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…

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.

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

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

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

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....

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.

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?

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.

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.

“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?

Bert:

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

Peace.

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.

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.

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.

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=ht tp://noquarterusa.net/blog/

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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

See the links below/

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

This will surely make some Obama supporters see reality.

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=47B82639-3 048-5C12-006FAA614CC2E556

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

Thanks for the link

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).

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

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.

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!

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.

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. 

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.

...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.

i keep reminding myself to vacation from external fictional constructs.

“....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!!!!!!!

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.

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

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

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!

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