic party leadership planned at least four years ago that Obama was going to be the nominee.
Posted by: hipelayne | 16 Aug 2008 22:58:18
Uh, nice spin. What the author of this omits in this article is the next line: Hillary didn't take Penn's advise to destroy Obama on his un-Americanism. She thought she could run a clean campaign on the issues. She wanted to keep his reputation in tact for VP. If she had taken Penn's advice and hammered away at Obama's foreign roots, she would have clinched the nomination much earlier.
However, she can still get the nomination as Obama's poll numbers are in the toilet and he hasn't raised 1/3 of the money he promised. Then Democrats are broke and terrified they'll lose the general. Clinton is the only electable candidate at this point. I hope they vote wisely at the convention.
Posted by: Think Ahead | 17 Aug 2008 00:35:17
Give me a break!!! There is nothing wrong with this memo!
You call this a smoking gun????
I'll show you a smoking gun......
The Fraud, Obama himself! Inexperienced! Corrupt! Arrogant! And he has more baggage than United Airlines!
Posted by: DonnaD | 17 Aug 2008 00:51:10
I think Hillary DID intend to take Mark Penn's advice, but her heart wasn't in it, so her attacks came across as obnoxious, evil, and mean-spirited instead of following a consistent theme.
In other words, she couldn't make up her mind and she screwed it up. I don't think Bill or Hillary are racists - they are just incredibly deluded and power-hungry.
Posted by: JW | 17 Aug 2008 05:40:37
Everyone wants to know what Obama has accomplished. For one he made it to the United States senate with the last name Obama. In this racist country I would say that is an accomplishment. What has Hillary accomplished????????? She stayed with her husband after he embarrased himself, her and the country, and she became a senator because of his last name. What else has she done??? If it were not for her botching up health care, we would be a lot further ahead right now.
Posted by: Objective | 17 Aug 2008 06:15:00
Come on Really just think about it She is a Liar. Allways a Liar and getting worse. Rich Woman just want a woman and being a liar don't matter to them as long as She Wins? Now come on are we that bad here in the USA they are for sure!... Just think if She did make it; things would be BAD. She all ready Rips Off Whetever She can and this is only the start! Well thank God She Did not make it; we would be in Trouble we still will be and are but there is some time left.
Posted by: Richard Poore | 17 Aug 2008 06:34:34
The problem with the US is that racism is liberal. I always tell my students that racism is not and was never a "Southern" issue as most of them have been made to believe; racism was and remains a national issue. If the Clintons and their supporters (like Geroldine Feraro) can be openly racist towards Obama's candidacy, what do we expect conservative racists to do? I was not surprised throughout the primary season, Hilary Clinton drew support from Fox New and the likes of Pat Buchanan, Sean Hanity, and even John McCain himself! The history of United States is laced with this kind of behavior, where white women have been used by white men to victimize blacks.
The deep seated anger among the White women and white high school drop out men is still the fear of a black man. I repeat that throughout the history of the US, it has been the white woman as the object for blacks' victimization. This is the same, especially when Hilary and Bill believe that a black man should not win over a white woman. Bill Clinton has been running around the country saying that Obama cannot win. But nobody asks him why he thinks so. The white media seems to agree with him and hence need to ask him why he thinks that Obama cannot win. We know that he is referring to Obama's blackness. The white women who still support the loser (Hilary), remind me of the old white women behavior that manifested through the saffrugist movement, where white women's anger was that the blacks had received the right to vote (14th and 15th amendments), before white women. This is the same argument as seen in what both the Clintons and their surrogates have said and done.
Their game now is that Hilary and Bill will use their platform speaking time to signal their supporters to nominate Hilary and not Obama. The worst outcome of this is the hope that her supporters not vote for Obama but to wait for Hilary in 4 years. Their game is hand this election to McCain so she can run again in 4 years. If Obama won, she would have to wait for 8 years, by which time she will be in her 70s.
Obama supporters believe by Obama agreing to put Hilary's name in the convention nomination is a mistake of epic proportions; the party would NEVER have done so if Obama were a white man. The last time this happened was in 1972 and George McGovern lost resoundingly to Mr. Richard Milhouse Nixon!
At this stage, Obama's hopeof winning this election is in the hands young pepole, between the ages of 18 nad 30. These are people who have grown up in a diverse world, where they have gone to school, played and dated people of different races. This is an experience that both the Clintons and their ardent supporters have never had.
My only hope is that should Obama not win, McCain should appoint very mean conservative white to the high court to overturn the gains women have made in this country. I hope that can happen in less than 4 years. I also hope that Hilary can be taught a lesson by Obama supporters in 4 years by voting for her opponent. If her opponents vote for McCain, then I see no reason why Obama's supporters, black or white, men or women, should not vote aginst her in 4 years. Beyond this, I hope that voters can turn away from her in her firts primary bid in 4 years. The problem with this is that, many people in the US will probably not even remember all this in 4 years.
Dr. Musila.
Posted by: Dr. Andrew David Musila | 17 Aug 2008 18:58:16
Rather substandard for the Times.
Posted by: Sune | 17 Aug 2008 19:37:56
More people voted for Clinton than for any other candidate ever!!! Not the other way around Obamaites - so with at least 20% of those 18 million not supporting Obama - and of course the rest of his flip-flops etc....where will he get the votes? He will not. He is unelectable and the Democrats have stubbed their toes again. They should have run with Clinton with a sure win against McCain. The DNC and their Rules Committee in conjunction with Dean, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry, Kennedy et al have done this to themselves! Better luck 4 years from now! McCain is for America and always has been - Obama is for a socalist America and he will loose! For you who don't know what that means or an economic depression - please go read up about it and learn!
Vote for America......Vote McCain!
Posted by: Wolf | 18 Aug 2008 00:40:47
Robert....Senator Obama was a lecturer and at that - while in the US Senate voted against our US Constitution and knew it at the time. He admitted this during the debates. Now - knowing and staying convicted to the principal are two different things. Obama has no backbone....look at his flip-flops! FISA for one glaring example.
Obama feels that a decision on abortion is 'above his pay scale'...so in other words - who ever will pay the highest price for his support? Why not say which way he felt??? Because he talks with the wind for votes!
Shameful....looking forward to a McCain victory in November!
Posted by: Wolf | 18 Aug 2008 00:44:57
But of course private schools have a different perspective when distributing grades...check out the success/failure ration amongst private and public school grads....public is prepared for the real world, private for the temporary gratitude and pride of parents...gee, I just spent 60 grand on this education, I had better get something for it, sez a smug Mom ...
NObama may have spent 12 years in the Chicago school system teaching constitutional law, he also spent 20 years at the foot of a certain Pastor that professes hatred for America and a divided America of Black vs White....won't allow his children to have Christmas or birthday presents, and a wife that defines America by its faults, rather than its supremely positive contributions to the human race....
Posted by: Catsmiler | 18 Aug 2008 01:16:56
Re the first comment, by Linda P., on Aug 12. I'm not sure sure what she meant by "low rent" - surely not "evil and dirty"? Is she insinuating something here? Is she talking about class? I thought the subject was elitist bickering and backstabbing.
Posted by: Sue McPherson | 18 Aug 2008 02:03:59
Not so fast. You honestly don't think that all campaign advisors don't discuss things like this with their candidates on a regular basis? Do you think that McCain is really being honest when he says the failure of his first marriage is his biggest mistake? He's the man who came back from Vietnam only to find that his first wife had a car accident and was disabled and less attractive, and subsequestly cheated and divorced her. No, its a spun tale, like in Wag the dog. Its fabricated story to 1. hide the truth about the real personas faults 2. make the candidate more likable. They're all trying to down their image and persona into a nice set of easy to remember talking points. Its not just Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Hans | 18 Aug 2008 11:08:56
Is any of that any lower then Howard Dean saying the Republican Party is the Party of White men and trying to rame it like the Republicans are all white racists ??? Howard Dean is the head of the DNC and last I knew worked to get Democrats elected IE Obama so IF Obama doesnt mind Howard calling people racist why do I care if someone calls him un-American?
Posted by: jacob | 18 Aug 2008 12:51:59
Obama has a lot going against him, but remember this:HE IS BLACK, and here in Ted Kennedy's land (Massacusetts), that's all you need! The collective guilt of all these bleeding-heart hand-wringers will back Barack Hussein no matter what !
The question is: how many other places like this exist here?
Few, I hope!
Posted by: Cadwalader from Boston, Mass | 18 Aug 2008 16:35:37
As an outsider who has however spent a lot of time in the U.S. this is an amusing chat. My only concern is that how does being such a poor pilot that he got shot down by soldiers of a third world technologically primitive country make McCain an experienced leader versed in foreign affairs. He would be better off in a bath chair,
Posted by: Gerry | 18 Aug 2008 18:57:50
I don't understand people who target Obama's education as the subject of criticism. Were you there at his private schools? Have you got copies of his report cards? He graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude - with great honour - and anybody who can do that has proved his or her academic strength.
It's so silly to criticise things for which you have no evidence. Everybody knows Obama is highly educated. If you disagree with his views, fine; but don't make up nonsense like that - it makes you look like a petty moron.
Posted by: Eric | 18 Aug 2008 20:10:33
Jeez. I'm a Republican and I still don't see how this shows anything bad about Hillary's campaign. Seems like a standard politicized assessment I'd expect from political strategists.
Posted by: TSM | 18 Aug 2008 23:13:04
It's a misconception that "more people voted for Obama". He took the caucus states, which essentially prevent a lot of people from voting and give disproportionate representation to those able and motivated enough to sit through a 4-5 hour caucus.
Posted by: rmyurick | 19 Aug 2008 19:34:06
I think Obama should choose Hilary Clinton because as a former first lady, she still commands followers so i think that if he chooses Hilary, it will be a big plus for him
Posted by: chris | 20 Aug 2008 17:01:40