Top Leaderboard, Site wide
July 26, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates


Losing the Moral High Ground




The Sixth Extinction
War of the Whales


Truthdig Bazaar
How To Be Black

How To Be Black

By Baratunde Thurston
$24.99

more items

 
A/V Booth

Clinton Slams Obama, CNN Slams Clinton

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

Posted on Apr 11, 2008
Clinton

CNN’s political panel takes Hillary Clinton to task over what Jeffrey Toobin calls her “ridiculous” and “embarrassing” attack on Barack Obama’s comment that some Americans are bitter about federal mishandling of the economy. And when John McCain’s criticism of the Obama comment comes up, Jack Cafferty nearly blows a gasket.

Watch it:

Obama responds to the controversy:

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 jabber_wolf, April 16, 2008 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Recently they did a piece on Obama’s History.

1 His grandfather was a wealthy man that owned many farms. And His father was NEVER A POOR GOT HERDER!

2. BARAK was not a KENYAN name for blessed. It comes from Arabic and the QURAN. It is in no way African!

3. His father came from the Keynatta regime. When the British left, he took off back to Keyna and left his white bride and Obama!

So many many things CNN never got right because they never bothers to actually look at the FACTS!

Report this

By cyrena, April 15, 2008 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

No citations required here bert…you’ll have to look for it yourself, but since it’s EVERYWHERE, you shouldn’t have a problem finding that the Clintons have added to their personal income by $109 MILLION dollars since leaving the white house in 2001, which is why I never could figure out why Hillary had to steal all of the WH china and crystal.

Sooooo tacky. I guess she wasn’t even embarrassed when she had to give it back.

Anyway, that amounts to more than $10 mil a year…

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 15, 2008 at 5:20 am Link to this comment

Well, there were the Thompson hearings after the ‘96 election.  In those hearings, Thompson offered the Dems in Congress subpoenas to make the issue bipartisan and try to clean up campaign finance.  The Dems refused (according to Elizabeth Drew, at the behest of the WH), and then the Republicans hung Thompson out to dry for not prosecuting Clinton with sufficient fervor.

But i’m sure that you remember the Clinton WH nearly having to appoint independent prosecutors to look into their own campaign finance issues.  I’m equally sure that Norman Hsu rings a bell or two.

Report this

By cyrena, April 14, 2008 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

Part 1 of 3
Clinton’s Experience: Fact and Fancy
By Barbara Koeppel
April 15, 2008

The problem for candidate Clinton is how to stop kicking herself in the leg. Although she’s scored real achievements over the years, when repeating her 35-years-of-experience mantra, she pushes the facts too far.

By now, her gaffes on Tuzla, Bosnia, where her claims of “landing under sniper fire” and “running for cover” are well-known. Ditto her lines on Northern Ireland – where Nobel Peace Prize winner Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, Ireland, said she was “a wee bit silly” for exaggerating the part she played in bringing peace.

But if we reality-check some other claims, what can we say of her 35 years, on which she hopes to distinguish herself from Obama, who has actually logged more years in elected posts, counting his years in the Illinois legislature?

To start with, for 14 of the 35 years that she’s counting, Clinton was a full-time corporate litigator in Little Rock, Arkansas, at the Rose Law Firm. Further, for her White House years – aside from her work as chair of the President’s Task Force on Health Care Reform – she served as First Lady, not policy maker.

While First Lady in Arkansas, she did, as she claims, help “transform the education system.” Teachers and others there agree that, as chair of a commission to re-write Arkansas’ deplorable education standards, she was effective. Among other things, the new norms raised teacher salaries and amounts spent per pupil, and reduced class size.
Since Arkansas ranked 49th out of America’s 50 states in most educational measurements, and dead last in the percent of students who went on to college, the base was so low that any gains would be good. But it’s a fact the numbers improved.
Add to the fact column her work on child welfare boards, like the Children’s Defense Fund and the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families.

Dubious Claims
Other claims, however, are downright dubious, if not terminal twaddle.

Let’s start with her now-impassioned concerns for workers’ rights. This is surely an eyebrow-raiser, since her record on labor issues is roughly zero.
For example, she was on WalMart’s Board of Directors from 1986-1992, a company legendary for its low wages and union busting. Not surprisingly, her official biography omits this six-year stint.
Nor does she mention it when she woos Pennsylvania workers for the upcoming April 22 primary. In an effort to expunge the WalMart connection, Clinton returned its $5,000 campaign contribution to her in 2005.

According to Sam Ortega, a Wall Street Journal reporter and author of In Sam We Trust: The Untold Story of Sam Walton and How Wal-Mart is Devouring America, the company fiercely fought any union attempts to organize WalMart workers – threatening, spying on and firing supporters, all illegal acts.
Ortega writes that, during a Teamsters’ campaign at a distribution center, “Sam Walton bluntly told them he’d take away their profit-sharing if they voted for the union.”

Further, Ortega says many workers “remember his (Walton’s) threats with perfect clarity.” He adds that one worker, Larry Havener, recalls, “He told us if the union got in, the warehouse would be closed.”
Worse, Ortega writes, “union activists were soon laid off—always for some other stated reason, of course.”

Moreover, “Walton asked all employees to call John Tate – the company’s chief union-buster – if they noticed anything that smacked of union activity,” Ortega notes.

Low Wages
WalMart’s devotion to low wages seems not to have lost Clinton any sleep.

Ortega notes that in 1988 – two years after Clinton joined the Board – an Arkansas state senator publicly attacked the company for “dumping its overhead on state taxpayers, saying many of its near minimum-wage workers made so little they had to get by on public assistance.”

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/041408a.html

Report this

By cyrena, April 14, 2008 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 3
Another problem plaguing the company was the use of child workers – some as young as nine – by its foreign suppliers: When shown photos of children in Sakara, a Bangladesh sweatshop that made WalMart-label shirts, the company claimed ignorance.
Another problem plaguing the company was the use of child workers – some as young as nine – by its foreign suppliers: When shown photos of children in Sakara, a Bangladesh sweatshop that made WalMart-label shirts, the company claimed ignorance.
Moreover, despite her long-term concern for health care – along with child welfare, Clinton’s signature issues – she stayed on the Board although Ortega says WalMart insured fewer than 40 percent of its workers.

Why? Perhaps it was Clinton’s $15,000 annual WalMart salary, which rose to $45,000, for her service at four meetings a year, at a time her husband earned just $35,000 as Governor.

Perhaps it was her corporate lawyer role at the conservative Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, where she worked from 1978 until the couple moved to the White House.

Perhaps it was Arkansas’ “right-to-work” fundamentalism that made her mute. Whatever the motive, today’s worries for working-blokes’ concerns ring hollow.

Then there’s NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), which passed on her husband’s watch in 1994. Critics worried then, and insist now, that it caused the loss of hundreds of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs.

Today, candidate Clinton claims to have doubted NAFTA’s merits from the start. But the record indicates otherwise. As recently as 2004, she praised NAFTA as “good for New York and America.” This observation has been omitted in her Pennsylvania campaign.

Health-Care Choices
But more than any others, Clinton’s claims about her desire to improve health coverage and care through her efforts as chair of President Clinton’s health care task force are seriously flawed.

History and numbers tell the story best. In 1993, health care was a crisis for the U.S. public: 37 million Americans had none, and millions more had very little. Thus, public opinion polls ranked it as the number-two concern, second only to the economy – since the country, as today, was in a recession.
A majority wanted universal health care: Even many providers and the American Medical Association initially favored some form of universal plan.
The universal model adopted in Canada and most Western European countries, called the single-payer system, is not socialized medicine, as insurance companies repeat by rote.

Governments do not tell patients which doctors to see. Nor do they dictate what doctors may or may not do. Instead, it’s a payment mechanism, like Medicare: The government pays the health care bills directly, rather than the insurance companies.
This way, overhead costs linked to billings are slashed: In 1993, when First Lady Clinton launched her task force, a hospital official in Windsor, Canada, told me his costs associated with billing the Government for patient services accounted for just 9 percent of the hospital’s budget, while the average U.S. hospital spent 14 percent – a big difference in a multi-million-dollar budget.
In Canada, the savings left huge sums for covering patient care.

Did Clinton’s task force examine the single-payer option? Alas, it was never on the table.
According to Vicente Navarro, a physician and professor of health and public policy at Johns Hopkins University, and a member of Clinton’s task force, he tried repeatedly to get it considered, and failed.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/041408a.html

Report this

By cyrena, April 14, 2008 at 6:32 pm Link to this comment

Part 3 of 3
In a 2007 CounterPunch article, “Why Hillary’s Health Care Plan Really Failed,” Navarro writes that although he promoted the views of the single-payer community (unions, grassroots organizations and many providers) “they were heard but not heeded. … I had the feeling I was in the White House as a token.”

Nixing Single-Payer

Why such disdain for the system used in most industrialized nations?

Navarro says Bill Clinton was pushing the managed-competition model, backed by the insurance industry, where the companies “have full control over health-care providers.”

As proof, he writes that Bill Link, vice president of Prudential, stated that “For Prudential, the best scenario for reform … would be ... managed competition.”

The plan the task force ultimately sent to the Senate failed to pass, but not, Navarro insists, because of “bad timing” or the “excessive generosity” of the plan’s proposed benefits, as is generally believed.

Rather, it died because the President and Hillary Clinton refused to send a plan that was truly universal, and one around which the public could mobilize.

Thus, no plan was approved and insurance companies continued to control – and prosper from – the U.S. health-care model.

Now, 14 years later, another 10 million are uninsured and millions more are under-insured – often impoverished by serious or even not-so-serious illnesses.

Again, why? Why rule out even a cursory discussion of single-payer models?

Navarro says Hillary Clinton told him a single-payer plan was not politically possible. But to pass NAFTA, the President twisted every congressional arm he needed to make the deal.

So, why couldn’t he use the bully pulpit to mount the same push for universal health care – an issue on which most of the public agreed?

One answer could be contributions from the insurance industry and those connected to it: According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), over Bill Clinton’s career, insurance industries rank among the top 20 donors, while law and the financial firms are among the top 10 – the sectors often tightly linked to the insurance industry.

Fast forward to 2008 and, based on CRP figures, the industry continues its generosity, this time to Hillary Clinton – giving $913,000 to date. Obama has benefited too, with $700,000.

Since Bill Clinton and other Hillary supporters complain she’s picked on by the press, she would do well if she only claimed what is legitimate. This way, the press would not have to flush out the fables.

Barbara Koeppel is a Washington-based investigative reporter.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/Print/2008/041408a.html

Report this

By cyrena, April 14, 2008 at 6:19 pm Link to this comment

Maani,

I suspect you’ll have to get over it. On the other hand, I can’t imagine that I could or would EVER get around to putting your name in posts as much as you have mine, WHEN I’M NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED.

So, maybe the best way to avoid that, would be to simply not post anything. Kind of like, if ya can’t take the heat, stay the hell out of the fire.

Since you’re unlikely to grant my wish and go permanently -AWAY-, I think you should just get over yourself.

What a whiny namsey pansey…litigator, board member, clergy person, on and on, yada, yada…mr pompous with the stick up….

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 4:28 pm Link to this comment

What is the main point of your post?, as you do not say.

Starbucks DID just close a lot of stores due to declining revenues.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

I am neither saying it is true, or it isn’t true. In fact, I don’t recall ever posting about this topic. All I am asking is if it is, please provise me with some proof or citations, becasue I can’t find anything.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

Maani - I am so sorry that you got involved in this and I hope you will accept my aplogy. I did not intend any of my remarks to refelct on you and cause you trouble or distress.  Bert

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 4:16 pm Link to this comment

I hope you are not saying or even implying that Bill Clinton’s foundation does not do a lot of good in the world. This foundation has literally spent millions of dollars on at least 6 different initiatives including HIV/AIDS, Global, Climate, Healthier Generation, Economic Opportunity, and Clinton-Hunter Initiative to catalyze sustainable economic growth in Africa.

The thrust of the LA Times article was not that he, and by extension Hillary, were complicit in any wrong doing or in any way endorsing censorship.

The thrust of the article is that there are some political and philanthropy ethics advocates who worry that Bill Clinton’s reliance on international businesses and foreign governments to finance his worldwide charity campaigns MAY raise issues of potential conflicts of interest if he were to take an active role in his wife’s administration.

And that may be true, and when Hillary is elected President she will have to talk with lawyers and others to determine what if any role her husband could take un any PUBLIC duties she may want her husband to play.

But to just cherry-pick one small portion of the article and post it here without clarification is disingenuous at best.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 14, 2008 at 3:43 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t say that there was anything wrong with delegates deviating from the popular vote on the first ballot.  You are the one making up all these new definitions of disenfranchisement, so i just wanted to find out exactly how you use the word and when you apply it.

And you proved my point, the parties are private, so a primary “vote” isn’t really a vote.  Since your party rules say that the vote doesn’t have to be followed anyhow (that is, they only count if the party wants them to count), then not getting to vote in a primary is not “disenfranchisement”.  If the party isn’t obligated to follow the voting, the voting is just a fun little game…it doesn’t mean anything.

And you still haven’t answered the question about independent voters.  Are they “disenfranchised” in closed primary states?  They’re not even allowed to “vote”, much less have them count.

You’re pretty good at twisting, bert, but at this point you’ve twisted so much that you’re saying what i was saying to begin with.  Well, not quite yet, but if you follow your own logic…you will be.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 14, 2008 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

Well, considering the connections (just opinions really) between the Clintons’ political fortunes and the Chinese government in the past, one might be prone to see a pattern.  But it can’t be true.  Why?  Well, because it can’t.

Report this

By Maani, April 14, 2008 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

CY:

With all due respect, there is a difference here.  My use of the word “peace” does not “implicate” any other poster here.  It is a word one can agree or disagree with, or, if you like, post a comment on.

Cyrena adds my name into her posts in a specifically and directly negative and ad hominem manner.  That is “personal,” not just “general.”

Peace.  (yup…)

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 14, 2008 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

Not to be off track but I remember years ago a friend of mine was a Marine security guard (Moscow) and he use to wear a peace sign on his off hours, upon close scrutiny the peace sign proved to be a B-52 with the words “Drop it” in very fine print.

Report this

By BobZ, April 14, 2008 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

A Republican strategist on MSNBC talking about Barack Obama said that American voters “don’t want a president smarter than them”.  While I don’t really believe that, it may help explain why we ended up with George W. Bush.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 14, 2008 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Picky Picky…

I’d appreciate it if you would stop using the word “Peace” which you sling like an insult… BUT I know it ain’t gonna happen.. So I guess we’ll have to get used to stuff we don’t like huh?

Report this

By Maani, April 14, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“Oh my, this IS rich. Only you could come up with this bert, or maybe Maani or lib.”

I would appreciate your leaving my name out of your posts when I am not directly involved.  Thank you.

Peace.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 7:28 am Link to this comment

I just went back and read your original post and you also asked me to comment on how wrong it would be for someone who is pledged to a particylar candidate could or would change their vote on the first ballot.

Simple. I do not think it is wrong, plus Rule 12J (see response below)allows for that. So no long discussion is necessary in my viewpoint.

And as you correctly point out political parties have been found by the Supreme Court to be private enterprises and can set up their own rules. So anyone who engages in ant Party activity has no choise but to abide by their rules.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

“And you didn’t answer the
        question about whether or
        not delegates changing their
        votes before a second ballot
        would be “disenfranchisement”. 

On its face that is an ignornat question.

According to wordnet/princeton on line dictionary, the definition of disenfranchisment is:  “deprived of the rights of citizenship especially the right to vote.”

In other words, if they delegate is voting, NO MATTER WHO THEY VOTE FOR, they are still voting and therefore, by definition are not disenfranchised.

Disenfranchised has nothing whatsoever to do with who a person votes for. It is a taking away the right to vote at all.

Further, according to Democratic Party Rule 12.J:

“Delegates elected to the national convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.”

In other words if a particular delegate could not in “good conscience” vote for who they are pledged for, the rules allow for them to vote for some one else.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 7:02 am Link to this comment

And why in the world is someone who is earning on average 10 million dollars a year and has an Ivy League education calling Obama “elitist”.

Citation please. WHO is earning $10 million a year?

Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

I think it is very ironic how McCain and Hillary are all about Obama’s “platitudes” and make the argument he’s all talk, but what do either offer in contrast? Hillary double-talks and lies out of both sides of her mouth, then doesn’t want to take responsibility for any of her stances. They all want to have their cake and eat it too.

Obama is far from perfect, but he is far more authentic than any of our other options this election. Please stop suckling from the lies of Hillary Clinton and John McCain.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 14, 2008 at 4:14 am Link to this comment

First, i’m a he.  Second, the argument that the primary votes are meaningless and the delegates can do what they like at the convention is the argument that your candidate is proffering.  Third, i didn’t vote for Obama, nor would i have (and as i’ve said before, i don’t vote major party for president unless i’m voting against W. Bush).

And i said that both Dem candidates would have a hard time with MI Dems at this point, because people in MI are pissed off at our state level Dems…regardless of the presidential candidate.

And you didn’t answer the question about whether or not delegates changing their votes before a second ballot would be “disenfranchisement”.  Nor have you ever answered the question as to whether closed primaries are “disenfranchisement” in regards to independent voters (a block that you’ve said makes up 1/3 of the electorate). 

I’m quite interested to hear your views on these matters.

But it’s true, i don’t think that primaries matter.  Then again, i’m not a Democrat…nor a Republican.  And i don’t need any luck in November, because i already know that it doesn’t matter who we elect as president…nothing is going to change.  I also know that there are far more pressing things happening in the world right now than which bozo gets the Dem nomination.  You wouldn’t know it from reading the “news”, and since i never see you on any other thread than the ones that start with “Clinton” or “Obama”,  you probably don’t know it either.

Report this

By cyrena, April 13, 2008 at 11:06 pm Link to this comment

“Why do people always assume the worst and blame Hillary first.”

Oh my, this IS rich. Only you could come up with this bert, or maybe Maani or lib. Maybe because it’s not an ASSUMPTION? Maybe because she’s provided a trillion pounds of PROOF that we SHOULD assume the worst, and blame her at least when she is PROVEN to be a hypocrite and a liar?

Same with this…

” I KNEW IT !!!!!! All these primary elections are totally meaningless. And jps should know. She knows it all.  They don’t count!!!!!!! For anything. Obama’s being ahead in popular vote and delegate counts and so therefore deserves the nomination, as all you Obama supporters are so quick to point out all the time, doesn’t count for anything and the delegates can do what they want when they get to Denver.

Bit that is what the rules state and you are a rules kind of gal.

Try winning a national election without MI Democrats. Now that not only reqyires hope, that requires a suspension rational thought. Good luck with that come November.”

So bert, now you’ve got Jackpine Savage as a woman. I never thought that from the name, but then we never thought you were a woman either, from the ‘bert’ handle.

You’ve also repeated for the millionth time, that Obama has ‘had it easy’ for the entire duration of the campaign, and he’s being treated with ‘kid glove’s’

How much more ridiculous can you possibly get bert, and actually not expect people to laugh out loud at this point?

And, what could McCain POSSIBLY come up with on Obama that the Hillary-Rove crowd hasn’t already created? McCain may be stupid, but he’s not THAT stupid.

Besides, he’s got more than a full shitload of stuff that he could use on Hillary if she did win the nomination, and he wouldn’t have to make any of it up either.

HOWEVER, because they are such ‘good buddies’ both belonging to the same ‘status quo’, there is NO doubt that they would run a very ‘civilized’ campaign against each other, since they’re on the same damn side anyway.

That’s why McCain is hollering about Obama just as loudly as Hillary is. They’re both repuglicans, and they have to beat that democrat, (Barack Obama) no matter what it takes. Just like Cheney ordered/directed/demanded way back in late 1999, and again in 2000…“JUST GET THE OVAL OFFICE! I don’t care what you do, or how you do it. JUST GET THE OVAL OFFICE”.

That was 8 or more years ago. You see where we are now don’t you?

Nevermind…clearly you don’t.

Now, on MI, since they will NOT be holding another primary, and since their delegates are not going to be counted or otherwise considered…

Why do you attempt to speak for what the people of MI will do in November?

Your record was warped right after you began posting on this site bert. Now it’s just plain BROKEN into a million different little pieces, and none of the stuff connects, and you keep trying to make it connect. That’s the definition of insanity, in case you weren’t aware.

Meantime, I’m ‘getting used to’ Barack Obama being the president. Who’s griping about that?

Report this

By Sandy, April 13, 2008 at 9:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This is what I can’t stand about Hillary - spin and twist. I guess she doesn’t remember her husband saying much the same thing on Charlie Rose back in December.

I can’t believe this is the big story instead of Bill’s influence pedaling. How about the story in todays LA Times about his association with a company in China (Alibaba) that is accused of collaborating with China in the crackdown in Tibet. Instead of taking his usual speaking fee for a speech at an internet conference in China, he took an unspecified donation to his foundation.

“A former president of the United States received a donation from a Chinese firm that is involved in censorship, and now his wife is running for president. This is a shame of the U.S.,” said Harry Wu, an exiled Chinese activist based in Washington.

Report this

By Maani, April 13, 2008 at 7:11 pm Link to this comment

Bert:

Re the politico link: stunning!  A truly excellent assessment of the situation.  Thanks!

Peace.

Report this

By BobZ, April 13, 2008 at 6:12 pm Link to this comment

It’s only ok to generalize about a group of people if they are “liberal elitists” and live in Berkeley, San Francisco, or Marin County. if Starbucks depended only on liberal elites to buy their lattes they would be out of business? Almost every night on Fox News, we hear Hannity and O’Reilly bashing the liberal elites, and now Hillary seems to be joining in with them.

Report this

By BobZ, April 13, 2008 at 6:05 pm Link to this comment

I didn’t comment on Nutters comments because they were so over the top. He sounded like George W. Bush telling us how great things are in Iraq. If you didn’t know better you would think that Pennsylvania had never lost the hundreds of thousands of jobs. And why in the world is someone who is earning on average 10 million dollars a year and has an Ivy League education calling Obama “elitist”. That is right out of the Karl Rove playbook.

Report this

By BobZ, April 13, 2008 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

Your comments don’t address the issue that Clinton is no better than Karl Rove in her use of trying to create a wedge issue in order to avoid a discussion of what is really important to the American people. I have no problem with Obama’s taking on McCain in the general election. I do have a problem with Democrat’s who aren’t any better than their Republican counterparts.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

You mention what Daschle said, why didn’t you say what Mayor Nutter’s response was?

Since you reference this interview on FOX I think it only fair that everyone has a chance to see the entire interview and hear Nutter’s excellent responses for themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DjZnYvB7-w&eurl=http://noquarterusa.net/blog/

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 4:51 pm Link to this comment

EXACTLY the point I was trying to make. Instaed of telling PatrickHenry and jps that their article had no sources and was little more than gossip I went on the net and edfor an equally innane article that was pro-Clinton and posted it here with a paraphrase of PatrickHenry’s comment. I thought it was sarcasm but apparently that was lost on them. But Btavo, not on you.

That kind of tactic is generally lost on both of them.

If I had told them outright, they would have gotten all angry and written blustery stuff and been all upset and written all manner of nasty stuff.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

You write:    “The vote in a primary doesn’t count for anything,...”

I KNEW IT !!!!!! All these primary elections are totally meaningless. And jps should know. She knows it all.  They don’t count!!!!!!! For anything. Obama’s being ahead in popular vote and delegate counts and so therefore deserves the nomination, as all you Obama supporters are so quick to point out all the time,  doesn’t count for anything and the delegates can do what they want when they get to Denver.

Bit that is what the rules state and you are a rules kind of gal.

Try winning a national election without MI Democrats. Now that not only reqyires hope, that requires a suspension rational thought. Good luck with that come November.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 4:29 pm Link to this comment

You write:      “What I really don’t understand is why Clinton is trying to out “Karl Rove” the Republicans?”

Why do people always assume the worst and blame Hillary first.

The story broke on Huffington Post a very strong pro Obama site. All Clinton did was comment that she disagrees with Obama’s sentiments. If the roles were reversed, Obama would have done the same thing.

If the supporters of Obama are bitching now, what the heck are you going to do in the General against McCain? He and the Repub smear machine are going to hit him with all they got. And they got lots. This is barely a dress rehersal for what is to come.

Get used to it and stop all your griping.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 13, 2008 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

Obama’s got my vote if he’ll cut this albatross called Israel from around my country’s neck.

Report this

By bc41, April 13, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

Well, let’s be fair.  It was a similar kind of comment by Ross Perot when he said “those people” that put his career away.  He didn’t mean it as a racist thing to say but you run into trouble characterizing people as a group with generalizations like that.  So what if anybody was bitter, or what they cling too, what’s he going to do that is so huge, negotiate with Republicans?

Report this

By i,Q, April 13, 2008 at 2:26 pm Link to this comment

Oops, i replied to the wrong post, sorry folks.

See the links below/

Report this

By i,Q, April 13, 2008 at 2:24 pm Link to this comment

i read both of these “articles” and they look to me like nothing more than glorified forum comments such as we post here. i’m sorry, but i’m just not going to be converted by the assertions of anonymous campaign insiders. i also am not willing to buy the argument that one is more electable than the other based on pure speculation and supposition.

Before the next election, we need to petition the DNC to retool the primary process. This has taken far too long to sort out. And everyone knows that America’s attention span (especially where substance is concerned) is barely longer than a commercial-spot: thirty seconds.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 13, 2008 at 2:01 pm Link to this comment

President Carter has now said that he won’t endorse until after the convention.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 13, 2008 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

Thank god the Clintons are here to “save Democrats from themselves.”  If that isn’t elitist, then i don’t know what is.

My dirty little secret is that part of me hopes that Clinton does win the nomination and that it destroys the Democratic Party for good…that organization (such as it is) has outlived its usefulness anyhow.  They aren’t going to nominate candidates who speak the truth and act on it.  They’ve sold their soul to corporate America just like the Republicans.  There is no fundamental difference between the two parties.

So the sooner one or the other is gone, the sooner we can get about the business of rebuilding.  Destruction is the first step of Creation.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 13, 2008 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

Do we really have to go through this again?  Political parties are private organizations…we have no right to vote in their primaries, just as we have no “right” to enter a 7-11 without shirt or shoes.

The vote in a primary doesn’t count for anything, and as Sen Clinton is quick to remind us, the whole country could vote for Obama in the primaries and then the “pledged” delegates could change their mind at the convention.  Would that be ‘disenfranchisement’?

If one candidate wins delegates by virtue of a certain percentage of the vote and then those delegates change candidates at a later date, how is that not ‘disenfranchisement’?  (And i mean before a second ballot; i’m talking about state convention delegate assignment.) But that is perfectly acceptable under the rules of the Democratic Party, and Sen Clinton is advocating it regularly.  I’ve not yet read a post from you talking about how “wrong” that is.

And slavery is not the same as not having your primary vote counted…come on.

Maani was posting here before the nomination season got under way in earnest; he didn’t start posting here to “defend” Clinton against attacks on the internet.  Moreover, most people here weren’t attacking her until she started campaigning like Karl Rove.

And you’re going to counter argue with a quote from a Clinton about moral obligations and integrity?

I’d bet dollars to doughnuts that if Obama (or uncommitted) had won the MI primary, you wouldn’t be so concerned about it.  But i maintain that since the decision was made by MI state legislators and politicians, the retribution should come from the voters of Michigan.  It is Michigan’s problem and it is not life or death by any stretch of the imagination.  Besides, it wouldn’t even help Clinton because counting it would increase the magic number…she’d still be behind by the same number of delegates as she is today.  She would only make a slight gain under the new, larger number.

But i’ll ask again, were you defending our sacred rights before the Clinton campaign fumbled?  Where were you to stand up for us when the MI legislature was deciding to do this?  I didn’t get the memo about your operating an underground railroad to spirit us poor, disenfranchised out of Michigan and to sweet sweet freedom somewhere.

It’s a non-issue, less than 1/7th of the registered voters here even bothered to show up.  We knew the situation and we acted accordingly.  There has been no great outcry here to even redo the primary.  We’ll get our chance to vote in November, that’s all that matters; primaries don’t elect anyone to office, and the best candidates never make it through them anyhow.

Report this

By Skruff, April 13, 2008 at 12:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Get lost, whitey! Nobody needs you anymore!”

As a former mill worker, and a “typical white guy” The one George H.W. Bush called “Joe Lunchbox” I must tell you, no one needs ANY of us anymore. 

I truly believe if there was a way of getting rid of us without bloody hands, we’d all be gone.

Jacob that includes Black White, Hispanic and anyone in this country, on their own, attempting to pay the OUTRAGEOUS bills that piled up through Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush. 

When Carter was President I was paying $150 for a five room apartment in Worcester. Today my foster son rents (in the same building) a two room apartment for $1200 a month. He pays heat, I didn’t He pays electric I didn’t. He pays $40 a month for cooking gas, I paid under $5 Along with that, the free hospital in the (mostly poor) Main South district has been turned into condos, The mas transit system hardly works and costs ten times what I paid. and most of the good paying jobs (for non-college folks) are gone. Of course one can always get a job cleaning up drunk politician puke at the local Marriott…but that job only lasts till November.

Worcester is just one of the many mill towns across the rust belt where politicians visit before elections, make promises, and then promptly forget till the next election.

Bitter You bet…I loved my mill-town life. Unfortunately, I’m an atheist so I am absent that crutch, but I have got my Guns and my hate for a system that allows some to break the laws, (illegal aliens) but not others (citizens making less that 100K a year.)  I also have a deep love for my Country, (not its government) None of this however, translates into support for the corporate whore you are backing.

Report this

By BobZ, April 13, 2008 at 12:17 pm Link to this comment

Correct on all points - as Tom Daschle said on Fox News Sunday to a backer of Clinton (Philly Mayor), if things are so great why not just vote for McCain next November? I have seen bitterness in action - just talk to a flight attendant who makes about $ 12.00 an hour and asked to give back part of his/her pension or the pilots who lost 25% of their pension, while their corporate CEO’s kept their lucrative salaries and pensions - I can guarantee you they are “bitter”. And that doesn’t even begin to cover the folks in manufacturing who now work in the service sector at half their former pay. Clinton seems to be the one not living in the real world.

Report this

By BobZ, April 13, 2008 at 12:08 pm Link to this comment

Now we have Clinton out drinking with the boys, slamming down a shot of bourbon and chasing it with a beer. What’s next - her out duck hunting with Dick Cheney? This campaign is being turned into a Karl Rove seminar on how to create a wedge issue. Barack stated the obvious - both parties have let the middle class working people down. NAFTA is the perfect example of that. NAFTA benefited large multi-national corporations, and sucked a million good paying jobs out of the United States, many of them in states like Pennsyslvania. What is also bothersome if all these rich politicians Democratic and Republican getting all upset about the “poor folk” and Obama acting “elitist”. These are accusations coming from a candidate who earned over 100 million dollars over the last eight years, and another candiate married to an beer heiress. Instead of focusing on real issues, you have candidate surrogates going around trying to catch their competitors in mistatements. This is unfortunate for all of us as it reinforces politicians fear of saying anything off the cuff instead of relying strictly on a prepared script. What I really don’t understand is why Clinton is trying to out “Karl Rove” the Republicans?

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 11:54 am Link to this comment

You write:    “Moreover, i’m not getting into this “disenfranchised” shit with you again.  You don’t know what you’re talking about it, and it isn’t your problem.”

Here is the PERFECT reply to your stating that MI Democratic voter’s disenfranchisement is none of my business:

      “Voting is the most precious right
      of every citizen, and we have a moral
      obligation to ensure the integrity
      of our voting process.” 

- Hillary Clinton

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 11:48 am Link to this comment

This will surely make some Obama supporters see reality.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=47B82639-3048-5C12-006FAA614CC2E556

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

You write:    “Bill Clinton only won in 1992 because Ross Perot carried 19% of the vote.  43% is hardly a mandate.”

I am not sure he ONLY won because of Perot, but that certainly was a big factor, so essentially I am agreeing. And I don’t think I ever said he had a mandate. He simply won, even with his Rhoades scholar background. And he did know how to run an effective campaign. And love him or hate him, (I do a little of both) Jim Carvill ran a masterful campaign that year, aided and abetted by daddy Bush’s missteps.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 10:49 am Link to this comment

You write:    “Was that post directed at you, bert?  Did it not directly address “Purple Girl”? “

I can and will continue to respond to any and all comments here. So do not attempt to censure me. There is no rule here at TD that states I can only repsond to posts addressed to me.

You write:    “...and it (MI disenfranchisement) isn’t your problem.”

Gee, jps, would you have said that about me during the time of slavery if I had operated one of Ohio’s very active routes on the Underground Railroad? 

Anytime ANY American or any democratic primary voter is disenfranchised I take it as my problem. Jefferson said that freedom is not divisible. If any one is not free, none of us are free.

And like Maani, I started posting as an antidote to the hate filled posts and seemingly one sided Obama postings here at TD, especially the ones filled with huge factual errors and ad hominem attacks.

As I have said before, the reason you do not like me and get so angry is that I call you out when you post untrue or hateful things. That makes me proud. I know whenyou get angry I am telling the truth.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 13, 2008 at 10:13 am Link to this comment

Bert, Bill Clinton only won in 1992 because Ross Perot carried 19% of the vote.  43% is hardly a mandate.  No one can say what would have happened without Perot’s involvement, but to suggest that Clinton figured out how to win as a member of the “liberal elite” is a little far-fetched.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 13, 2008 at 10:06 am Link to this comment

Was that post directed at you, bert?  Did it not directly address “Purple Girl”?

Moreover, i’m not getting into this “disenfranchised” shit with you again.  You don’t know what you’re talking about it, and it isn’t your problem.

It doesn’t matter if i included citations anyhow, you’d dismiss them as “opinions”.  Anytime anyone cites something that you don’t agree with, you simply ignore it…so why bother?  I said that both candidates would have a long row to hoe, didn’t i?

You talk about how good this site used to be, and you’re right…it was very good until you started posting all the time, calling people Nazis and the like.

Look, i can’t help you with your unrequited feminism and your yearning for times gone by that only look good through the haze of subjective memory.  I could care less who you vote for or why…neither constitute a problem of mine.  Campaign your bitter, boomer heart out…and vote for McCain if you don’t get your way.  Keep deluding yourself that Clinton has a better shot to beat McCain in the general than Obama (neither has a very good shot at this point, mostly because of Clinton’s actions).  Whatever it is that you need to do to give yourself a feeling of worth, please do it.  You could use it.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 9:50 am Link to this comment

You write:    “i just meant the part about thinking the forum a place to share ideas without name-calling etc., not the part right after that where he calls Obama supporters Nazi brown-shirts.”

Yes. It should be. But since I started posting regularly on this site a few months ago some posters here, especially those who support Clinton and even the Clintons themselves,  have been threatened with disenfranchisement and bodily harm, Hillary and Bill have been called vile hateful names, I personally have been called all sorts of names as has Maani, mensa member, Doug Chalmers, lib in TX, and Joe in Maine to name a few.

And like me, many of these same posters I just named have been calling out those who do name call and some of it has been tamed down and even stopped.

As for the reference to brownshirts on this thread, I was specifically responding to dammit whose post was egregiously hateful and full of vile name calling.

I cannot even find it here on this thread any longer, so maybe it was pulled by TD.

That is why I invoked Quirks’ Exception to jackpinesavage’s invoking Godwin’s law on my post.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 9:29 am Link to this comment

I voted for him too. And I really liked him and believed he would have been far better than daddy Bush. But you see how far that got me. Gee, how many great candidates did I support who did not win? Well there was Humphrey, McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry.

By this time in my life I realize and understand that having the best candidate who is right on all the issues who has a commanding grasp of the issues and who understands the issues more and better than anyone else in the entire freaking universe, who is the best and most charismatic candidate is not enough to get elected in this time and this place in America

So I want a winner this time. And I honestly believe that Obama is not electable even if Wright is right and even if his statements in PA are correct or not. Obama is already being branded by the Rs and that coupled with his lack of experience against spells his defeat.

And I don’t believe that Obama can over come these as many do because I have seen too many candidates I thought couldn’t be defeated DEFEATED.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

In Presidential politics it is not what you really are…it is what the Republican smear machine can make you look and sound like. And they do a very effective job at that. Just think - purple band aids. No words necessary and a D lost another one.

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes scholar, pretty elitists, eh. But he did not advertise it and was able to get round it in the election. He packaged himself very effectively, something most Dems do poorly. He also made himself attractive to the middle 30’s.

I know a lot of folks on this site are purists. You must have voted against Iraq. You cannot triangulate. You can never ever have worked for Wal-Mart. They have a whole laundry list.

Me any Dem is better than McCain and I have no laundry list. I JUST WANT SOMEONE WHO CAN WIN!!!!

However, FIRST YOU HAVE TO GET YOURSELF ELECTED if you want to make any changes. And that is the tricky part.

In simplest of terms you can divide the American electorate into thirds. About 33% are hard core dems and many of these folks vote in the Dem primaries.

About 33% of Americans are hard core republicans and many of them vote in R primaries.

Another 33% of Americans are swing voters. They do not get involved in primaries by and large. They vote either R or D depending on the year and the issues. These folks can be swayed by all sorts of things, not least of which is TV and radio ads.

This 33% is what the race is all about - getting them. And last time around they voted for Bush for all sorts of reasons: felt they could have a beer with him, even though they disagreed with him they knew where W stood and he was honest Vs Kerry who was a flop-flopper. And then there are priorities - I am against the war but against abortion too and abortion carries the day.

In any event, to win a candidate has to keep the base, (and much of that base is in PA and many of them are insulted by Obama’s remarks. You may not be. But you, I assume, are not a PA voter. So it doesn’t matter what you think.) and get more of the swings to vote for them than their opponent.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

Part 2

I have to keep replying to your reply to me because of the arcane way TD opperates. They don’t allow you to reply to a reply and keep a discussion going. So I know this is out of order.

<<<<<<<<    “An ad showing Hillary getting flowers from a Kosovar girl…”

I don’t think that McCain would pick up on anything that petty. I think attacks on Clinton, should she be the nominee, will be on her liberal bona fides and can she be CIC. On Iraq she is positioned fairly well against McCain. Her votes are pretty similar to McCains, except she wants to pull troops out. Even though the ultra-left wing of the D paprty hates her for it, Clinton has really positioned herself well for a run against McCain. The Rs won’t be able to paint her into that corner easily or very effectively. But I think she will be able to do OK there as a majority of Americans want us out and McCain is on the wrong side of that.

Should Clinton be the nominee it will be interesting how the Rs try to paint her. I saw Karl Rove on TV the other night at some speech or other and he was giving quote after quote about Saddam, Ieaq, WND, erc., that you would have thought was GWB or McCain talking. But instead one was Obama, one was Bill Clinton, one was Hillary.

Therefore, I am thinking maybe what the Rs will try to do is use her own past words against her. Whether that will work or not no one knows.

<<<<<<<    “...the myth which was carefully created during the Reagan era that the GOP is the party of small government, strong economy,...”  >>>>

I think what you wrote here is spot on and is a big - HUGE - issue to run on no matter who the D nominee is. Ther are a lot of independents and a lot of true Rs or conservative who are very angry at GWB for these evry things. And they are ripe for the plucking at election time if the nominee and the party know how to frame that issues. The Ds could win over some Is and Rs if played correctly.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 8:26 am Link to this comment

Part 1

<<<<<  “....but the willingness of voters to buy into empty, sleight-of-hand political polemics.”>>>>>>>

Unfortunately, negative ads work. If they didn’t campaigns wouldn’t use them. And the Republicans have and can pay for the best oppositin researchers, psychologists, markering pros, and advertising writers and spinners out there.

And even though when polled voters say they hate negative advertising, and they complain about it incessantly, the damn things usually work. And they can be totally untruthful i.e. Kerry/swiftboaters. Makes no difference, especially if there is a big media buy and they are played over and over and over and over. Republicans know how to brand the opposition.

  <<<<<<<  “....It has been said that getting Democrats organized is like herding cats.”  >>>>>>

Yep. Will Rogers once joked he didn’t belong ro any organized political party. He was a Democrat.

Report this

By bert, April 13, 2008 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

And being disenfranchised by the Democratic Party, Dean, and Obama won’t keep a lot of voters home or make them vote Republican? Yeah. Sure. You live in Dreamvile.

Plus MI is considered a swing state going back and forth, voting R 5 times out of 10. (68 D; 72, 76, 80, 84, 88 R; and 92, 96, 2000, 2004 D)

You write:  “...the close relationship between Granholm and Clinton wouldn’t appear to work in Clinton’s favor.)” is this your personal opinion or fact? If fact a few citations would be nice.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 13, 2008 at 6:47 am Link to this comment

Purple Girl (and fellow Michigander),

Would you be terribly surprised to see Michigan turn red in November?  I won’t be.  It’s not solely because of the Dem candidates vs. the Rep candidate.  Our primary boondoggle reflects issues deeper than the nomination…at least here in MI.  Our bungling state government is (fairly or unfairly) perceived to be controlled by the Dems.

Our general pissed offness will almost assuredly get targeted on state Dems (unless they offer up so very good, and new candidates)...and i worry that we will let those feelings bleed over into the national contest.

We’ve got the highest unemployment rate in the nation, and my particular corner of the state has the highest unemployment rate in the state…at over 7%, using the “official” (i.e. bogus) statistics.

Whoever the Dem nominee is will have a long row to hoe here, as he/she will have to overcome the perception of terrible Democratic governance at the state level.  (I don’t know who’d have a tougher time, but the close relationship between Granholm and Clinton wouldn’t appear to work in Clinton’s favor.)

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 13, 2008 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the link

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 13, 2008 at 6:32 am Link to this comment

Interesting point about Dukakis, CY.  He did get labeled “elitist”, but i wonder if it stuck because he couldn’t see it coming.  Here’s a guy who owns a 25 year old snow thrower; he’s obviously not elitist.  He was just being himself, and he was probably quite comfortable in his own skin. 

It certainly seems that the political animals who do the elitist labeling are more often the elitists themselves, pandering to the masses.  So we get George H.W. Bush calling Michael Dukakis “elitist”. (One runs his own snowthrower and the other doesn’t know what a barcode is.)

So maybe the deeper point is that in politics, the name callers may often be representative of the names that they call.  If we don’t want to elect and elitist, then we probably shouldn’t vote for the candidate(s) who call others elitist.

I am an elitist, because bert says so…(but maybe, see argument above).

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 13, 2008 at 6:02 am Link to this comment

This surely will swing some votes and get others “off the fence” with their vote.

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/It39s-Obama-stupid-Carter-and.3976738.jp

Report this

By i,Q, April 13, 2008 at 4:14 am Link to this comment

So the press labels Democratic candidates as liberal elitists and hammers them over and over with it? The same press which is owned by corporate interests who profit from Republican tax policies? So maybe liberal elitist does not mean what we think it mean, eh?

It is code for class warfare.

By the way, you are engaging in the same behavior which you seem to be criticizing the press for. Maybe to whom they refer as liberal elitists are those who own and use a dictionary.

Some definitions for your edification::

“liberal: (in political context)favoring maximum individual liberty in political and social reform.” (Webster’s)

“elite: a group of people considered to be the best in a particular category.” (also Webster’s)

Those sound like some pretty questionable qualities for a president to have.

Your argument implies not that it is the elitism which is the problem, but that it is perceived as a negative by people who have been brainwashed. It wouldn’t matter who was nominated, it could be Robin Hood, but if he went to a private college and promised to raise taxes on the rich to give to the poor, by your argument, the press would make him an overnight liberal elitist sensation.

ps. We’ve now had 20 successive years of Yale-ies as presidents, twelve of them Republican. It doesn’t get much more elite than that.

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, April 13, 2008 at 3:45 am Link to this comment

Hailing from MI - nat.born & raised, Euro descent- 44 yrs old
I’m a livid over the last 35 yrs of BS. WE told them to get off ME Oil, We demanded new innovations and continuously warned against this Inc agenda- since the ‘70’s!!!
I lay the continued Decay of the region (and thus th enations economy), the Attacks against US and the usurping of our Rights and Freedom at the feet of the Oil, auto & Banking Incs who have seized our Country & our Democracy!
I not only beleive they have worked as Hired contractors for the UAE (Saudi’s) but have confiscate our Military to be their mercenaries around the world. Treason, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity- Levied against these Inc’s and their Operatives In DC!
Guns & God are th only two rights and Freedoms they have not YET been able to pull from our hands (and they will only be able to pry those out when we are cold & dead)
Hillary & Mac are horses (whores) out of the Inc stables.both should be working on their defense, not a presidential campaign!

Report this

By i,Q, April 13, 2008 at 3:32 am Link to this comment

i just meant the part about thinking the forum a place to share ideas without name-calling etc., not the part right after that where he calls Obama supporters Nazi brown-shirts.

i don’t even own a brown shirt.

Report this

By i,Q, April 13, 2008 at 3:13 am Link to this comment

part one (i am so longwinded…)

If i may turn your argument on its head for a moment, maybe it’s not the candidates who were faulty (well, okay, i’ll give you Kerry) but the willingness of voters to buy into empty, sleight-of-hand political polemics.

Perhaps the Dems would be more successful if they embrace homophobic legislation and decry the ungodliness of abortion, prey on the fears and weaknesses of the least educated of us. Tell us that we will only be safe if daddy can listen in on our cell phones and that missile defense systems are more important than pesky nuisances like education, healthcare, or infrastructure. They should tell everybody that taxes are bad and that we will all be much better off if we just give most of our money to their rich buddies who paid for all the theatrics which helped sell the charade in the first place. They could spread the rumor that McCain is a lesbian, or that his wife literally has to wind his clockwork spring in the morning before he starts his day. If the ends justify the means, and winning is the only measure, they should simply nominate a Republican as their candidate.  wink

It has been said that getting Democrats organized is like herding cats. Just look at the mess we’re in now. As evidenced by this very site, it is apparent that we are more willing to come apart over split hairs than to galvanize behind the party ethos despite minor differences in the candidates’ platforms.

The reasons for supporting one candidate over another are predominantly emotional rather than rational (perhaps because there isn’t much difference between the policies), which is why the narrative has devolved into a parsing of soundbites rather than an exploration of the policy details which will ultimately come to affect us. It won’t matter a year from now who ran for cover under sniper fire (or didn’t) or who called whom bitter. It will matter that the President can readily identify who exactly we are fighting “over there,” and it will matter whether we embark on an effort to create a new economy that ends our dependence on foreign oil, transforms idle factories into production plants for green technologies (which could also be exported to narrow our trade deficit), and begin the epic task of taking responsibility for our place in the global ecosphere. It will matter whether we ask our government to save social security or provide us with healthcare. (We already know that it is good at exporting death and chaos.) These arguments also appeal to our emotions and could be very effective. A sort of “be part of the solution” call to action.

Report this

By i,Q, April 13, 2008 at 3:11 am Link to this comment

...continued from part one

Returning to the negative, there is plenty of ammo against any of the candidates. An ad showing Hillary getting flowers from a Kosovar girl while the audio from the sniper-fire speech plays over it and an ominous voice after that asking if we really want a president who gets it so wrong. Or McCain being corrected by Lieberman on who exactly it is we’re at war with, and again an ominous voice asking if we really want a president who gets it so wrong. Obama saying that Wright is like an uncle to him cut against Wright’s inflammatory sermon. i appreciate your point, bert, but out of those three imaginary smear ads, the ads against Clinton and McCain will be about things that they actually said and did. Besides this most recent manufactured outrage, i’m having trouble thinking of a gaffe that Obama himself made. i think this whole “bitter” business may resonate in Pennsylvania for the moment, but lacks national relevance. Besides, i think what he said is true. (And locals responded bitterly, “I’m not bitter. How insulting.”)

i remain optimistic that the Dems will win because W has been such a transparent fool that he has destroyed the myth which was carefully created during the Reagan era that the GOP is the party of small government, strong economy, and smart national defense, and in destroying that myth, he has shattered the party itself. The time is ripe for historically moderate, truly conservative (as opposed to so-called socially conservative) middle and working class voters to reassess which party best represents their political values. Of course it looks like the Democrats are doing some party shattering of their own with all this trivial name calling and nursing of wounded egos. i don’t care if this thing goes to the convention, i just want to see an end to Democratic in-fighting. If McCain has a shot at an upset, it won’t be because of the individual qualities of either Democratic candidate, but by a lack of character in the pageantry of leadership.

Report this

By i,Q, April 13, 2008 at 12:49 am Link to this comment

i keep reminding myself to vacation from external fictional constructs.

smile

Report this

By bert, April 12, 2008 at 11:34 pm Link to this comment

“....growing up black with a single mother.”

Better go read a bio of Obama. You have a few things wrong.

Obama was born in 1961. When Obama was 2 his mother divorced his father and she decided to go back to college to get her Bachelor’s degree. She collected food stamps and relied on her parents to help take care of young Barack while she was in college. It took her four years to complete her degree.

In 1967 when Obama was 6 she married again and moved to Indonesia taking Obama with her. Her second husband rose through the ranks of an AMERICAN OIL company. She was bored by the dinner parties he took her to, where men boasted about golf scores and wives complained about their Indonesian servants.

In 1971, when Obama was 10,and after divorcing her second husband, his mother sent him back to Hawaii to live with her parents so that she could get her doctorate. In Hawaii Obama attend Punahou, an élite prep school that he’d gotten into on a scholarship with his grandparents’ help.

By and large Obama did not grow up with a single mother and he had a nice middle class upbringing and was largely raised by his grandparents.

Yes, Obama’s mother died of ovarian cancer in 1995, when Obama was 34. She had health insurance, but was worried how much the insurance company would pay as they considered the cancer a pre exisiting condition.

While that is indictative of our broken health care system, it is not like she had NO insurance which mullions today do not.

The point I am making is that Obama’s mother was not always single nor did she raise her son alone. And she had a very good support system - her parents - helping her in that role. In addition, she was often absent from his life and he was essentially raised by his grandparents.

So stop with the sob story already!!!!!!!

Report this

By bert, April 12, 2008 at 10:50 pm Link to this comment

You wrute:    “And a big *#@*$#@ to anyone who thinks that “liberal elitists” don’t also deserve a seat at the table. What an unbelievably un-American perspective.”

Philosophically I do not disagree with you. However, my use of the term is in regard to points I have made throughout several threads over several weeks here on Truth Dig.

It has to do with the fact that Dems have a long history of nominating candidates that are perceived as liberal elitists (i. e. Stevenson, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry) and that this trait is mocked and used by Republicans to smear these candidates and that leads to their eventual defeat in November.

I want a candidate that can win in November, and I believe that statements like Obama’s will be used in such a fashion by the Republicans and will result in McCain being elected.

Report this

By Kiwi, April 12, 2008 at 10:06 pm Link to this comment

Thank you i,Q, “The most tasteless trend of our culture in light of the “new” media is that somehow the idea that we can disagree or be imperfect or have our character flaws and still be forgiven by our peers is an entirely foreign concept. Instead, even slight disagreements in perspective are met with irate name-calling and exaggerated accusations of Nazi-ism and idiocy. It is hateful and it is disgusting.”
The most valuable comment I have read over the internet for weeks.
But hate terms like Obamanation, Repukelicans, S**tney Spears are the language of so many sites on the internet. if this is truely reflects the way many people think, then I have little optimism about the future

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 12, 2008 at 8:43 pm Link to this comment

If you truly mean what you’re saying IQ, then you’re NOT like bert.  Check the older stories.

Report this

By Don Stivers, April 12, 2008 at 8:29 pm Link to this comment

Jeeezus!  Who cares.  I care about who voted to get us into an illegal war/occupation and who did not.  Other than that, lets argue about whether it is nice out when it is 72 degrees out or 75 degrees. 

Need we say anymore? (Other than who continues to vote to fund the war/occupation)?  The people who should be out there campaigning are gone and we are going down the path to vote in another George Bush.

So, bla, bla, bla.  This is not important!

Report this

By i,Q, April 12, 2008 at 8:25 pm Link to this comment

i, like bert, used to think that this was a great forum where intelligent and informed people came to share their views, but it has denigrated (in a matter of months) into a shout-fest of smug, un-endearing loud mouths who are less interested in digging up “truth” and learning from the diversity of opinions held by its readers than in subjugating dissenters by sheer force of verbal will (which ironically has the opposite effect). i can’t say that i agree with the rest of what bert has to say.

And a big F@CK U! to anyone who thinks that “liberal elitists” don’t also deserve a seat at the table. What an unbelievably un-American perspective. How are they any worse than ignorant dumbf@ck elitists? (Sure, let’s find a high-school drop out drug addict who really “gets” the person on the street to be the next leader of our country.) And if you really think that any single person or group can be reduced and accurately summarized by such empty sloganizing,  i urge you to sit quietly in the corner for a few minutes and examine how pigeon-holing people with the purpose of marginalizing them or their opinions is its own form of elitism.

Like many of you, i’ve been all over this country, and i’ve found that it is filled in every area with both positive qualities and negative qualities. In fact, it resembles the way that people are at heart.  Every single person has some good in them and some bad stuff too.

The most tasteless trend of our culture in light of the “new” media is that somehow the idea that we can disagree or be imperfect or have our character flaws and still be forgiven by our peers is an entirely foreign concept. Instead, even slight disagreements in perspective are met with irate name-calling and exaggerated accusations of Nazi-ism and idiocy. It is hateful and it is disgusting. Perhaps we don’t even remember what peers are.  Frankly, no one here actually knows what is going on. Not really. Somebody reads something that someone else wrote, which is filtered through their bias, and even that has been filtered through the source’s bias, and so on. Call me lame, but i find a great beauty in the complexity of reality, and i generally feel ashamed when i get lazy and forget to explore it but instead substitute my own pre-conceived notions as the real deal.

It is not necessarily the voters in PA who are bitter (they might indeed be) but many of you here most certainly are. And not in any constructive way.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, April 12, 2008 at 7:26 pm Link to this comment

In English, “elitism” has a class connotation in favor of a select group who see themselves over and above the masses. So, in light of this, both Hillary Clinton and MaCain show ignorance of the English language by referring to Barack Obama as an elitist. In fact, this term applies more to both of them than it applies to Obama who comes from the modest background and from the disadvantaged minority we all know about.

However, like “Victory” and “defeat,” “elitism” is in the eyes of the beholder. So it is in fact a relative term. Other cultures look at elitism in different perspective. In Arabic-Islamic culture, for example, it’s related to knowledge and the wisdom that comes with it. In this sense, yes Obama ranks higher on the scale of elitism than both MacCain and Clinton, because he is more knowledgeable, more intellectual and wiser than both of them, despite them being older than him. So in this sense he is more deserving to lead the nation than the other two. This definition of elitism is not strange to Western cultures, for it was discussed and raised in Plato’s Republic.

In light of this, I am suggesting that Cyrena is an “elitist” in the most positive sense, because she has demonstrated a far higher level of farsightedness, intellectualism, wisdom, hard work and common sense than any one else on these threads. And if she was running for an office she would get my vote based on the criterion I highlighted above.

A real elitist should not be feared for he / she is bound to be more noble than others and thus would be on the side of the weak, disadvantaged and honest hard working masses than a false pretentious elite.

Report this

By Jan Kees, April 12, 2008 at 6:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When you see the video of his gutsy response, you feel the fire in the belly.  It says it all.  He’s not backing down from his substantive views because McClinton & Co. quibble about his choice of words.  What matters is the reality in rust-belt states.  People there will appreciate that he doesn’t ask them to be Pollyannish about it. 

Do McClinton & Co. really think everything is fine there?  Do they think working people have no reason to be upset, frustrated, angry?  Are they trying to distract working people yet again over the frosting so they will ignore the cake?

Report this

By bert, April 12, 2008 at 5:48 pm Link to this comment

“Where the hell do you live, lady? “

Well, for first 59 and 1/2 years in Ohio, contiguous neighbor of Pennsylvania. Last 2 and 1/2 years California. My dad was a fire fighter and my mom worked in a factory all her life. My mother was a first generation American and loved this country and was proud to be an American.

My Godfather and Godmother were from PA.

I have friends in PA and have been there often. While they are concerned about the U. S. economy they, their families, and friends are not bitter. They just want to live their lives and raise their families. They are good, honest, decent, hard-working, and friendly folk. They are a bit bewildered by Obama’s remarks. And a little hurt.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 12, 2008 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Gawd… That’s so important… How could I have missed this… and it applies to qualifications how?

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 12, 2008 at 3:34 pm Link to this comment

Where the hell do you live, lady?

I was born and raised in the Midwest…and other than my years of expatriation, i’ve never lived anywhere else.  I’m not some fool from the land of fruits and nuts talking smack about things i know nothing of.

Today at work, i spent the first four hours driving a tractor…how god-damned elitist is it to drive a tractor?  I’ll tell ya one thing, it’s hard to hold a latte on a tractor.

I was raised amongst people who made their living on factory floors and in farm fields…and i know damned sure that there is more wisdom in those places than the liberal bastions of America.  I know this because while i have an education, while i’ve traveled the majority of this planet’s continents, and while i’ve studied at universities in Russia, Austria, and at the University of Cambridge…i’ve also spent my fair share of time on factory floors and in farm fields.  And for all my high-falutin’ education and experience, i enjoy the company of rednecks.  There is nothing to be ashamed of, walking in the great shining path of monster trucks.

I actually have friends who’ve done tours in Iraq; i have plenty of friends who vote Republican; and i know how to operate a firearm.  I’m not a Democrat, but if i was, i wouldn’t be the type who thinks that they know the plight of the common man and then calls them residents of Dumbfuckistan when they don’t vote the way that they should.

And i long for the day when California and New York slide off into their respective oceans…good riddance to bad rubbish.

Report this

By Maani, April 12, 2008 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“I mean…ANYBODY who has paid even the tiniest bit of attention knows that he was raised in a single parent family environment, (help from his grandparents), in KANSAS…”

This just proves how absolutely fact-challenged you really are.  You have been repeating this completely wrong claim for months.

This is from his official bio:

“Obama was born on August 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Kenyan Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. and Kansas native Ann Dunham, who had met while at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. They divorced when Obama was just two, with his father moving back to Kenya, and his mother later marrying an Indonesian and moving the family to Jakarta. After just a few years in Indonesia, Obama moved back to the United States, living with his maternal grandparents in Hawaii.”

Thus, Obama did not spend ONE SINGLE DAY in Kansas as a child.  He was born in Hawaii, moved from there to Indonesia, then back to Hawaii.  Yes, his mother was BORN in Kansas - but THAT’S IT.

And you expect us to believe all the other “facts” that you post here?  You are, both figuratively and literally, unbelieveable.

Peace.

Report this

By P. T., April 12, 2008 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment

It’s socialism for the rich after the morons go bankrupt.

Report this

By P. T., April 12, 2008 at 2:00 pm Link to this comment

Hillary seems to believe that Wal-Mart clerks live like Wal-Mart board members.  Talk about an elitist!

Report this

By ChelseaClitnon, April 12, 2008 at 12:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ah Yeah! Obama is an elitist ,he went ot the best schools.What BS He is an elitist who watched his mother dying of cancer unable to keep up with the payments of her healthcare bill.That’s elitism for you, growing up black with a single mother.Puh-Pleaase.

Report this

By Gmonst, April 12, 2008 at 11:42 am Link to this comment

I think it is more condescending to state that people in the hardest hit areas of an economy which is facing the biggest challenges since the great depression are optimistic.  It kind of reminds me of when Bush says the Iraqis are optimistic.  If someone is optimistic about the economy right now, they are not paying any attention.  Its even more condescending to suggest that there isn’t reason to be bitter.  Bitterness is the fuel of change, not optimism.  It was bitterness that brought about the American Revolution.  It was bitterness that caused the women’s rights movement, and the civil rights movement.  The people of Pennsylvania should be bitter.

Report this

By bert, April 12, 2008 at 9:02 am Link to this comment

Smears, Negative Spin, Vilification Won’t Work

Wishful thinking, Patrick.

I think I’ll save this post and come back and revisit it on November 5, 2008 and see if you can respond through all the tears you will be shedding after McCain defeats Obama by a landslide.

If I had to create an algebraic formula to summarize Obama’s chances in November it would be this:

Obama08 = McGovern 72 - MA

Report this

By Conservative yankee, April 12, 2008 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bert writes: 

“...And you (I assume referring to Jackpine Savage)are an ignorant liberal elitist who thinks you know everything and has all the answers and looks down his/her nose at others.” (Funny, I never got that feeling from JPS)

“It is precisely this attitude that Dukakis..”

But I guess one can post anything here, no matter how uninformed they are…

Actually (Having known Mike Dukakis personally) He lived down on Perry Street, not the ritzy section of Brookline. He owned a 25-year-old snow thrower. He lived in a two-family duplex. As Governor he shunned State vehicles, and took the T to work. Dukakis attended Brookline public High School graduated from Swarthmore College (where he recieved a scholarship) in 1955, and then served in the U.S. Army 1955–1957. He was stationed in Korea. He returned to Massachusetts, and went to Harvard Law on the GI Bill.  This is hardly the resume` of an “elitist.”

We couldn’t have had a better president for the working classes, but they didn’t “get it”

Life would be quite different in these United States today if we had selected Mike S. Dukakis over GWB

He is the only Democratic Presidential Candidate for whom I have voted, and that record probably won’t change during this election.

Report this

By bert, April 12, 2008 at 8:53 am Link to this comment

Starting in 5th grade Obama attended Punahou, a PRIVATE (tuition and fees) and elite college prep school, not a public school

Obama attended Occidental College a distinguished liberal arts college located in Los Angeles for two years.

He then transferred to Columbia University in New York City,

He entered Harvard Law School in 1988.

Obama would prefer, though,  that we feel permanently sorry for him simply because he was “raised by a single mother.”  Obama was quick to play the “Single Mom” card when asked about his childhood.

Let’s face it, in today’s sensitive and see-me society it’s cool and trendy to be the underdog, the forlorn, the victim of something sensational and sinister, whether real or imagined.

“I was raised by a single mom” and ”I come from a broken home” have seeped into America’s psyche and is often little more than a clever and crafty tactical ploy to seek shameless sympathy.

It’s all about the baggage. The more baggage a person has, the more we are expected to pity and protect them and ask them to step to the head of the line to hopefully help relieve our guilt and anguish over their plight and life.

Hand me a handkerchief to dab the free flow of crocodile tears for Obama’s hard life.

Obama, a millionaire Harvard grad seems to have done very well in life, all things considered, as do hundreds of thousands if not millions of other children who were also raised by single moms but don’t make it a point to tell the world about it at every turn and opportunity.

The land of the free and the home of the brave is fast becoming the land of the molly-coddled and the home of the namby-pamby, the soft, and the cry-baby.

Remember the purple band aids Republicans sprouted at their Convention four years ago to mock Kerry’s war injuries and Purple Hearts? In 15 seconds Kerry was branded a loser.
Don’t be surprised if Republicans issue boxes upon boxes of “Obama handkerchiefs” at each and every political gathering from now to November and ask every one of Senator McCain supporters to wave them wildly every time Obama’s name is mentioned.

The visual imagery would be devastating and the underlying message would be clear.

Report this

By bert, April 12, 2008 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

You write:    “Midwesterners are bitter and angry.”

And you are an ignorant liberal elitist who thinks you know everything and has all the answers and looks down his/her nose at others. 

It is precisely this attitude that Dukakis, Gore and Kerry had and which led to their massive defeats.

Good luck with that this coming November.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 12, 2008 at 4:46 am Link to this comment

Midwesterners are bitter and angry.  They built this country over the 20th century.  They fed the nation and worked in the manufacturing plants that drove the economy.  And they got sold out.  Towns all across the MidWest are literally dying.  In many cases, they don’t understand the mechanisms of what happened and how…which leaves them vulnerable to the slick talk of politicians.

When John McCain was in Michigan, he told us that those jobs we used to have were gone, gone forever.  He was both honest and correct.

Clinton is pandering.  She’s telling the 75 people that showed up to hear her talk that everything will be just fine…and she knows that it won’t be.

And the Clintons, with their $100+M and the fact that they’ve been waited on hand and foot since they entered the Arkansas governor’s mansion, are nothing if not the elite.

If there isn’t some honesty injected into American politics soon, we’re done for.  I don’t really care who does it, but someone has to.

Honesty is one concept that the Clintons have never understood.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 12, 2008 at 4:37 am Link to this comment

I didn’t include you, because you are actually a Clinton supporter with a brain.

Mensa and lib are Republican trolls.  Read what they write and how they write it.  If you feel comforted by having the Republican trolls on your team, that’s your problem.

Report this

By cyrena, April 12, 2008 at 2:53 am Link to this comment

Me too Uraboros…

Only, I came later than you did. Didn’t get whacked until the end of the Clinton admin, and I refuse to put a I after that, because there WILL NOT BE ANOTHER.

Still, I know what you mean. By now, I’m in a position to play counselor to the most recently whacked. (I think they’re in even worse shape than I was though…at least I KNEW what was coming).

Many of them are STILL in major denial, even after these past 7 years…

Report this

By cyrena, April 12, 2008 at 2:47 am Link to this comment

Damn! Just not your ‘standard incest’ here, eh? And THIS perversion has been in the ‘family’ so long, as to have created an entire dynasty of political perverts.

Thanks for the link. I still say we need a flow chart or a diagram, but I can’t draw a straight line, (unless it’s a flight plan) and I don’t know how to work this PC software that’s supposed to be able to create them for you.

Anyway, whoever takes on the job is gonna need frequent breaks. Jeeze…the plot just keeps getting thicker with this sect. It’s HUGE!!

Report this

By cyrena, April 12, 2008 at 1:04 am Link to this comment

Ah gee bert, you are the comical one. Yes indeed. You mimic, copy, or otherwise plagiarize your remarks from my own comments, (and others here) and apparently believe that no one is going to notice. That’s another sign of the hubris or simply arrogant ignorance.

Anyway, I’ve told you so many times, that underestimating the intelligence others, and failing to pay the appropriate attention to the world outside your self-absorbed bubble is really BAD FORM. It’s incredible that you’ve continued to stay in denial about the results of such bad judgment. I guess there’s just no hope for some folks. Even Maani picked up on my suggestion to consult other websites that might bring your mentality a bit closer to the 21st Century.

But, not you. For instance, why do you continue to post lies like, “Obama lived a privileged life-style in Hawaii” and actually expect people to believe it, when it’s simply not true? I mean…ANYBODY who has paid even the tiniest bit of attention knows that he was raised in a single parent family environment, (help from his grandparents), in KANSAS, and not by any means as a wealthy elitist. (so why don’t you cut the crap?)

Yes, we ALREADY KNOW that he attended some of the best of schools, because he’s told us that himself, and one can certainly ‘pick that up’ from hearing him speak, or reading his books, or any of his other published work. So bert, it would almost SEEM like you’re suggesting that UNLESS one is an ‘elitist’ (of which there are very few of color), than one cannot attend some of the nations’ better schools. And that one CERTAINLY cannot do so as a person of color! Is THAT what you’re suggesting bert?

Well, I have to admit that there IS a great deal of truth to that. BUT, every now and then, there actually ARE ordinary black people that ‘luck up’ and get to attend these schools. It generally happens with those who have been identified early on, as extraordinary people of extra ordinary intelligence, and so the fact that they are black is ‘overlooked’ or they are SO impressive, that they are encouraged and often sponsored by those with more impressive means. Sometimes, their family members just work real hard and make a lot of sacrifices so that they CAN do those things. Did ya ever think of that bert?

Yep bert…it happens. So, while most ordinary folks, from ordinary backgrounds who make it to these ‘extra good’ schools generally surprise the average ignorant like you, it does happen. Yep, folks like you continue to be amazed all the time. They see a black person, and get into conversation with them, and find out they’ve been educated, and say something like, “You mean YOU went to Cornell?” And then they’ll follow it with, “Oh, must have been ‘affirmative action’.” Yep bert, we know your type.

Meantime, you just keep lying, and…we KNOW THAT TOO! (and we can figure that out even WITHOUT being ‘elite’ or attending school!) Hot damn! Imagine that. Seeing though a liar does NOT require a college education. Hell, we could hang out on a street corner shooting craps and figure that out.

And guess what else? The folks in Pennsylvania are figuring it out too. Obama is only a few percentage points behind Clinton at this point. Yep. And remember how she started out so far ahead of him? I’m thinking she might be better off if she just stops talking. She seems to just keep making it worse for herself. Like you. It’s like, “Open mouth, insert both feet and both ass cheeks.” (of course in your case, it’s open computer, and be dumb enough to start typing.) You should pull the plug bert..at least on your computer.

You don’t use it for anything constructive, so maybe you should give it to a poor kid.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 11, 2008 at 11:33 pm Link to this comment

Hopefully Obama sways somewhat left.  That is what a democrat is!

It’s definitely better than being an outright republican.

“…political incest?

More interesting is that “Democrat” Penn’s Burson-Marsteller Worldwide owns BKSH & Associates, a major political lobbying firm run by Charles R. Black, Jr. counsellor to Republican Presidents. Black now works full time for the campaign of Republican John McCain. In other words, Black heads a firm whose boss is “Democrat” Clinton top strategist, at the same time Black is Republican opponent John McCain’s top strategist.

In turn, Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller is owned by British advertising and Public Relations giant, WPP Group which employs as lobbyists a former Republican National Committee chairman, Ed Gillespie; a former House of Representatives Republican leader, Robert S. Walker, top Republican fundraiser, Wayne L. Berman and the former media adviser to George W. Bush, Mark McKinnon.

In the wake of the resignation of Mark Penn, reports in Washington are that James Carville, former 1992 campaign adviser to Bill Clinton, to Tony Blair and Israel’s Ehud Barak, will assume the role of campaign strategist. It is worth noting that Carville is also deep in Washington political incest. While Carville was running the 1992 Clinton strategy, Carville’s fiancee, Mary Matalin was running the campaign strategy of President George Herbert Walker Bush. As the old expression goes, US politics at least, has indeed strange bedfellows.”

full article:  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va& aid=8595

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 11, 2008 at 11:26 pm Link to this comment

The Clintons and the Bushs are crooked.  The last thing we need is ANOTHER puppet family dynasty in the White House.

No wonder Bill and Hill get along so well.  They’re both liars.  It’s no surprise that Clinton lied, then again and then yet AGAIN.  She was fired for lying.  It does make you wonder how MANY times you would have to lie, to get FIRED for it.  Especially as a LAWYER!

This couple is a joke and a stain on America’s rattiest dirty shirt.  Bill’s artificial righteous indignation is HILLarious.

Report this

By bert, April 11, 2008 at 11:18 pm Link to this comment

Aawww shucks. Golly gee, my feelings are hurt. jps - You didn’t include me with lib and mensa member.

Your elitism is showing cyrena, jps, and heavyhitter.

Obama’s is showing too.

Despite his trying to hide it during this campaign, you must remember that Obama had a privileged childhood and he attended the very best and most exclusive private schools Hawaii had to offer to its elite; and then he further moved into privilege through the best America had to offer at Columbia and Harvard.

Obama’s statement shows a total lack of understanding and a condescending attitude towards hardworking Americans. He is more out of touch with average Americans than I thought. This will not play well in PA. You don’t insult voters when you will need their votes two weeks hence.

Obama came off very badly. It is these kinds of remarks that sound totally normal in Democratic elitist circles. But outside that world Obama (and you three) has no understanding of how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist. It sounds like he’s looking down on people. When you have to explain something in politics, you’re in trouble. Period.

Obama reverted to the elitist that he is. Republicans love to use the phrase, “liberal elite.” Obama just handed them a goodie. McCain is already attacking him. And this goodie is on top of Wright and more. Oh the web the right wing attack machine will weave.

But, it was bound to happen sooner or later. Barack Obama has done what Democratic candidates for president always do — he has revealed his profound sense of unearned superiority that is the sad and persistent hallmark of contemporary ultra-left liberalism.

Almost every Democratic candidate for president does it – Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. Then the press hammers them and the public hears it over and over and over until they come to believe it.

The Democrats are yet again on a course that will repeat its losing Presidential elections once again. As Joe in Maine said – the Democratic Party slogan should be “Nominating the Unelectable Since 1840.”

Report this

By P. T., April 11, 2008 at 11:14 pm Link to this comment

The elite who have made much money the last few decades think that because they are contented that everybody must be.

Report this

By Patrick, April 11, 2008 at 9:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow! Obama’s response to the charges of elitism from Clinton and McCain and The Fox brigade are fantastic. This will clearly demonstrate yet again that the old strategies of destroying a candidacy through vilification aren’t going to work on Obama. Enough people are truly fed up with the pettiness and are more interested in electing a highly intelligent, skilled, level headed, inspiring, sincere leader. Thank you George W. Bush for being a teaching President: his incompetence and arrogance have made voters vigilant against overblown smears and negative spin campaigns, especially when such strategies are used against someone as obviously talented as Barack Obama.

Report this

By Uroboros, April 11, 2008 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hey, I’m not a fan of Mr. Obama, per se. Two tries with the Kucinich campaign, a cavalcade of Friedmanite toadies in the oval office, three decades of Voodoo economics, along with wholesale theft of all the post war gains of the middle class, and I’m ready to sacrifice my hide for a return to a civil and just society.

What about you? Had enough? What else do you have to loose?

Time to kick the REAL elitists out of the people’s house. They’ve preyed on our generosity long enough. Don’t you hate being considered stupid for being trusting and decent on principle?

The whole lot of carpet baggers has got to go. And if the lights go out, I got my eye on a few folks I’d like to have a little talk with.

Am I bitter? Are you kidding? I’ve zoomed past rage a long time ago. Quite frankly, I’m waiting for you all to catch up from where I was when the tie-a-yellow propaganda hooked so many unsuspecting souls during Bush I.

America needs a velvet revolution, na-mean?

Report this

By cyrena, April 11, 2008 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment

Ya know, everything that these CNN newscasters are saying is true, and I don’t even WATCH CNN. However, in the past several weeks, we’ve just watched the attacks from the CLINTON - MCCAIN PARTY, just become more and more ridiculous, and more and more petty, and more and more STUPID and more and more TRANSPARENTLY OBVIOUS in their desperation to maintain the status quo of the past 3 decades, that has essentially BROUGHT US TO RUIN!!

Barack Obama has now become the worst threat to the RULING CLASS, to come along in a long time. Or, I should say the first threat that they’ve ALLOWED to come to the fore, since others like Kucinich have been marginalized since long ago.

The reality is that they underestimated or otherwise ignored Obama, until it was too late, (for THEM) and he’s made himself known, in speaking for the MAJORITY of us! Oh no! If ANYBODY has been ignoring the American people or TALKING DOWN to us, it’s been these arrogant clowns from the REGAN/BUSH/CLINTON/BUSH/CHENEY/MCCAIN (and I could go on) regimes. And, for far too long, and..you’re damn right that we’re PISSED!

And NOW…the word is too widespread, because they didn’t hold him back, and too many of us know that SOMEBODY who DOES know what the hell they’ve been up to for these decades, has finally been able to break through. It is THAT, which is what is forcing this combined attack from the Clinton-McCain Republicans. In reality, Barack Obama is the ONLY candidate running on a platform as a candidate for THE PEOPLE of the US, and it just happens to be the Democratic ticket, if only because his ideology DOES actually epitomize what a democracy AND the Democratic Party USED to represent!!

Anyway, for weeks and months now, all we’ve been getting is more of the same bullshit spin from the Clinton/McCain repugs, which is the SAME as we’ve been getting from the current thugs in DC for over 7 years. One thing after the other has been created in a pile of piss and slime to throw at him, from the Muslim thing, to the Wright thing, to the rezko thing, and most recently to the claims that he’s backing out on his pledge to revamp public campaign financing, when in reality, he has NOT ‘backed-out’ of that, and it IS in fact exactly what he’s been doing!

I discovered the SPIN on that, after taking the time to go through all of the documents and related links that Maani posted for us (in an attempt to portray the OPPOSITE of course) on the other thread involving this ‘pledge’ and the campaign financing. It was all very revealing, and I probably wouldn’t have otherwise noticed or paid much attention. But the reality is that RATHER than REVERSING on his pledge to that effort, he’s gone on with attempting to do exactly what he promised to do on that. The problem for the ‘others’ is that in utilizing that public financing, they’d have to actually follow the rules, AND avoid using all of the myriad ways there are to CHEAT. And yes, there are many. Matter of fact, there are so many ‘loopholes’ in current campaign finance laws, (McCain’s alleged ‘specialty) that they can all be utilized exactly the way they’ve been used by the Bush/Cheney/Rove team for the past two.

So, they’d have to actually agree NOT to cheat, and that’s not likely to happen with the repugs. EVER! So now, they all wanna claim that he’s trying to ‘back-out’ or otherwise ‘reverse’ his plege, which was to organize an agreed upon way to utilize the public financing system for elections. And when he addresses the rules of campaign finance in this effort to put an agreement together, they say he’s ‘attaching conditions’. Yeah…CONDITIONS NOT TO CHEAT!

Meantime, the guy is looking better and better everyday, and with each petty utensil they throw at him, he uses it as a prompt to take one more step up. All it does it to keep bringing out the best of him and his leadership skills.

It’s ‘we the people’ now, v Bush/Clinton/McCain/Cheney/corptacrocy/military industrial complex/etc.

Report this

By heavyrunner, April 11, 2008 at 9:12 pm Link to this comment

Hillary Clinton stinks.

John McCain is worth $100 million, or at least his wife is.

The Clintons have whored their way to $100 million since Bill left office.

We are supposed to think Obama is the elitist?

What rubbish!

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 11, 2008 at 8:42 pm Link to this comment

Damn, Cafferty snapped a piece of there.

10-1, or dollars to dougnuts that Clinton will vote for McCain if she doesn’t win the nomination.  Straight talkers stick together.

And where are Truthdig’s resident, Republican trolls: mensa and lib?  Some of us are starting to forget that Obama is MUSLIM…

Report this
 
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.