Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 24, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size


They Are Watching You
Lapland’s Mystery Moths Puzzle Science




The Divide


Truthdig Bazaar
Mogul: A Novel

Mogul: A Novel

By Terrance Dean
$10.20


Mekong Diaries

By Sherry Buchanan
$19.80

more items

 
A/V Booth

Bill Clinton’s Latest Campaign Controversy

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Mar 22, 2008
Bill Clinton

Even some Hillary Clinton supporters have expressed reservations over the role of the former president in the campaign. Others have argued that the media and the Obama campaign exaggerate when it comes to his comments. Whatever the case, Bill’s mouth has gotten him into trouble again.

In the clip below, the former president says a race between Hillary Clinton and John McCain, “two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country,” would be great. The implication being, some have said, that Barack Obama doesn’t love his country.

Obama’s top military adviser, retired Air Force Gen. Merrill “Tony” McPeak, likened Bill Clinton to Joe McCarthy. The admiral himself has gotten into trouble for having a loose tongue on the trail.

The Clinton campaign called McPeak’s comment “an outrage.” And the vicious campaign cycle of comment-outrage-repeat goes on.

Watch it:

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By mofolo, March 25, 2008 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment

Muscleboy, are you sure President Clinton wants Hillary to win?  Seems like he is doing more to keep her from getting the nomination than doing her good.  ‘course ahe doesn’t help her case by mistating being underfire during her trip to Bosnia or saying she had a hand in negotiations with other countries while Bill was president. She is hurting herself with these lies, er misspokes.

Report this

By Muscleboy, March 25, 2008 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment

The fact is Hillary has said she will threaten Canada and Mexico(particularly Mexico as Canada is already doing a good job) and that the provisions of Nafta would,“have to be rewritten.”  All Obama has said is a weak,“Ok I kind of have to agree with Hillary that we’d have to threaten to use pull-out of NAFTA to get the changes needed.”  The memo clearly states Obama wants NO CHANGES just wants to spotlight the provisions on labor and environment.  WRONG!  You would have to make changes of NAFTA to get enforcement changes that actually changed the lives of workers in Mexico and even started helping reduce the flight of Mexicans from Mexico many claim is caused by the effects of NAFTA.  NAFTA is written by and for large international corps at the expense of everyone and everything else IT MUST BE FUNDAMENTALLY ALTERED!!  Obama seems not to want to do that except for posturing and vote-getting. 

I hope this election leads us with a Hillary/Obama ticket and both are pushed to make very deep and truly effective changes to our international trade agreements WTO and NAFTA and others.  Changes that lead to the PROTECTION and strengthening of the US middle class and economy but also the building of the internal economies of countries like India China and Mexico with a full-on realization that anything but the most aggressive enforcement of labor rights and environmental protection will lead us to grave costs and a lessoning of our greater welfare.  This doesn’t require protectionist thinking per se but rather fair trade that, in the end, leads to a world where we are all valued and uplifted and the wealth is shared thus increasing the net wealth of all of us.

This NAFTA-GATE did spotlight a problem that makes us all focus on not ending up with representatives that don’t represent us, they must not be allowed to BS us in anyway whatsoever. I also think we should go a step further and have programs to specifically focus on the issue of repatriating lost industries in new hyper efficient ways and coming up with new industries anything and everything to grow and strengthen the US economy. I think a Hillary Barack or Barack Hillary administration really should push money into the country by creating a vast clean energy switch over program…. NO MORE IMPORTED OIL WITHIN 2-3 YEARS it’s not only possibly but it is easy to do with the right amount of effort.

Let’s just let them know we don’t want any more compromises on these vital issues.  Second rate approaches to compromise with mega-corps just won’t do.  NAFTA and WTO must be changed radically and fairly.  With the end result of strengthening the internal economies of the USA and it’s trading partners.  Stop appealing to the mega corporate dorks with little bags of cash that think they can buy a 14 trillion dollar nation.  Which reminds me MAKE ALL MONEY IN POLITICS A FELONY FOR ALL INVOLVED OUR DEMOCRACY IS BEING DESTROYED BECAUSE OF IT!

Report this

By mofolo, March 24, 2008 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

right now the things that appears to be destroying the Dems are the lies, prevalent more on the ladies side of the isle.  BO has misspoken a time or two but HRC and party has jumped on a few things only to have to later say they were misinformed.  If she were to win heaven help us if she jumps into a critical situation based upon early misinformation. I really don’t believe these were accidents. Do you?

Report this

By bert, March 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm Link to this comment

Response to Several Posters on This Thread

Re: Guitarsandmore805 :  You write”  “ The Obama camp likes to waste a lot of time reading between the lines in search of some vague paranoid innuendo in a Bill Clinton speech.  But instead of playing the victim card once again..”

Right on. Obama is a bit overly sensitive to be in a profession that takes no prisoners. IF he gets the nomination I can’t wait till he tries that crap with the repugs and McCain. They will knock the you know what out of him.


Re: Guitarsandmore 805:  You write:  “Organizations like CNN and MSNBC and Fox don’t go from constant support of Bush and his criminal mass-murder campaign in Iraq to supporting someone like Obama. It just plain doesn’t make any sense. People just need to wake up to see what is going on.”

The media loves John McCain. If Obama gets the nomination they will turn on him in a heartbeat to support their true love. Obama is a fling, McCain is long term. 


Re: Guitarsandmore 805:  “You write:  I am no avid supporter of anyone I just want the good side to win this fight.  We need to win very desperately ..’

That is all I want to do – WIN, take back the White House, get us on the road to sanity again.


Re: Cyrena writes:  “In short, he has refused from the beginning to appear on Fox, or to debate on Fox, or to have anything to do with Fox. (despite O’Reilly, Limbaugh the pill popper, Hannity, etc hounding him).”

Well true enough that is until the Rev. Wright controversy broke. He then went as fast as he could to make his first ever interview appearance on FOX News to try and the stem the bleeding. ‘Tis a wonder the lows one, even the wonderful Obama, can stoop to when you find your campaign exploding all around you. Then you go to FOX.

Re: Amae writes:  “I don’t know if saying “two people who loved this country” necessarily implies a third person didn’t. But as far as I am concerned, the Clintons again and again voluntarily campaign for McCain at the expense of a Democratic presidency were she not the nominee. “

You are taking the comment out of context. Clinton was asked a direct question about Clinton and McCain opposing each other in the General. He simply answered in kind. TOUCHY, TOUCHY TOUCHY!!!!!!! And they say women are too enotional. Obama is desperate right now to try to get his Big Mo back and take Wright off the radar screen. So he is going a little bit crazy grasping at straws. I might feel sorry for him if he had not brought it all on himself.

Report this

By bert, March 24, 2008 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Good come back, Maani!!!!!!

Peace.

Report this

By bert, March 24, 2008 at 3:10 pm Link to this comment

“What if the shoe were on the other foot?  What if Obama had come in third in Iowa and been behind ever since?

  Would the media not be launching a psychiatric evaluation into why he could not understand reality?”

You are comparing apples and oranges. That is NOT what is happening here. Clinton and Obama are in a statistical tie. That is a far cry from the scenario you set up, heavyrunner. So your point is moot.

Report this

By cyrena, March 24, 2008 at 2:36 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for the link Gmonst. What seems to stand out most in the NAFTA-gate episode, is that it’s just another part of the Kitchen Sink that the Clinton campaign long ago promised to throw at Obama.

It’s also re-affirms the facts, first that the Canadians had requested a meeting with Obama’s campaign, which is how it all came about to begin with. He did not initiate it.

They (the Canadians) apparently had ‘worries’ or maybe they didn’t, and it was all politics to begin with. Because, in reality, (and the article makes this clear), Obama’s only ‘threat’ about NAFTA on the campaign trail, is that he intends to make changes on behalf of the American worker, in terms of labor and environmental standards.

That does NOT threaten Canada at all, since the Canadians ALREADY have labor and environment standards that are for the most part, better than ours. (at least better than what ours have become, since the Corps took over long ago, and regulation and compliance has been non-existent in this Administration)

So, there we have it.

Thanks again for the link.

Report this

By Gmonst, March 24, 2008 at 11:08 am Link to this comment

The last thing I would like to say before stepping away from this dead horse is that Muscleboy’s quote of someone saying Obama had “no intention of changing Nafta whatsoever” is completely false.

The actual leaked memo can be found here
It never quotes anyone but gives the writers impression of the content of the conversation.  Ironically enough that content indicates that Obama plans to make the changes to NAFTA he has indicated in debates and elsewhere, notably making labor mobility and environment core principles of NAFTA.

Report this

By Sue Cook, March 24, 2008 at 10:56 am Link to this comment

You can tell the large gap there is between now and the next primary. (april 22nd in PA.)

The media that has 24 hours of news to cover and don’t have the gossip it did when things were hoppin last month.

Any little thing anyone says is picked apart by them like vultures so they can fill up they’re hour time slots.  It’s really quite commical. 

Bill Clinton didn’t say anything wrong.  If he said this during a busier time, it probably would have been noted, but not full-blown, full page news.

Yes, the media… hmmm, they’re bored alright.

Point of post,  don’t take everything you see on TV and read in the newspapers too seriously.

Use your own minds, and come to your own conclusions.

Report this

By RdV, March 24, 2008 at 8:01 am Link to this comment

The Clintons never know when the jig is up.
Say good night and bow out so we can finally close the door on this unethical sleaze, clean the party up and get the country back on its feet.

Report this

By cyrena, March 24, 2008 at 2:01 am Link to this comment

Gmonst,

You’re right that not most, but ALL of what muscle boy is saying here, is NOT TRUE, and reeks of the same spin that we hear from many others. It’s just less sophisticated.

For instance, he claims that Obama frequently says that he ‘didn’t vote for the war.’

Well, we all know that he doesn’t make that point, but rather consistently reminds us that he was OPPOSED to the war, spoke out AGAINST the war, loudly, and on multiple occasions, in the lead-up to the war.

WE know he wasn’t in the Senate at the time, so maybe muscle boy is only just figuring that out. The point, that the rest of us know, is that he was so adamantly opposed to the war before it began.

And, though many Americans may still be unaware of it, there were literally MILLIONS of people who were equally adamantly opposed to the war, BEFORE IT WAS LAUNCHED. More than 800 cities, in 60 countries staged demonstrations on Feb 15, 2003..against the upcoming war. (next to NO media coverage in the US)

Many of us, (including Barack Obama) had reason to suspect that there were only lies being used as an excuse for the pre-emptive attack, and we also knew that it was illegal. So did Barack Obama.

As a result, he was later solicited by many influential people, within his own party, to run for the office. (I guess once everybody else figured out that Dick Bush never had any intention of leaving Iraq, and in fact planned yet another attack on Iran next).

Even if this was the ONLY reason to elect him, it would be enough for many Americans, considering the alternatives, which are currently Clinton and McCain, who both actively SUPPORTED the invasion and occupation, because they WERE both in the Senate, and COULD use a voice, (vote) that actually meant something.

As for the ‘inflection’ of Obama’s voice, I would first say that while it is very ‘slight’, it is –as most are- very REGIONAL. At least I can tell, from his speech, that his intonation has a Midwestern tone to it. That makes really good sense, because he was raised in Kansas. It sounds nothing like that of Dr. King, who was from the South.

Any similarities between them come from the fact that they are both ORATORS. Any lawyer (and Obama is) who doesn’t have any oratory skills, (finely tuned in most law schools) isn’t gonna cut the grade. It’s that simple. The same can be said for any preacher or minister, or anyone else who makes a career out of public speaking.

What would possibly be the more revealing question for muscle boy, is why it bothers him so much, that there could be any perceived similarities in delivery style, between the late Rev. King, and Senator Obama? Did muscle boy have some animosity toward the late Martin Luther King? It’s a reasonable question I think, because I’ve come across many people from that time, who hated Dr. King when he was alive, (and speaking) and still do now.

So, maybe THAT is what the real problem is for muscle boy, though in these times, it would be politically ‘incorrect’ to say so.

Anyway, while that enunciation is very slight, it definitely has a midwestern ring to it. Very few people can speak without SOME clue to where they were raised, and the general language inflection of the area.

In my own career, (serving the mass public) I’ve heard just about all of them, so I can generally pick it up.

Report this

By Guitarsandmore805, March 23, 2008 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

If you go here on Barack Obama’s website this is what it says:


http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Bringing Our Troops Home

Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.


You see, he is leaving some vague number of troops there and also notice only the COMBAT troops are coming home, not the support troops and the contractors. Hillary also has some vague statment like this.  We need to push him (and Hillary as well because who knows?) to make a definitive statement that ALL troops will be brought home and provide a time line.  As long as we are leaving troops there in this mistake of a war we are in trouble and we are spending money that could be going to health care and other entitlements. There is no military solution.

The UN can send troops there to police the area.  We don’t need to be there anymore.

Report this

By Muscleboy, March 23, 2008 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment

The point is he speaks with Martin Luther King’s accent an accent that is not common not common at all.  The fact is Obama’s top person according to the Canadians, did, in fact say that Obama had “no intention of changing Nafta whatsoever” that his speech was purely “political posturing”.  This is not a half truth it is a whole truth and says everything about him.  To say he didn’t vote on the so-called war legislation when he could not possibly have voted for it is extremely deceptive also.  I have had enough of deception with 2 terms of George Bush junior. 

I frankly don’t want a phony president. I don’t want one who uses speeches that are not his own and makes very serious commitments to his supporters that are “just political posturing” (actually flat out lies).  And I don’t want a president that would use an accent to manipulate people with.  An accent that is not common at all it’s Martin Luther King’s accent!  It’s completely ridiculous.  And then he wants to boost funding to the Blackwater mercenaries in Iraq… it is against international law to use mercenaries in an occupied nation which Iraq most certainly is an occupied nation.  And it is a just another fact that Obama very clearly stated he wanted to have happen.

And Obama doesn’t want anything close to single payer health care he wants the status quo with a “effort to get down costs”... “Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!”

Report this

By Gmonst, March 23, 2008 at 7:51 pm Link to this comment

I just see a whole lot of rehashing the skewed half-truths which comprise much of the dirt thrown at Obama. He didn’t tell the Canadians no changes would be made to NAFTA, thats not true.  He used a few catch phrases, not a whole speech, Clinton does that too.  Obama didn’t vote for the war, even if he couldn’t have it remains he didn’t, and its a fact he did speak out against the war, and has maintained a position of opposition to it.  He doesn’t speak with an accent of Martin Luther King Jr. He does speak with a cadence common to Black preachers, but I don’t see how that is relevant to assessing his qualifications.  He has articulated views beyond “yes we can” check his website.  So you can let your worries ease because most of what you said isn’t true.

Report this

By Muscleboy, March 23, 2008 at 6:02 pm Link to this comment

Obama… Well I do wish what you said were true.  I wish Obama were real and not a fantasy.  I wish Obama were going to actually get rid of the Nafta and WTO agreements or majorly change them rather than just BSing his supporters as we now know he did when his top person made sure Canada ways aware NO changes would be actually made to Nafta and that his speech was just political posturing.  I wish Obama really wrote and meant some of the words he says I found it rather horrifying to find out he had reused a speech of another person.  I know I could get up there and talk without a speech and have plenty to say to stir a crowd and not for posturing but because I passionately believe every word I say.  I also which Obama hadn’t said things like “I never voted for the war” when in fact he wasn’t even in Congress to have had voted for it.  I wish he also hadn’t said he’s going to increase spending and the presence level of Blackwater in Iraq.  I also which for God sake he would stop frequently using the accent of Martin Luther King. 

I also wish he would clarify his position on anything other than just chanting “yes we can”.  Believe me I am hopeful, even with all this, that he’s not just a phony but a man who cares greatly about America and knows his job is not to serve the criminals of America but to serve ever last man woman and child to the greatest of his ability to do so.  This I hope but I am worried based upon what I’ve seen.

Report this

By Muscleboy, March 23, 2008 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment

WRONG.  Damn I hate who use caps. Fox, MSNBC and CNN have tended to be more anti-Clinton then pro-Obama in very irrational ways.  I see a clear unity of Fox Msnbc and CNN when it comes to either blatant or less obvious support of the Bush administration and the fascistic measures it has taken since being in office.

So you are dead wrong on every singly thing you said.

Report this

By Gmonst, March 23, 2008 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

You made some good points Cyrena.  I don’t feel that the media ever really gave Obama a free ride and certainly at this point with the hounding of the last few weeks to claim media bias is absurd.  I think the media generally is pretty fair to Hillary, sometimes harsh, but not overwhelmingly against.  I think McCain gets it easiest with the media, and that will probably be much more so in the fall.  If Obama or Hillary had made the gaff McCain made they would have been discussing it non-stop.  The media favors money, corporate money, and that means McCain will always get the easiest ride.

Report this

By Gmonst, March 23, 2008 at 2:39 pm Link to this comment

Hillary Clinton is certainly qualified to be president and would probably be a pretty good one at that.  I don’t doubt she could and would win in the fall, but she is loosing this race.  Her winning is highly unlikely.  I like her, but to me she comes with a lot of baggage, both good and bad.  I have a good sense of how she would be as president, good but probably not great.  The basic paradigm of the republican/democrat conflict would certainly remain intact.  I am also sure there would be many disappointing decisions made by a Clinton administration.  I say that because she has made many disappointing decisions in the past.  Decisions which are against the progressive ideals I would like to see. 

Obama is certainly more unknown in regards to what kind of president he would be.  However, I do have a feeling based on things he says and does.  I think he can and will win in the fall.  No matter what anyone says it remains the democrat’s year.  While I haven’t agreed with all the decisions Obama has made while in the Senate, he disappoints me less often and seems to have a more progressive leaning than Hillary.  Much more than that though is his talent and the increasing sense I get from him that he genuinely thinks a bit differently than the majority of politicians.  He seems to have not completely forgotten that the B.S. of politics is B.S.  Honestly, all the scandals that come out about him reinforces the sense that he is down-to-earth and sees things in a pretty clear way.  He shows a very strong talent for being able to bridge very difficult divides with a certain degree of wisdom.  That is something I have not seen before and it gives me the impression that he could possibly be a great president.  While I could be wrong, I am willing to take the chance at having a potentially great president with the leadership abilities only seen once in a generation.

Report this

By cyrena, March 23, 2008 at 1:54 pm Link to this comment

“Organizations like CNN and MSNBC and Fox don’t go from constant support of Bush and his criminal mass-murder campaign in Iraq to supporting someone like Obama. It just plain doesn’t make any sense. People just need to wake up to see what is going on. “

MuscleBoy,

Organizations like Fox have NEVER supported Barack Obama, and he long ago committed to boycotting them. In short, he has refused from the beginning to appear on Fox, or to debate on Fox, or to have anything to do with Fox. (despite O’Reilly, Limbaugh the pill popper, Hannity, etc hounding him).

So, that’s something that you might be willing to pay attention to yourself.

Support is good, and can be respected. Spin or lies, (intentional or otherwise) keeps us mired down in what we’re in now.

And, while you claim that Hillary has ‘toasted’ Bushites, the other side of the coin says that she has ‘increased her popularity’ by working closely with those from the other side of the aisle. Her supporters boast this as one of her strenghts.And she HAS certainly formed some STRONG BONDS in Congress, with those from the other side of the aisle. Remember, they used to hate her, and now they’re buddies. She was an avid supporter of the Kyle-Lieberman amendment to target Iran’s military as a terrorist organization, (or at least one branch of it) and that certainly gained her ‘points’ from the repugs and other Bushites.

Now some would preceive this as ‘good’ but you’ve just suggested the opposite. So, which is it?

Do you support her because she’s NOT in pocket with the bushites, or, like OTHER Clinton supporters, because she IS?

It’s worth considering, because when she loses the primary, she would certainly be tempted to run on the ticket with McCain. There is no difference in their policies, with the exception of the health care thing.

On the war, she’s fine. On the corporate oligarchy set up, she’s good there too. Actually, she helped Bill push it through. NAFTA strong, sending as many jobs as possible out of the country, and consistently undermining the wages of American workers.

On these issues, history does matter, because it’s all we have to go on.

Report this

By Gmonst, March 23, 2008 at 1:38 pm Link to this comment

Maani,

I actually think its a pretty good analogy under the circumstances.  It would now be the 11th round and Hillary is behind on the scorecards and needs a knockout to win.  Her corner keeps telling her to keep up what she has been doing, “this guys ready to fall,” they say. Yet, she has given Obama her best shots and doesn’t seem to have the necessary K.O. power so a 12th round knockout seems very unlikely, but is still possible in theory.

Report this

By Muscleboy, March 23, 2008 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

Excellent statement Bill!
All excellent points and very well stated as usual.  I’m very impressed with him he fought for our country fought for our dollar and the economy and helped pump money into the middle class the vital engine of our great nation. 

Now with Hillary Clinton I see clearly detailed programs, well laid out, to major problems such as health care and trade agreements which serve only super corporations at the expense of everyone else.  Also an urgent national mission set about at getting us off oil by switching our economy over to home grown alternative clean energy will be an enormous boost to our economy even with the horrific damage left by George Bush. 

I think we keep seeing this completely unwarranted criticism of The Clintons by the major media primarily because they have a plan to roast Obama alive and assure McCain’s (the defense industrial complex) victory.  They know Hillary or a Hillary/Obama ticket would be virtually invincible and they also know they can’t buy off the Clintons, money is one thing they don’t need.  Organizations like CNN and MSNBC and Fox don’t go from constant support of Bush and his criminal mass-murder campaign in Iraq to supporting someone like Obama. It just plain doesn’t make any sense. People just need to wake up to see what is going on. 

I am no avid supporter of anyone I just want the good side to win this fight.  We need to win very desperately and Hillary can and will do it.  She is no spin off of a dynasty she is truly brilliant in her own right and can see the whole picture, we all know how she has toasted Bushites on both sides when they come before Congress, without them even knowing half the time.  She is very much her own person and very much suited for the job as president.

A thousand cheers to President Clinton for his excellent and thoughtful support of his wife, the soon to be president of the United States, Hillary Clinton.

Report this

By Christopher Robin, March 23, 2008 at 11:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Amen, I’ll second that!

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, March 23, 2008 at 10:50 am Link to this comment

Who is this Couple ???
They have either been ‘body snatched’ or th eMaks have finally fallen Off.
These Two alone are a great reason to stop being a Dem. then add some of the other ‘Public SErvants’ like Nancy, Harry and Diane and Voila you have the other half of the Corporate Team.
Wehn this corrupt party steals the nomination for Hillary (since she’ already been given the Crown- She Or Mac is a Win/Win either way for the Inc’s) Obama should run anyway- Screw these contaminated ‘Parties’ I’m disgusted with both

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

You have posted this in this exact form on other threads.  Isn’t that kind of thing called “spamming” or “trolling?”

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 7:43 am Link to this comment

writeon:

“Let’s be honest. There are people in the ‘ruling class’ who won’t tolerate Obama becoming president, and they will stop him by any means necessary. He should start wearing a bullet-proof vest and a kevlar helmet pronto!”

Personally, I do think this is paranoid.  Obama is doing such a good job of self-destructing that the GOP would have a field day with him during a general election campaign, and would be able to “stop him” by perfectly safe (if smarmy) means.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

Gmonst:

“I think this is a bit like a boxing match where a heavily favored fighter is being clearly beat round by round.  It sometimes takes the announcers a while to accept what is happening and often the fighter and their corner never seem to have a clue that they are loosing until the very end.”

Of course, a fight is not over until all 12 rounds have played out.  And the “heavily favored” fighter may just deliver a knock-out punch in the last round.

Not a good comparison under the circumstances.

Peace.

Report this

By Maani, March 23, 2008 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

PatrickHenry:

“We have to rid ourselves of entrenched politicians, congressmen and senators…”

I assume you are including all of those “entrenched politicians” who endorsed Obama, such as Kennedy, Daschle, Richardson, et al.  Indeed, what does this say about their endorsements of a candidate who claims to represent the “new” and “future” politics?

Peace.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 23, 2008 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

Entrenched politicians are the problem. 

Superdelegates will continue to rise in numbers until it doesn’t matter who we democrats want and will vote for, they will trump us. 

Superdelegates are the response to Diebold type machines being replaced with non hackable ones, it only took 9 years and they still are rigging the vote.

Report this

By Expat, March 23, 2008 at 5:13 am Link to this comment

seen

Report this

By Johnny, March 23, 2008 at 5:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

THIS comment from the same Clinton camp who tried so vigorously to make an issue out of Obama’s “typical white person” remark about his won white Grandmother? Pot, meet kettle!!

Report this

By Expat, March 23, 2008 at 2:53 am Link to this comment

^ 62 years, I can’t recall another democrat campaigning for the republican opponent.  (By the way, I thought they put a leash on Bill and a muzzle too)  He has consistently praised McCain and doesn’t even say Obama’s name while speaking of “other things”.  If Hillary and McCain are such good friends; why doesn’t she run with McCain?  This is by all measure the screwiest campaign I have ever scene.  It wouldn’t particularly surprise me if Bill loses the nomination for his wife; but then, I think she’s already lost it.

Report this

By Jim H, March 23, 2008 at 1:05 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Very revealing, the promiscuity of sources that Obama backers use. Politico, the right-wing website, and truthout, the crazy left. Sorry, but it’s true.

Obama’s backers have been saying this is over, please quit, for a long time. There’s a big problem with the “small red state caucuses” strategy. It doesn’t do a damn thing to get a Democrat elected. Look at the states where Obama has won the caucuses: tiny numbers of activists in red states get together—with real enthusiasm, to be sure—and give Obama a win. Now, what’s the odds that a Democrat will win in November with those states? None. Kansas isn’t voting for Obama, Alabama isn’t, the huge swath of red states isn’t going blue. (Not unless Obama betrays Democratic principles, like universal health care, but that’s another thought.) We’ll win in Ohio and Florida and so on: where the electoral votes are, winner-take-all, not the fussy, proportional democratic rules. Hillary won Texas by four or five points, but Obama wins the delegates because of some cockamamie Internet meetup after the vote? Hillary wins Florida by a lot, with all the names on the ballot, and no, not campaigning, but that doesn’t count, nor does Michigan. But they’ll count in November, and now the Democratic Party will have to explain why their New Politics Leader won by disenfranchising the people of these two states, both of which would look good for Hillary. Just wondering. The last time we went so nuts for proportional primaries, and grassroots democracy, we ran McGovern. A fine, honorable man. An epic loser. Is that what Dean wanted?

Report this

By Jim H, March 23, 2008 at 12:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bill Clinton, strange as it may sound to you, would prefer that Hillary wins the nomination. Oh, I know, that’s racist of him, I guess. He can’t possibly prefer her stance on issues! But for some crazy reason, he’s a Hillary backer. Now, given that McCain will be the Republican nominee, this audience of vets admires McCain’s service, this is the devilish purpose Bill betrays: to speak of Hillary’s chances against a man the veterans of the Stonewall Jackson Post probably greatly respect. So he’s saying, they know each other, they respect each other, and they differ on policy. Then he makes the horrifying comment that, in this contest, maybe it would be better not to question patriotism, but to map out policies, and how they differ. I believe I heard the same yearning in Obama’s speech last week, for a race with less “distractions.” I agree with both of them.
34 generals and admirals backed Hillary last week. Obama’s got McPeak, who apparently reads the Huffington Post too much, and actually believes what he reads there.

Report this

By cyrena, March 23, 2008 at 12:10 am Link to this comment

Good idea here. Personally, I’m not into searching between what are admittedly vague lines, to look for incriminating innuendo. On the other hand, the Obama camp has some overwhelmingly legitimate reasons to be paranoid these days. I mean, that’s the way this stuff plays out. It’s human nature to be gun shy when one has been so thoroughly victimized.

Still, the camp has to get beyond the gun shyness, and…as you’ve said…do something useful. And, such a timeline would be one of those things.

I THINK, (and I say that because I haven’t checked recently) that something of that sort has been attempted, and maybe even included on the website.

HOWEVEVER…one of the primary problems with putting something like that in order now, is the lack of any ability to confir with the the operatives in the region.

In other words, Obama (or his advisors) needs some direct access to the regime in Iraq, (no matter how corrupt) as well as the Iranians, (and he has suggested engaging with them many times).

So far, Obama himself has been very limited in any direct access to these people. I think he’s been able to make only ONE trip to Iraq himself, (not allowed until he was actually in the Senate) and of course I don’t think he can just pick up the phone and try to communicate with any of those guys, including the Iranians.

So, he or they could certainly come up with some sort of a tentative plan, but he’s not the type to commit to something that he hasn’t researched, and can have a reasonable amount of certainty in fulfilling. Because THEN, it would just be a plan for campaign purposes, to sway public opinion, and he may not be able to accomplish it. Not so different from Hillary’s health care plan that requires a mandate, even though there’s virtually no way for her to enforce such a mandate. So, just more smoke up the public’s ass that sounds good for campaign purposes.

It’s hard to even coordinate any sort of withdrawal plan, without direct access to at least SOME folks at the Pentagon/Department of Defense. And, let’s face it…none of those folks are accessible to him or anyone else.  Cheney keeps them on a leash, and anybody, (such as Fallon) who might be looking like they’re willing to consider any other plan besides the one that has already been pre-determined by the Cheney Cabal, is booted.

For instance, the Pentagon isn’t even going to allow Fallon to testify next month before Congress, on the ‘progress report’ and the ‘way forward’. (can’t think of any better terminology right now).

“Pentagon Rules Out Fallon Testimony
  The Associated Press
  Saturday 22 March 2008

  “Washington - The Pentagon on Friday ruled out including Adm. William Fallon as a witness before Congress when the top U.S. military and diplomatic officials in Baghdad testify next month on the way ahead in Iraq.

  Fallon’s abrupt announcement March 11 that he was resigning, effective March 31, as chief of U.S. Central Command overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan triggered accusations by Democrats in Congress that he was being forced out for publicly opposing launching a war against Iran.”..

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208E.shtml

Now, if Obama could talk to him in ‘secret’ or something, that might be helpful. But for now, (as has been for 7 years) that is next to impossible. So, just putting something down on paper, without access to any of the necessary details, could be tricky.

Still, I’m not saying that they can’t do SOMETHING along those lines.

Report this

By Guitarsandmore805, March 22, 2008 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment

The Obama camp likes to waste a lot of time reading between the lines in search of some vague paranoid innuendo in a Bill Clinton speech.  But instead of playing the victim card once again, I would like to see the Obama camp do something useful such as put together a time line for the complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops including combat, support, and contractors, from Iraq.

Report this

By Amae, March 22, 2008 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t know if saying “two people who loved this country” necessarily implies a third person didn’t. But as far as I am concerned, the Clintons again and again voluntarily campaign for McCain at the expense of a Democratic presidency were she not the nominee. She definitely should not be the nominee of the Democratic party.

Report this

By cyrena, March 22, 2008 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment

A few reality checks here. Clintonistas can cover their eyes if they want. The second article/link provides additional links to originally cited sources.

Story Behind the Story: The Clinton Myth
  By Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen
  The Politico

21 March 2008
  One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

  Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

  Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote - which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle - and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

  People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet.

  As it happens, many people inside Clinton’s campaign live right here on Earth. One important Clinton adviser estimated to Politico privately that she has no more than a 10 percent chance of winning her race against Barack Obama, an appraisal that was echoed by other operatives.

  In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

  The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics.

  Journalists have become partners with the Clinton campaign in pretending that the contest is closer than it really is. Most coverage breathlessly portrays the race as a down-to-the-wire sprint between two well-matched candidates, one only slightly better situated than the other to win in August at the national convention in Denver.

  Contd here
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/032208A.shtml

Time to Bow Out
  By Marc Ash
  t r u t h o u t | Perspective

06 March 2008
  Hillary Clinton had a good day on March 4. She reminded us she exists in her own right, and we may feel free to assume she played more than a trivial role in the Clinton presidential administration of the 90s. That said, she is the second most successful Democratic presidential candidate running this year, not the first. The most successful candidate running this year is Barack Obama.

  Can she make a comeback? Sure. But it would necessarily involve “politics by other means.” Scorched earth politics, to be specific. As Jonathan Alter, writing for Newsweek, points out, Hillary does have an unsolvable Math Problem. To put March 4 in perspective, with three wins out of four primaries (and a caucus in Texas), Clinton gained a grand total of 12 delegates. That’s according to The New York Times. Bottom line, she’s not going in the front door. Obama will arrive at the convention with a pledged delegate lead in triple digits.
  How we got here matters. The Clinton campaign assured us in advance they would prevail in the “big states” of Texas and Ohio; and so they did. But what made them so sure? They pursued a big state strategy from the onset, the traditional Democratic strategy of the last two decades. The Obama camp, however, went with the newly minted Howard Dean strategy, a small state, small ball game plan. Obama won. The delegate race is effectively over.

  Dick Cheney was up front with Bush campaign minions during the 2000 Florida recount, “Just get control of the Oval Office ... it doesn’t matter how ... just do it.” Machiavelli could not have said it better himself.

Continue at the link:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030608A.shtml

Report this

By Gmonst, March 22, 2008 at 3:05 pm Link to this comment

Thats a good point.  If it were turned around no one would even be discussing Obama as having a chance. 

I think this is a bit like a boxing match where a heavily favored fighter is being clearly beat round by round.  It sometimes takes the announcers a while to accept what is happening and often the fighter and their corner never seem to have a clue that they are loosing until the very end.

Report this

By writeon, March 22, 2008 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I used to think that those indviduals who feared that Obama would be stopped by a bullet were being paranoid and emotional. Now I’m not so sure. There are very powerful forces in the the United States who simply don’t trust Obama with the reigns of power for whaterver reason, do they suspect him of not being loyal enough to Israel, or is his loyalty and patriotism to the whole of the United States in question? Do they think he questions the dogma of my country right or wrong? Is he just a little too ‘democratic’ and a tiny bit too ‘radical’? Whatever, there seems to be some ‘doubt’ about him, is he really one of us?

Let’s be honest. There are people in the ‘ruling class’ who won’t tolerate Obama becoming president, and they will stop him by any means necessary. He should start wearing a bullet-proof vest and a kevlar helmet pronto!

Report this

By heavyrunner, March 22, 2008 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

What if the shoe were on the other foot?  What if Obama had come in third in Iowa and been behind ever since?

Would the media not be launching a psychiatric evaluation into why he could not understand reality?

Report this

By cyrena, March 22, 2008 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

I agree with Gmonst.

I didn’t find anything particularly offensive in Bills comments, even less when I ‘heard’ him here in this video, as opposed to when I ‘read’ the statement in question, because stuff can always be given a different spin when taken out of context.

(Lord! Haven’t we seen/heard/read nothing BUT that from the Clinton groupies for weeks now).

Still, for Bill to suggest that her chances of winning ARKANSAS in the general election is an indication of her overall electability is downright laughable. Hey Bill, did you remember those other 49, plus P.R, American Samoa, Guam, the US V.I…(did I miss anybody?)

Poor Bill, he looks tired and maybe a little depressed. Reasons enough to embrace denial I guess.

Report this

By rcat99, March 22, 2008 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment

Bill Clinton continues Naderizing himself, destroying a once laudable reputation and legacy in pursuit of a questionable and obsolete goal.

At least with Nader, the social and governmental aspirations, though unattainable, would be generally desirable and to the benefit of the great mass of Americans. With Bill, it’s just more self-aggrandizing dynasty-building.

Both attempts are doomed and can only cause destruction.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, March 22, 2008 at 2:04 pm Link to this comment

The Clintons had their day in the sun. 

Time to turn that page in the history book and move on. 

We have to rid ourselves of entrenched politicians, congressmen and senators, generals and 30 year career civil servants, who have collectively blown our taxpayer money and borrowed more.

Whoever gets into the White House should clean house.

Report this

By Guitarsandmore805, March 22, 2008 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

I don’t see how you can fault Bill Clinton for speaking well of his wife during a competitive primary process. To turn this Bill Clinton talk into some sort of dangerous threat against another candidate is a very weak argument indeed. Run on the issues is the message and its a good one.

Report this

By Gmonst, March 22, 2008 at 12:52 pm Link to this comment

I don’t think that the comments are particularly offensive.  However, I find it amusing that the Clinton camp continues to act like they have a realistic chance.  The only way for Hillary to get the nomination at this point is to overturn the will of the voters.  Her chances are beyond slim, nearing comical.  The numbers she needs to be ahead in delegates or popular vote are just not going to happen.  The Clinton’s obviously don’t like to loose and maybe don’t know how to loose.  I can respect that tenacity but it comes to a point where it becomes more pathetic than tenacious.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.