RECENT POSTS
- Oprah, Health Care Lobbyists, Among Recent Visitors to White House
- An Obama Thanksgiving Menu, with an Extra Serving of Pie
- White House Thanksgiving Traditions: Broken and Observed
- Obama, GOP Air Differences Over Jobs, Economy In Thanksgiving Addresses
- White House State Dinner Party Crashers
- Obama to Lay Out Emissions Goals in Copenhagen
- Free Bird
- The "Good" War
- The Presidential Planner
- Under the Stars, Obama Toasts India’s Prime Minister
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Senator Casey: Clinton Arguments Against Obama Getting "Really Ridiculous"
April 10, 2008 4:46 PM
You may recall, last week on the ABC News Shuffle Podcast, we chatted with Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, a supporter of Sen Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.
This week we interviewed Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Penn., who endorsed Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, despite having previously said he would remain neutral.
You can listen to the Casey Podcast HERE. (My thanks to ABC News Shuffle producer Julia Hoppock and assistant producer Clare Malone.)
The mild-mannered Casey showed a little fire after I asked him about Rendell’s argument that Clinton had been thoroughly vetted and Obama has not –Rendell's calculation being that there’s only 10% unknown about Clinton and 50% unknown about Obama.
"I think the other side needs to start coming up with better arguments about how Obama can’t win," Casey said. " Some of these arguments are beginning to get really ridiculous because this should be a campaign about why their ideas are better."
Taking aim at Rendell’s "vetting" argument, Casey said "the idea that everybody in the country has everything they need to know about one candidate and 50% about Obama is a mystery, because to make that argument, and to get that argument past the hysterical laughter test is to assert that the national media has a conspiracy to keep Sen. Obama’s record under wraps until the Republicans get a hold of it and hit him over the head with it. It’s a ridiculous argument. Both of these candidates have been vetted for 18 months now, and they’ll be vetted even more. So I think whoever is nominated, they’re both going to be vetted."
Casey said he decided to publicly endorse in March after he decided whom he'll vote for in the state's April 22 primary.
"When a primary of this dimension is taking place in your state and you are a decided voter and you are an elected official who has run for state-wide office a number of times," Casey said, "I thought it was important to weigh in."
"I think he can best unite the country and the world," he said of Obama. "Both challenges are going to be before the next president."
Casey’s endorsement was thought to be of added importance because of the "Casey Democrats" important in the state (first named after his father, the late Gov. Bob Casey, Sr.) –
white, blue collar, often Catholic, economically populist, a bit more culturally conservative.
In short, voters Obama has had trouble wooing.
"I think we’ve made a lot of progress with regards to working families and workers generally," Casey said. "I think that's reflected in some of the endorsements he’s received from labor organizations like SEIU is a tremendous boost for his campaign. It represents a broad cross section of workers. The Teamsters are another example of a Union that’s very concerned about trade."
By why is Clinton so far ahead with those voters, according to polls?
"I do think that time and history play a very big role," Casey said. "I’m speaking to you as someone who has benefited tremendously from the fact that a member of my family ran for office ahead of me. There's no question that I've benefited from that during the time that I've been in public office for more than a decade now and I think that Clinton has benefited greatly from President Clinton's years in government. For example, in Pennsylvania, they've been campaigning here for 15 years. A four-week or an eight-week or a 20-week campaign by Sen. Obama can’t overcome that."
Right when Obama started campaigning in Pennsylvania is when the story of the Rev. Wright scandal broke. Casey said he hadn’t heard much about Wright from voters, who were more concerned with economics and home foreclosures.
"With regard to the controversy, I know two things," Casey said, "I know Sen. Obama’s heart and his character and I know what he said in his speech. And of course I and every American I know would condemn what Rev. Wright said, but the way Sen. Obama dealt with that is an example of uncommon leadership that I haven’t seen in an American politician ever in the national level."
Asked about the potential for a vicious convention fight, Casey said, "It’s a real concern, I think that most Democratic Party leaders, elected officials, delegates, voters, whoever you talk to, (are) very concerned about having a big fight at the convention. I don’t think that's going to happen though, there's going to be at some point in time, for a variety of reasons, a confluence of the will of the people, a lead in delegates, the so-called super delegates weighing in as well and I think it will be resolved before the convention."
"I think we can get through this stalemate," Casey said at another point, "but it’s not going to happen in the next two weeks, its going to take a while I think."
When Casey decided to endorse Obama many in the media (including me) recalled how poorly Casey’s father – the late Gov. Bob Casey Sr. – had been treated by then-Gov. Bill Clinton and those running the 1992 Democratic convention. Casey Sr. had wanted to give a speech promoting his views against abortion. Not only was he not allowed to do so, the Clinton forces made a show of rejecting him quite publicly, allowing to speak an abortion-rights Republican activist who had worked to defeat Casey in his re-election. To his dying day, Casey Sr. resented how he had been treated by the Clinton campaign.
"I think that there's a strong consensus that that was a terrible mistake and should never have happened and I think that both sides know that now," Casey Jr. said. "But I do think when you’re talking about the question of who you’re going to support it does come down to whether you really have confidence, and more confidence in one candidate versus the other."
Listen to the full Podcast HERE.
- jpt
April 10, 2008 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (117)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
One can understand all these frustrated hillary supporters and their whining and crying. Its not easy when all these folks hoped to see was Americans just closing thier eyes and voting for that lying woman and her cheating husband Bill. They did not expect that Americans have become smarter not to fall for the same old lies of the Clintons.
Hillary is not only phony, she is totally inefficient. She can't even run a smooth campaign, all the time, some problem or the other, her campaign is in deep sh*t. How on earth she is going to straighten the economy when her own economy is now in crisis. All these 35 yrs of cooked up experience is no use folks. She is no leader, only a liar! She is a good for nothing, but a whining and complaining woman. She brings shame to all good women. I would never allow her to run even the Dunkin Donuts around the street corner.
Posted by: amanda | Apr 10, 2008 11:52:02 PM
So far everything that we know about Barack Hussein Obama,seriously, who would want him as president of the USA? And Michelle as the first lady in the White House? Both of them haters of America.
Posted by: Francoise | Apr 10, 2008 10:47:17 PM
countallthevotes: The Casey kids remind me of the other big name endorsements that were influenced by the strong urging of their children -- Shriver, Caroline Kennedy, and my favorite, Claire McCaskill. I'll never understand why she went on program after program so proud of her teenage daughter that screamed at her, called her a slug and said she'd be ashamed of her if she didn't support Obama. Oh, man....
Posted by: cappamore | Apr 10, 2008 10:20:52 PM
1Vote - I disagree with your claims regarding the questioning of Gen. Petraeus. Here is RCP's take-
"Of the three presidential candidates displaying their intellectual wares in questioning Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker, Obama surely was the most subtle and shrewd.
He also gave a bit of a hint of how he would practice his much-promised bipartisanship if he were elected president: He would coordinate and cooperate with Republicans when they agree with him.
By contrast, Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) basically delivered dueling campaign speeches over which was more "irresponsible" -- too-hasty troop withdrawals or continuing present policy."
Posted by: Amith Rajan | Apr 10, 2008 9:51:24 PM
Clinton supporters say they give all they can to their candidate and at the same time condemn Obama supporters for doing the same. They say all that money could be spent on . . . list your cause. They miss the point. I axed my grocery money lots of times to donate to Obama. It's my money and my choice if I want to eat cheap to help to take my country back from the fat cats. Mrs. Clinton's campaign was strongly funded from the top down with wealthy people. Obama's is mostly from the grass roots up and we aren't done yet. Not by a long shot. If you want to cut your grocery money to the bone to support a cause of your choice, please do. Organize a million people who agree with you and get it done. But don't say that the 1,300,000 of us who have already done it,don't have the right. This isn't public money that's being spent. This is money that we earned by our own hard work. It's money that we made sacrifices for. We stood together and we effected a change in the way that political campaigns will be funded in this country in the future. Nobody who donates $10.00 thinks that they have the right to try to threaten or intimidate The Speaker of the House of the United States of America. That distinction went to twenty of Hillary Clinton's wealthy supporters. If we don't want all the laws made for the benefit of fat cats, lobbyists, PAC's and special interests, then we have to take financial responsibility for our own elections. Obama supporters did that. If you really believe that democracy should support the people, you should be happy about that. It is a huge step forward for government for and by the people.
Posted by: karela | Apr 10, 2008 9:03:04 PM
The Clintons have made a $100-million fortune since leaving the White House, but that hasn’t kept Bill Clinton from taking full advantage of the publicly funded perks offered to ex-presidents.
In fact, his presidential retirement benefits cost taxpayers almost as much as those of the other two living ex-presidents combined.
The price tag for Clinton’s federal retirement allowance from 2001 through the end of this year will run $8 million, compared to $5.5 million for George H. W. Bush’s and $4 million for Jimmy Carter’s during the same period.
Since 2001, Clinton has received more of almost every benefit available to former presidents — from his pension to his staff’s salaries and benefits to supplies. His $420,000 phone bill and $3.2 million office rent tab both nearly surpassed the totals rung up for those purposes by Bush, Carter and the late former presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan combined. As a group, they spent $484,000 on telephone service and $3.8 million on rent in the same span.
Posted by: Money! | Apr 10, 2008 8:51:05 PM
Hillary just today undid her support among the US military...
Military advice doesn't count for her! I think that is pretty shocking news...
At a news conference today, Hillary was asked if she would keep to her promises on withdrawing troops, even if she is advised differently by military leaders on the ground.
Her answer:
"Well, let me just describe to you
the way our system works," Mrs. Clinton said. "Policy is set by the civilian leadership. The president of the United States sets the policy. Our military, and thankfully so, carries out the policy that is set."
Isn't that amazing? She'll no longer have my vote. I'm from a military family and everyone here is furious about these remarks. And rightly so guess, for the security of American soldiers is at stake, among many other things.
"Let me just describe to you the way our system works"... that is ice cold arrogance. I'm for Obama now.
Posted by: karen | Apr 10, 2008 8:24:14 PM
1VOTE, OMG someone on MSNBC actually said something nice about Clinton. I bet we will never see him again.
Posted by: Tina D | Apr 10, 2008 7:52:06 PM
Eyes Open:
I also was thinking the exact same thing. Much has been written on the amount Obama is pissing away in PA. It is historic, never seen by any other candidate in that state's history. It dwarfs that spent by Hillary Clinton. The gist of one particular article was whether or not the nomination was up for sale in PA.
There should be a law to control this. Like campaign pledge Obama once agreed to with McCain and now reneges on.
All that money could have bailed out a lot of homeowners; could have paid for a lot of free medical care; could have supported low income kids in after school day care; could have funded drug rehabs, and on and on and on.
Hillary Clinton is the first candidate to whom I have contributed. I feel very strongly about her candidacy and so I do what I can. But, at the same time I do agree that sooooo much money coudl have been spent elsewhere.
Posted by: countallthevotes | Apr 10, 2008 7:35:44 PM
Confidence in a Clinton? LOL Your kidding right? NO ONE who views the facts has any confidence in a Clinton.
Good gosh check out the new news reports that show Bill Clinton has taken 8 million dollars from the american people in the last year and that almost 500 thousand last year alone was for his PHONE BILL!
We need to GET RID OF THIS TRASH!
Posted by: Brian | Apr 10, 2008 7:33:47 PM
Casey's real reason for endorsing Barack Obama:
“Also, his kids were on his case, his four daughters. Not that they dictate to him, but he was paying attention. He was wondering, why are these kids, who aren’t very political, so interested?"
NYT, March 28, 2008
Nice going Sen. Casey! Kids who aren't political now essentially endorsing.
Posted by: countallthevotes | Apr 10, 2008 7:27:44 PM
Frankly , I find it truly disgusting that so much money has been squandered on political pomp when it could better have been spent on food kitchens or mortgage funds or health care and education.
I hope that next time, the amount to be spent is limited to a reasonable figure.... for everyone.
Posted by: eyes open | Apr 10, 2008 7:26:34 PM
HILLARY's LATEST FOREIGN POLICY NEWS!
A deeply embarrassed Prime Minister Gordon Brown today found himself being wrongly lauded by Hillary Clinton for "boycotting" the Beijing Olympics.
To the fury of the British PM his decision to miss the rituals that will start the 2008 Games was being reported around the world as a snub to China.
Downing Street desperately tried to douse the story by pointing out that it had been saying for months that the Prime Minister would only attend the closing ceremony, where the torch will be symbolically passed from Beijing to London 2012.
See, Hillary has been going around praising Brown for his decision to skip the opening ceremonies, and the media has been all "Oooh, Hillary's pal Gordon is totally giving China the proverbial finger here, just like she wanted him to," and now the British government is trying to explain that really, Brown never intended to go to the ceremonies, but it was just some kind of scheduling issue, not a self-aggrandizing symbolic statement.
Posted by: hencken | Apr 10, 2008 7:26:04 PM
Casey obviously doesn't know as much about Obama as some of us do, or he would realize Rendel's argument is 100% correct. Of course, he also wouldn't be endorsing St. Obama and squiring him around Pennsylvania.
Posted by: HoosierSue | Apr 10, 2008 7:21:33 PM
@AMERICANPIE
"I want my slice of the pie!"
So do your fellow Americans. That was the whole point, you silly.
Posted by: kingston | Apr 10, 2008 7:15:55 PM
Quote of the Day
"He didn't have a lot of experience in running a presidential campaign, did he?"
-- Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, interviewed on Good Morning America, when asked if Sen. Barack Obama had enough experience to be president.
Posted by: greg | Apr 10, 2008 7:13:37 PM
AMERICAN PIE!
Michelle Obama said: “Most Americans don’t want much. Folks don’t want the whole pie. Someone is going to have to give up a piece of the pie so someone else can have more!”
Is she totally nuts? She is a socialist! I’ve given enough to the government. I don’t want to give any more. I want my slice of the pie!
VOTE HILLARY 2008!
Posted by: AMERICANPIE | Apr 10, 2008 7:12:00 PM
"ONE PERSON" did NOT strip Florida and Michigan of their voting rights;
The DNC did that.
And I don't have all the answers.. which is why I call self "Questioner"...
But if I were to hazard a guess, I'd say that Hillary needs Ickes to gather up some superdelegates; she sure isn't etting much assistance from the media, is she?
Posted by: questioner | Apr 10, 2008 7:05:56 PM
"Muslim Americans for Obama 08" features the masthead comment, "DONATE TODAY: One $1 DOLLAR for ONE NATION UNDER GOD"
In case there is any doubt as to which "God" these folks are speaking of, the first two paragraphs make it abundantly clear.
With God's Name ~ Quran 49:13 Oh Mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you nations and tribes that you may know one another. The best of you, in the sight of God, is the best in conduct. Allah is the best knower, aware.
As Salaam Alaikum, (The Peace of God Be Upon You) and welcome to Muslim Americans for Obama'08.
“Muslim Americans for Obama ’08,” proposes installing Muslim prayer areas in public places and giving Muslims time off for prayer and has denounced Obama’s colleagues in the U.S. Senate who happen to be Jewish.
Posted by: hooper dooper | Apr 10, 2008 7:05:05 PM
CNN headline: McCain erases Obama lead, poll says
(it's the AP Ipsos poll that shows a tie between McCain and Obama in the GE)
I personally think we (that is, the Democrats) will need more of these headlines. There's no doubt in my mind: as soon people actually are foreseeing 4 more more years of GOP politics devastating our great country and our fellow Americans' lives in the Iraq war, a large majority - angry and disappointed Hillary supporters first - will seriously start to think twice about NOT voting for the Dem candidate who'll happen to be Obama.
So let's hope for a McCain surge in the polls in the months to come... we'll see a dramatic turn of the tide, and I foresee a VERY convincing win for BO in the GE.
And True Truth, you write "show Americans how Obama can beat McCain with his less white supports, least experience, and questionable race issue..." I'd say he already has proven that he is a GREAT winner by demolishing the Clinton Machine that has always been too powerful for the GOP. If he can beat the very strong Clinton, he SURELY can beat the very weak McCain, IMO.
Posted by: ken | Apr 10, 2008 7:03:22 PM
Post a comment
