Andrew Sullivan's Clinton-hating is getting ever more preposterous. The Atlantic pays for this stuff? Here he is building on an item from the thinking man's Drudge Report i.e. the Politico --
The second is that Clinton now automatically uses the second person plural. It's not the Royal "we". It's an empirical "we":
"The facts are that he has said in the last week that he really liked the ideas of the Republicans over the last 10 to 15 years, and we can give you the exact quote etc etc [more 'we' usages]"
Yes, this "we" implies a team behind a candidacy.
A few things. "We" is the first person plural. Second, it's easy to search the transcript (which Sully never bothered doing, since he had his point) --
SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN: I'd like to follow-up with Senator Obama. It was just a few days ago that Senator Clinton asserted that she was the strongest candidate when it comes to fiscal responsibility.
She says that the new programs that she proposes she essentially can pay for. She says that you have failed in that regard in the tune of some $50 billion worth of new programs that you cannot account for.
How do you respond to that charge?
OBAMA: What she said wasn't true. We account for every single dollar that we propose.
The fact is that Obama, Clinton, and Edwards all mix Is and Wes, presumably depending on part on whether they wanted to indicate their campaign team, not just spouses, or themselves personally. Clinton derangement is also leading him to get his English history metaphors all mixed up, as he variously refers to a Clinton "Restoration" and Obama as the "Pretender". You'd think a self-styled Irish Tory could keep his Stuarts together.