Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 23, 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


The Mideast Horrors Grow




A Chronicle of Echoes


Truthdig Bazaar
1876

1876

By Gore Vidal
$16.00

more items

 
A/V Booth

Hillary Clinton ‘Offended’ by Rev. Wright

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

Posted on Apr 30, 2008
Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton tells Bill O’Reilly (always an elevator of conversation) that “I take offense at” the comments of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Michelle Obama, meanwhile, would rather the press just move on.

Watch it:

Plus: Michelle Obama on the “Today” show.

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 cyrena, May 6, 2008 at 4:12 pm Link to this comment

DearBeerDoctor,

Outraged may have already been aware of this story, since she keeps up really well.

However, I became aware of it from YOUR post that directed me to the links, and then I reposted that link and a few others.

So you see, this may have come to our collective knowledge from the link that you orginally posted on that other thread.

Now how’s that for using technology for such productive means?

Thank you…and Outraged as well.

You all do good work! smile

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 6, 2008 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

I thought that was a box of chocolates.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 6, 2008 at 5:35 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Your hypothesis lacks correct information, so the question is unanswerable.

Anything said during a political campaign is probably hype, and not a fit foundation on which to build a theory.

selecting a politician ia like buying brown-bag popatoes, you never know what you bought till you cut into them.

Report this

By A. Allyre, May 5, 2008 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

-Would you please respond to the question I’M asking… or go off on your own question.

I’m trying to work through a question about the real distribution of military and political power.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 5, 2008 at 2:45 pm Link to this comment

For a moment lets put aside that HRC does not speak for many Americans who want peace and to get out of our present bad position “over there”. 

She is speaking for a small minority of Americans who unconditionally support Israel and the U.S. fighting Israels wars for them. 

If Israel attacks Iran, the U.S. is not bound by treaty to defend it.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, May 5, 2008 at 5:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By A. Allyre, May 4 at 12:31 pm

“she doesn’t have the far left anyhow because it’s already with Obama.”

The “far left” where you reside must be a right wing version of Maine’s “far left” the “far left” here is closer to voting for McCain than for Token or the business shill….Actually those with whom I have conversed are leaning toward McKinney or Nader that is the few of them who believe in voting…

Report this

By G. Orwell, May 4, 2008 at 7:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What a *&tch;.

Warning: some images graphic:

http://www.alternet.org/story/63908/

http://www.thefourreasons.org/victimsofwar.htm

http://mindprod.com/politics/iraqwarpix.html

Report this

By A. Allyre, May 4, 2008 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s put aside for one moment that many of us don’t like HRC as a person and that we’re skeptical, if not disdainful, of her campaign’s tactics… just for a moment…

What if this were the scenario… she knows damn well and good that Iran will not move on Israel. But in seeming to ‘stand tall’ in opposition to Iran she accomplishes two things at once. She shows that she may have “balls” to the right wing and at the same time sends a signal to the military that SHORT of an Israeli invasion that it’s ‘hands off’ Iran.

She gains political points without losing a thing… except perhaps losing a bit of support from her far left for saber-rattling… she doesn’t have the far left anyhow because it’s already with Obama.

IF this were the case… and sending a hands off Iran message were actually encoded here… how might that change the Left’s view of her?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 4, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

Damn, when the same ruler is applied to Hillary as it was to Rev. Wright its different.

The only gains Hillary has made in the polls are in your head or fabricated by the Jewist controlled media which I believe you are a parrot, bert.

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, May 4, 2008 at 6:45 am Link to this comment

Your hair is perfect. Your teeth are all white, none are missing. You have a friendly smile. The choice of bright happy colors brightens your face. It frames your message as up beat.

I just can’t understand why your loosing..

Report this

By Coinservative Yankee, May 4, 2008 at 5:06 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By offense derives from Clinton’s lack of substance, the smell from her campaign, and her downright perfidious statements.

She’s a liar a cheat and a crook, who will do anything, sell-out to anyone (including GWB) and roll her campaign machinery over the corpses of Iraqi children on her way to “destiny.”

...other than that She’d make a great president.

Report this

By cyrena, May 4, 2008 at 3:51 am Link to this comment

No bert,

REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, OFFENSIVE is your obsession with the lies and distortions that require you to consistently post propaganda and hyperbole here, as if folks can’t read, write, count, and believe what their own eyes and ears are telling them.

You claim that Obama has consistently voted to fund this same war that he strongly condemned BEFORE IT HAPPENED (thanks to Hillary’s gung-ho vote with the rest of the hawks who wanted it) and frame it as if Obama has been in a capacity to vote for funding since the beginning.

Force back to reality bert, since you are as determined to bury truth as I am to make sure we all know the sheer danger and terror that HRC poses to us and the rest of the world.

Hillary has been in the senate and consistently voting in favor of this occupation for just over 7 YEARS! She’s as much of the reason why we’re in this war as anyone else in Congress. SHE HELPED MAKE IT HAPPEN, long before it DID. She specifically stated that it was the only way to get rid of Saddam Hussein, because according to her, “Saddam Hussein never did ANYTHING without being FORCED!” She voted for this occupation of a nation that had NOTHING to do with 9/11 or al-Qaeda. She did it KNOWING that it was intended to be a permanent occupation, and that millions of innocents would be killed.

She’s been on the Armed Services Committee for OVER 5 YEARS, and has YET to address the deplorable conditions that our troops are forced to deal with in Iraq as well as here at home. She’s yet to provide a single solitary suggestion or solution to the fact that the same troops have done 2, 3, 4 and more tours of duty, and that if they manage to survive the hell hole she’s helped create, they come back here to even MORE bureaucratic hell. Returning troops are committing suicide by the hundreds, and Hillary hasn’t said shit about it. Female troops are being raped and murdered, and it’s being covered up by the Army, and Hillary hasn’t said a damn thing about that either. Yeah…the SAME Hillary who enthusiastically supported this war and permanent occupation, after wrangling that all important seat on the Armed Services Committee.

By HUGE bi-polar contrast, Barack Obama has been in a ‘voting capacity’ for just over 2 years. You also know as well as the rest of us do, that the funding he has voted on, (when he has…I think TWICE) has been presented as it’s almost ALWAYS been presented by this regime, as EMERGENCY appropriations, because these guys are slick enough to NEVER figure it into the budget! You also know that this funding is ALWAYS framed as funds needed for the TROOPS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE!  You also know as well as we do, that the dems did make a piss poor attempt led by the worthless bush ass-kisser that is Nancy Pelosi, to attach withdrawal conditions to at least one of those funding proposals, and it failed.

So stop lying bert, about Barack Obama ‘consistently’ voting to fund a war that he had nothing to do with starting, and vehemently opposed, along with several other million people WORLD WIDE, as HRC stood strong and said YEAH…go get ‘em, and damn the consequences!!

YOU have long ago revealed in your own posts, that the war on Iraq isn’t even a concern or a priority to you. You have no loved ones being sacrificed, (probably because you have no loved ones period) and you revealed that long ago. Quoting you, from a much earlier post: “It’s NOT the WAR, it’s the ECONOMY!” You’re too dumb and self absorbed to even know that the economy is in the toilet BECAUSE of this war.

Now, months later, you tell another outrageous lie, again proving your pandering and perfidy, by claiming that Hillary will bring the troops home SOONER than Obama.. She didn’t even CONSIDER such a thing until 8 or 9 months ago.

Your perfidy knows no bounds, and you have no shame. There is no level to which you will not stoop.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 3, 2008 at 11:22 pm Link to this comment

Re: “bert”

But “bert”, you totally disregard the fact that Clinton was in the WH, she was familiar with the “players” and also that she is now advocating hard nosed tactics with Iran.  That is insane.  You attempt to qualify her “experience” yet, what about her record?  And what about all the questionable associations she has.  Clinton is business as usual, which by the way is CRIMINAL.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=jtw5Zy2M6rk

Why do you have such an enamored perspective of Clinton, irregardless of the facts on the ground?  Have you investigated the Paul conundrum?  Yet even this is just one of the many, I could give you more if you like.  You paint an unrealistic picture, one which has no bearing in reality.

For as many times as you have called me an “Obamabot”, I find it strikingly disconcerting that you disregard and pass off ALL of Clinton’s less than desirable characteristics and associations.  Somehow you feel they don’t APPLY, well they do!

What about the shady story of Bill and Hillary Clinton and Mr. Paul?  Why is this NOT a factor in your determination?  What about her “win” in Pennsylvania, with Gov. Rendell at the helm?  Very suspicious, if not a downright illegality or shameful display of impropriety.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118973400928827314.html?mod=hpp_us_editors_picks

Report this

By bert, May 3, 2008 at 7:14 pm Link to this comment

I wondered how long it would take before someone brought this up.

From Media Matters - Link below quote

“Media Matters for America did obtain a digital copy of The War Room and downloaded the relevant section. It is provided here and clearly indicates that Kantor is not saying, “Those people are shit”; he is, in fact, saying, “Those people are shitting,” presumably referring to the Bush campaign’s reaction to the poll numbers he was reading.

In the film, a 1993 documentary about former President Bill Clinton’s campaign staff during his 1992 presidential campaign, Kantor is seen discussing poll numbers with Clinton advisers James Carville and George Stephanopoulos. Subtitles from the original movie erroneously state that Kantor says, “Those people are gonna shit,” followed by “[Whispering].”

According to a May 2 blog entry by Politico senior political writer Ben Smith, Pennebaker asserted that in The War Room, “He [Kantor] says they must be shi**ing in the White House”:

He said the initial expletive referred to the anticipated reaction in the Bush White House to the fact that Ross Perot’s polling numbers were holding strong.

“What he says is he’s surprised Perot’s numbers are holding,” said Pennebaker in a brief phone interview. “He says they must be shi**ing in the White House.”“

http://mediamatters.org/items/200805020008

MSNBC also ran the story on a network blog, apparently without verifying the YouTube video first — as did some major (pro-Obama) blogs including Daily Kos and America Blog.

Ultimately, those networks and blogs ran corrective updates, but how many thousands of people didn’t read the corrections after reading the initial (false) stories? How many are Indiana voters?

What interesting timing: Hillary Clinton happens to be facing Indiana’s primary election in four days, and Kantor is connected to her campaign.

Given her recent gains in some polls, what better time to sling lying crap at Hillary?

Report this

By bert, May 3, 2008 at 3:52 pm Link to this comment

REALLY REALLY REALLY offensive is to say you were right from the beginning on the war and then vote to continue funding that same war time and time again as well as state we have an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success. Hypocritical too I might add.

Report this

By SteveL, May 3, 2008 at 2:29 pm Link to this comment

Offensive is Hillary’s continuous votes and comments to go to war.

Report this

By yours trulyj, May 3, 2008 at 1:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton ‘Offended’ By Reverend Wright?

“Should he apologize to us?”

“His remarks took no lives.  She’s the one who should apologize to us.”

“For what?”

“For having voted for this blood for oil that to date has martyred more than four thousand of our best and brightest.”

“And for having voted to give President George Bush the go ahead to order a military strike against Iran.”

“With yet more martyrs to follow.”

“Unless?”

“Unless we elect a president who ends the Iraq War, negotiates with Iran plus turning things around here at home.”

“And then what sort of world?”

“It’ll be up to us.”

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, May 3, 2008 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

Although there is a concerted effort to remove the U-Tube video of Kantors comments, here they are, judge for yourselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-MzByUHIzw&feature=bz301

George Stephenopolis is such a little shit, who gave him the chance to host a debate.

Report this

By the warmonger's mindset, May 2, 2008 at 3:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Cyrena to opponent,  “..You would stand proudly over the smoldering ruins of an entire nation and proclaim…I WON! I’ve destroyed everything else, and I’m the only thing left, so I WON!”

This, in past decades, was the (accepted!) concept of MAD, mutually assured destruction. In this case, rather than aiming her missiles at the Soviet Union, Hillary is aiming at her own fellow Democrats.

Report this

By plea to Indiana mothers, May 2, 2008 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mothers and grandmas in Indiana will have to decide whether to go with the majority of women, voting for Hillary, or to think hard about the fact that their sons will likely be involved in a protracted war in Iran if Hillary and Bill are returned to the White House. Senator Clinton has made repeated and ever more bellicose threats to destroy the population of Iran (millions of kids) and her vote five months ago endorsing the Bush push towards another war. Do Indiana mothers want their sons involved in another heartless invasion of a country which has never, to my knowledge, attacked anyone (defending against Saddam aside). Young Iranians, in fact, have been overwhelmingly pro-US for over a decade. The sons of the midwest will be forced to abandon farms already in difficult straits. Please heed your most decent and practical instincts. Don’t make another war-hungry individual President.

Report this

By bert, May 2, 2008 at 9:16 am Link to this comment

Well, Outraged, I have to admit I know next to nothing about this case. Had not heard of it till yesterday. But I will follow it and try to learn more. So I cannot comment on any of the specifics at this time. I guess it is just like with the Rezko trial. We will just have to wait till it all plays itself out. But thnaks for the links. I will try to get up to speed on this.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, May 2, 2008 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Outraged, I am glad you brought up this mess. I posted a link to this on another truth dig discussion group, titled and now for something completely different. Proof that when I use the term Clinton crime family, I am not lying.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 2, 2008 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

Re: “bert”

>Since you have such a difficult time trusting sources other that Buchannan and Kristol, I’d thought I’d post something from the Wall Street Journal, will that help:

” As for his other allegations, “Mr. Paul, as a three-time convicted felon, has no credibility,” Mr. Kendall says. “He is the Picasso of con artists.”

Mr. Clinton remains a defendant in the Paul suit, though most of the counts against him have been dismissed on procedural grounds. The state court has dismissed Mrs. Clinton as a defendant, citing a California law that gives political activities broad legal protections. Mr. Paul has appealed that dismissal, arguing that Mrs. Clinton engaged in illegal activities, which wouldn’t be protected.

Mr. Paul continues to produce evidence. His attorneys have submitted a recently obtained tape recording of a 2000 conversation involving Mr. Paul and Mrs. Clinton discussing plans for the fund-raiser, which they contend bolsters the argument she was involved in campaign misdeeds. A state appeals court panel held a hearing Sept. 7 on Mr. Paul’s motion to re-include Mrs. Clinton as a defendant. A decision on that matter is pending.

Even if Mr. Paul fails to pull Mrs. Clinton back in as a defendant, he vows to depose her in the case against Mr. Clinton. “We will still require her to testify under oath,” Mr. Paul said in a recent interview.

Like the Hsu affair, the Paul case raises questions about the fund-raising practices of the Clinton camp…..

....“The Clinton campaign has said it knew nothing about Mr. Hsu’s legal problems until recent news reports. The campaign recently said it was returning $850,000 Mr. Hsu had helped raise and will put in place new procedures for checking the backgrounds of donors”......

.....“In a court filing earlier this year, Mr. Paul said it was “impossible” for the Clinton team to have not known about his felony convictions because he was thoroughly vetted by Secret Service and Democratic Party officials. He also claims he was asked to lie about his role in the Hollywood fund-raiser by Edward Rendell, then chairman of the Democratic National Committee and now governor of Pennsylvania. Gov. Rendell, who isn’t a defendant in the lawsuit, didn’t know about Mr. Paul’s felonies until the Post reported on them and never asked Mr. Paul to lie, says a spokesman.

A few days after the public disavowal of Mr. Paul, the Clintons each sent him a personal thank-you note for his work on the Aug. 12 event, the court filing says. The brief also says Mr. Paul met with Mr. Clinton on Sept. 22, 2000, on the tarmac at Los Angeles International Airport just after the president had landed on Air Force One; the court filing says Mr. Clinton told Mr. Paul that their business arrangement was still on”.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118973400928827314.html?mod=hpp_us_editors_picks

>A couple of points, according to the article:  “Mr. Paul has appealed that dismissal, arguing that Mrs. Clinton engaged in illegal activities, which wouldn’t be protected.”, and ” He also claims he was asked to lie about his role in the Hollywood fund-raiser by Edward Rendell, then chairman of the Democratic National Committee and now governor of Pennsylvania. Gov. Rendell,”

Gov. RENDELL of.. where of all places but PENNSYLVANIA, imagine that!  Isn’t that the state Clinton had “her big win” after that LENGTHY losing streak….my, my, small world ain’t it.  Oh and btw, I’m NOT a sore loser, just A SORE WINNER.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 2, 2008 at 7:35 am Link to this comment

Apparently you missed this portion of the same article.  “Not since Isaac Newton sought to decode the Ancient Testament or since Ronald Reagan redefined the properties of a meal fit for children to eat, has anyone defied science as absurdly as Mrs Clinton in her efforts to how that if you count things her way she’s in the lead. She is in the direct lineage of Joseph Stalin who said it’s not a matter of who does the voting, but who does the counting.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04262008.html

BTW, I didn’t write the article.  I did post the link for your convenience.  I realize that for you it’s not like quoting someone YOU trust like Buchannan or Kristol, but just the same…..

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, May 2, 2008 at 5:04 am Link to this comment

Cyrena, you say you never heard the mad scientist stuff concerning the Nation of Islam, well I first came across it in Stanley Crouch’s book Notes Of A Hanging Judge, and that was at least, 17 years ago. He also spoke about it on television with Lewis Lapham on his short lived literary show. So you really do not believe that Obama had heard about this? Perhaps in Chicago you choose to not be aware of this.

Report this

By cyrena, May 2, 2008 at 2:59 am Link to this comment

Hi beerdoctor,

Thanks for this link. I appreciate it, and I’ve saved it to keep up with in the future. (I’ve also just gotten around to creating one of these myself, but I haven’t had time to put anything new and interesting on it.)

However, there was one thing that I picked up from this article on Wright, because the VERY SAME THOUGHT was provided at a lecture I attended today:

•  ” Maybe I have been observing politics too long, but I couldn’t help wonder is there a hidden sponsor for this show”

Somehow, I’ve been wondering the same thing myself. But for the moment at least, I’ve been unable to connect any dots that can be substantiated, and I honestly DON’T like to just put stuff out there, without any reasonable base. (we sure get enough of the hyperbole and propaganda as it is).

Still, I honestly ‘don’t get’ what Wright’s point was in this latest ‘series’. I didn’t have any problems with the sermons attached to the ‘snippets’ that have been blasted all over the airwaves for weeks and weeks, because I knew what he was talking about, and for the most part, it was all true, and incorrectly spun. I should add that I did NOT hear any accusations of the government creating HIV for the purposes of genocide….not in those original snippets. I heard him accuse the government of flooding black communities with drugs. And, that TOO, is true.

That doesn’t forgive or excuse these latest antics by him, but again…I have to wonder just exactly how and why that happened now. I don’t go along with this part at all..

•  “Barack Obama should have known that if his pastor is friends with Louis Farrakhan there would be trouble. The very same Louis Farrakhan who teaches us “Yacub’s History”. That all the racial problems started 6000 years ago, when a a mad genetic scientist created white people. Surely, Obama had lived in Chicago long enough to have heard these stories. Perhaps he thought it could all be glossed over..”

I don’t believe for a moment, that Barack Obama SHOULD HAVE heard these stories. I lived in Chicago myself, and never heard them. I knew what the NOI was, because I was raised in the 60’s and 70’s in California. But no, I’d never heard the crazy scientist stories until decades later, when I returned to academia, and actually studied the history. I wasn’t in the NOI, and didn’t personally KNOW anybody in the NOI, and so there was no REASON for me to know these old crazy stories. I liked the bean pies and their fried fish. I didn’t HANG OUT with ‘em!!

So why should Barack Obama, (even younger than I am) have been aware of these stories, or…even if he WAS..so what? What did that have to do with HIM?

So, it isn’t Barack Obama who ‘should have known’ but rather Jeremiah Wright who ‘should have known’ that him clowning these past several days while Barack Obama is trying to accomplish the near impossible (a black president of the USA?) in a society still poisoned by the effects of a birth by slavery and the resultant racism, was NOT helpful!!

Too bad Obama didn’t follow in his parents footsteps, and just stayed away from the religious thing entirely. Sad to say, because I really don’t have anything against religion. (at least nothing that wasn’t caused by me being raised as a Catholic, which means I’m now an agnostic).

And how would THAT have gone over in this USA? These religios would no more accept an atheist or agnostic than they would a left-handed albino Sanskrit-writing lesbian. (I got that from noncredo). Still, you get my point. How likely is the dominant US culture to elect a president that doesn’t profess a fealty to an Almighty (albeit invisible) Power known as God?

Anyway, there’s something fishy here, and it’s not the kind that the Black Muslims sell in Oakland or LA.

Report this

By another, May 1, 2008 at 11:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

hell yeah! This movement is about sanity and health—“do not participate in anything you believe to be evil.”  Come on, people!  This isn’t a game show contest; these people are trying to become our President.  There are all sorts of things I’d rather Obama say and do and believe, but he still strikes me as a remarkably clear-thinking and open-hearted leader, especially in comparison to the way his two opponents are acting.  And acting is exactly what Clinton and McCain are doing—play along with O’Reilly? really?—I’m sick of it.

thank you for your lucid thoughts, cyrena.

Report this

By Don Stivers, May 1, 2008 at 10:07 pm Link to this comment

I guess she never listened to the whole sermon.  And she is not ashamed of voting to destroy a country? And she is OFFENDED that somebody is ashamed of his homeland for the way it has treated foreign civilians?  A Christian minister who is ashamed that this country is responsible for the deaths of innocents?

Come on Hillary!  Quit being a phony.  Listen to people and maybe you will get a message.  This country does not have the right to invade other countries for no reason at all (even when mistaken).

Report this

By bert, May 1, 2008 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

........Re the press calling for Hillary to get out of the race:

This is rich. Obama supporters here on TD rail regularly about the press. But they join right in when the press is trying to usurp the right of citizens in all states to vote. I would expect no less from folks who want to disenfranchise whole states like MI and FL.

Since when does the press have a right to tell a competitive candidate to drop out of the race? It is not the role of the press to determine who stays in and who goes in an election.

The primary season was set by the Dem Party months ago. EVERY state has right to vote and the people of every state be heard.

The press is trying to DICTATE who should run and who should quit. Last time I looked this was still a democracy and not a DICTATORship run by the press. Today journalists are acting like the old Party Bosses who made decisions in smoke filled rooms. Now these self-styled Bosses are trying to make deals in a TV studio. I am having none of it.

The Democratic Party’s mantra since 2000 has been that ALL VOTES COUNT. And all primaries should be held.

Why should Hillary Clinton quit when she is up in all polls, and before the people of several states have had a chance to vote?

Remember Eli Manning in the 2008 Super Bowl? No one told Manning to quit. The game has two halves, well set ahead of time, and the game needed to be played out until the end. And no one went home early just because Tom Brady was momentarily ahead. Manning made fools of most commentators.

Why should Hillary quit when she won the Pennsylvania primary convincingly last week, and she’s leading Obama in Indiana by 10% and closing the gap in North Carolina?

Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there’s simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

Until this election cycle, journalists simply did not consider it to be their job to tell a contender when he or she should stop campaigning. And I have news for them. It is NOT their job. They should begin to act like real journalists and do investigative pieces on issues and leave the candidates and voters to do complete their role in this democracy.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, May 1, 2008 at 3:11 pm Link to this comment

cyrena, here is something you might want to check out:
http://thebeerdoctor.newscloud.com/

Report this
Blackspeare's avatar

By Blackspeare, May 1, 2008 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

This political campaign has gone from the absurd to the ridiculous.  By the time they finish “swift-boating” each other will anyone be left standing?  And by the time they start on McCain all we’ll have left is the walking wounded.  Sounds like a good time for a third party candidate or at least start the ball rolling for 2012.  The economy is sinking fast——we’re on the way to $5 and probably $6 gas, but the worst is yet to come——just wait for the food shortages, followed by food lines and then a third party will make it’s mark!

Report this

By cyrena, May 1, 2008 at 2:17 pm Link to this comment

Bert,

You’re always so pathetically and obviously divorced from reason or objectivity that it’s generally a waste of valuable time to even respond to anything you put forth here. You’ve never been engaged on this website as anything more than a partisan hysterical hack yourself.

So what’s new? Now you want to put all of the ‘blame’ on a republican operative typical swift-boating operation that YES, Obama was smart enough to know would come down on him. He knew that race was going to be an issue, and anybody with even a marginal understanding of the destructive politics that the status quo engages, would expect the same. This is at least one of the cornerstones of Barack Obama’s campaign and MOVEMENT. That is…to RID our system of government of these very destructive forces.

So, it’s all ‘their fault’ and Hillary Clinton couldn’t possibly have known about this, and had nothing to do with it. Yeah, RIGHT! Well, in case you somehow missed it, (and I’ m sure you didn’t), HILLARY CLINTON HERSELF, has been at the forefront of it. This stuff has come directly from HER horses’ mouth! SHE has brought up Louis Farrakhan and attempted to connect him to Obama, time after time, after time, in televised debates and interviews. SHE’S the one who alluded that her republican counterpart (McSame) would be a better president than Obama. SHE is the one who claimed that she would have left the church of such an un-American pastor. SHE’S the one who has provided the innuendo that Obama may not be Christian, but rather a Muslim. SHE is the one who has consistently perpetrated this back-stabbing, and we have witnessed this with our own eyes and ears, while you’ve chosen to lie it away, and then insult the intelligence of everyone who HAS been witness to this…FROM HILLARY HERSELF, by claiming that she had nothing to do with it, and couldn’t have known, and blah, blah, blah.

So the DELUSION is YOURS bert, along with all of those OTHER Republican operatives WORKING WITH THE HILLARY CAMPAIGN, and probably directed by Hillary herself. As far as we can tell, YOU are one of those ‘not-so-undercover operatives’ because you’ve proven it by your posts of the past several months. However, at the end of the day, your pathetic attempts have little significance in framing or controlling the direction or tone of the debate, because nobody knows or cares who you are, or what you think, since HILLARY HERSELF has openly engaged in this. So all you do is entertain yourself, and manage to make yourself look totally foolish at the same time.

So here’s the reality bert. Hillary is a loser. She’s been a loser in this campaign since contest one in Iowa, and she’s become a bigger loser with each passing day. She’s also made it obvious that she’s hateful and spiteful enough (like you) to bring the entire effort down with her. If SHE can’t have it, then NOBODY can, and damn the 300+ million Americans that have been subjected to a fascist regime that continues to hold more and more of us hostage every day.

You people are totally void of class, character or any measure of integrity or patriotism. You would stand proudly over the smoldering ruins of an entire nation and proclaim…I WON! I’ve destroyed everything else, and I’m the only thing left, so I WON!

But, that’s not gonna happen bert. Progress and the efforts of a movement toward a COLLECTIVE return to well-being will happen despite your pathetic efforts to prevent it.

Report this

By bert, May 1, 2008 at 8:47 am Link to this comment

Operatives work undercover - unbeknownst to their mark. So if operatives were at work, Hillary would not know it and would not have acepted anything.

In Ohio and Texas crossover voting this year was on the 9-10% range and that is the average in any primary election year. So there was no extraordinary crossover voting taking place this year.

Besides, Fact Check shows that Obama received more crossover votes than Hillary, at least in Ohio and Texas.

Report this

By bert, May 1, 2008 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

Your flip and unfunny remark does not answer the question, Outraged.

Report this

By bert, May 1, 2008 at 8:37 am Link to this comment

Your claim that ONLY Clinton supporters voted is bogus and untrue.

You write:    “...Mrs Clinton’s claim that a disqualified election in which only her supporters voted somehow constitutes a legitimate expression of the popular Democratic will in Florida!”

At least get your facts correct Outraged.

Below is a chart that lists who was on the FL ballot and how many votes each candidate received. Source NYT as CERTIFIED by FL Secretary of State.

Candidate   Vote         % 
Hillary Clinton 870,986   49.8%   
Barack Obama   576,214   32.9    
John Edwards   251,562   14.4    
Joseph Biden     15,704         0.9    
Bill Richardson 14,999         0.9    
Dennis Kucinich 9,703         0.6    
Chris Dodd     5,477         0.3    
Mike Gravel   5,275         0.3    

Below is a chart of who was on the ballot on MI and how many votes each candidate received. Source NYT as CERTIFIED by FL Secretary of State.

Candidate     Vote     %     
%Hillary Clinton   328,309   55.2
Uncommitted       238,168   40.1    
DennisKucinich       21,715   3.7    
Chris Dodd       3,845     0.6    
Mike Gravel       2,361     0.4  

Originally Obama was on the ballot and when poll numbers showed him losing by double digits, he VOLUNTARILY took his name off the ballot. Obama also asked Kucinich, Dodd and Gravel to join him in removing their name from the MI ballot. They refused.
Obama then ran a campaign that asked his MI supporters to vote Uncommitted.

So your claim that ONLY Clinton supporters voted is bogus and untrue.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 1, 2008 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

Republican operatives WORKING WITH Hillary Clinton’s campaign..”

Report this

By RickinSF, May 1, 2008 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

I’m astonished.
Is it really possible, at this point, for Clinton, (or: “Cling - on”) to be offended?

Report this

By RdV, May 1, 2008 at 6:01 am Link to this comment

I see she has her Republican lady uniform on.

Report this

By TDoff, May 1, 2008 at 2:39 am Link to this comment

Good lord, first Chelsea had to live through her dad’s debacle, now she has to overcome her mother’s excesses.

No wonder she’s first in line at DeBakey’s Houston Medical Center for the new ‘Complete Genome Transplant’
procedure.

Report this

By bert, May 1, 2008 at 1:53 am Link to this comment

Cyrena writes and evidently Outraged agrees:    “The people behind this whole episode and those who exploited it for political gain (nod, wink, nudge, nudge HRC)…”

Excerpt From:    The Coming Attack on Barack
Posted on Jan 9, 2008 on Truth Dig – WELL BEFORE THE CURRENT CONTROVERSY   By Joe Conason

“They will try to Swift-boat me,” said Barack Obama in the days before the New Hampshire primary, ……….Much more predictable is the nature of the campaign that would be waged against him—and the fickleness of the national press corps if and when that ugly process eventually reaches its nadir.
The effective template for attacking a Democratic nominee was developed by former Republican political boss Karl Rove ………….his approach can be easily copied by lesser talents: Seize upon the Democrat’s most attractive quality and sow doubts to undermine that appeal……………….The task of the opposition operatives will be to twist that saga, to unearth facts or factoids that raise concerns about the candidate’s background……and, of course, to play the race card against him, ………..These themes will begin to appear in the right-wing press, which is of course where the original Swift-boat smears showed up four years ago.
Indeed, that process has begun, and is accelerating along with Obama’s drive toward the nomination………Denigrating material about the front-runner…………will be ready for deployment very shortly, but will not be aired until his nomination is a certainty.
Meanwhile, certain themes are being tested on the Web sites of the extreme right. The basic concept is to suggest that Obama is somehow less wholesome than he appears to be, and to provoke bigoted responses. On these sites and in e-mail barrages, he is being portrayed as the son and stepson of Muslims from Africa and Asia, ………… Next will come questions about the Chicago church he attends, whose eccentric pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, is a close friend and spiritual adviser to the Obama family. In an article published on the Web site Newsmax just days ago, Wright is depicted as a raving black nationalist and a proud associate of Louis Farrakhan. He is prone to polarizing remarks about a wide range of topics, from Jews and Israel……………………..”

This while thing was started by the right. Hillary’s campaign had nothing at all to do with putting this story out there.

Many people knew about Rev. Wright for years, especially in Chicago. It did not take long for the right wing, especially FOX to discover what a treasure trove they had in Wright to yet again smear a Democratic candidate and by extension all Democrats, as Conason noted in his article.

It appears FOX had been sitting on the story for months after Wright’s interview with Hannity months ago. Hannity felt compelled to air what he found on Trinity’s own church web site the night that ABC’s Brian Ross ran an expose on it. Then all you know what hit the fan. You would have thought the church would have stopped selling the damn videos when Obama became a candidate. HUBRIS of the highest order further borne out by Wright’s recent media tour.

The blame for this whole episode can be squarely put on Obama himself. He is the one who disinvited Wright from his announcement of his run for President. By Wright’s own admission Obama told him they did not want him there because his speeches could be, “pretty rough.”  Despite protests to the contrary today, OBAMA KNEW. If Obama had fessed up BEFORE it became a controversy and if he had tried to distance himself before the media circus got hold of it, the entire affair most likely would have fizzled. He made another ‘bone headed’ decision. And that is his fault entirely, not Hillary’s.

And last of all, why is it OK for Obama to ACTIVELY promote advertise for and get crossover Republican votes, but if Limbaugh promotes same for Hillary it is wrong? I have asked that question many times on Truth Dig. But for some strange reason no one answers the question.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 1, 2008 at 1:40 am Link to this comment

Another reality check.

From Counterpunch:

“Now the primary campaign heads off to Indiana and North Carolina amid a steady downpour of news stories about the mathematical impossibility of Hillary Clinton outstripping Barack Obama in either the delegate count or the popular vote. But math isn’t the issue here. Mrs Clinton is set to stay in the race until the roll call at the Democratic convention in Denver on August 27 conclusively settles the issue. Not since Isaac Newton sought to decode the Ancient Testament or since Ronald Reagan redefined the properties of a meal fit for children to eat, has anyone defied science as absurdly as Mrs Clinton in her efforts to how that if you count things her way she’s in the lead. She is in the direct lineage of Joseph Stalin who said it’s not a matter of who does the voting, but who does the counting. How the Georgian dictator would have wagged his pipe in approval of Mrs Clinton’s claim that a disqualified election in which only her supporters voted somehow constitutes a legitimate expression of the popular Democratic will in Florida!”

http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn04262008.html

>The last sentence says it all.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 1, 2008 at 1:23 am Link to this comment

Whoops…!  I forgot to add this comment.  Did you catch this statement from the article..?

” Republican operatives WORKING WITH Hillary Clinton’s campaign..” (emphasis mine)

Why would they do that and WHY would Clinton ACCEPT that…?  Maybe that speaks for itself…

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, May 1, 2008 at 1:17 am Link to this comment

Can offensive people be offended..?  Bill O’Really and Clinton the prefabricator, now there’s a match made in heaven.  What a ridiculous scenario, THESE TWO are offended…????!!!

This from Global Research:

“That said, James Carville and Mary Matalin are worthy suspects. Carville is a close and long-serving factotum for the Clinton family. Carville’s wife, Matalin, is a top-ranking Republican operative who works in the Bush White House. It is well documented that Matalin is a longstanding ally and admirer of Rush Limbaugh. Matalin has appeared on his show to tout her appalling books. The two are frequently photographed at right-wing cocktail parties. They appear to be on warm and friendly terms.

The night after the Pennsylvania primary, Limbaugh crowed,

What Obama has to do is go out and say this [Hillary] win is artificial and this win is phony because of Operation Chaos. He needs to go out there and say, ‘Why in the world is everybody taking this seriously? Rush Limbaugh had his listeners register as Democrats for one day to go vote for Hillary to prolong this. We’re letting Limbaugh get away with making our party look like it’s in a total sewer and a mess. This victory in Pennsylvania is illegitimate, is undeserved because Democrats did not vote for her. Republicans did.

QED. Republican operatives working with Hillary Clinton’s campaign have introduced a new mechanism into the presidential nomination process: flooding the polls with Republican crossovers….”

....“With calls for Senator Clinton to abandon what is now seen as little more than a schismatic adventure that risks a fracture along a racial fault-line dividing the Democratic Party just as the Whig Party was fractured by race, some have deduced that the probable motive driving the sinking campaign deeper into the mire is a misplaced belief some attribute to James Carville that they can torpedo Obama’s presidential ambitions; survive the disaster of his loss to McCain and prevail as owners of the Democratic Party through the agency of the now discredited Democratic Leadership Council. With DLC operatives: James Carville, Stanley Greenberg and Terry McAuliffe safely back in charge of the DNC - and with that upstart Howard Dean back in Vermont - the Clintons can scheme their way to the presidential nomination in 2012 or so the theory goes.

One prognostication is perfectly clear: If she persists long after the final set of primaries, the damage to the Clinton brand will be irreversible.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8809

Report this

By cyrena, May 1, 2008 at 12:25 am Link to this comment

I still haven’t watched this, but I came across this blog that seemed really appropriate here. (I swear I was looking for something TOTALLY unrelated, and got side tracked).

Anyway, it gave me a chuckle, and explained in better words than I could, the same points I’ve been making myself.

After this, I promise to ‘move on’ as Mrs. Obama has apparently suggested would be a good idea. (I thought it would have been a better idea to have never been distracted by this to begin with).
———


Hillary’s Preacher Said What??

By Andrew Reilly - April 30, 2008, 2:19PM
I figured that would get your attention.

In reality, like most of America, I have no idea who Hillary Clinton’s preacher/pastor/minister is, nor do I know or care what he or she might have said.  That, however, is the point of this post.

I’ve been thinking about all this Wright stuff over the past couple of days, and I keep coming back to the same thing:  where did it all start and why?  I mean, someone must have been perusing YouTube or simply investigating Barack Obama’s church for evidence of something for this whole thing to have ever surfaced in the first place, right?  I mean, stuff like this doesn’t just happen by coincidence.  The question that bugs me though, is why?  What was/is it about Barack Obama’s church that made it worth “investigating” for such policitcal purposes?

We don’t have to go far to find a conservative “sprirtual leader” spouting off some bat-shit crazy theories of God and the workings of our world, but hey, that’s par for their course.  What is it about this particular man that made someone feel justified in exploiting his more intemperate (and yes, at times arguably kinda bat-shit crazy) moments for Hillary’s political gain?  The answer, in my humble opinion, is that he is black, and “black + scary = white flight.”

Crazy shit spewing from the mouths of white preachers and priests is, well, ok because that’s “normal,” and you know, they’re not all that scary.  On the other hand, fiery rhetoric (even if accurately describing the human condition, which at times, Wright’s was/is) from the mouth of a black preacher?!?  Well Christ on a cracker that scares the crap out of me!!!  Everyone in that church must feel the same way, and my once-secure-future in this country, as a white man, is in danger! 

The people behind this whole episode and those who exploited it for political gain (nod, wink, nudge, nudge HRC) deserve nothing but the country’s derision.  They hide behind the idea that it would have been brought up by the McCain campaign in the general, and maybe that’s true, maybe it’s not.  But what’s certain is that they took this situation and put it out there, and they repeatedly fanned the flames for weeks on end, knowing full well what they were doing, and the destructive ends they were trying to achieve (make no mistake, virtually everyone who ever thought Wright was appropriate fodder did so because they knew that the racial over- and undertones would work to HRC’s advantage).  Having done so, like a terrorist who just detonated a bomb in the market square, the gardeners who sowed this seed of racial division now try to walk away and “rise above it,” saying “move on, nothing to see here.”  Well, I for one will not forget.

I suggest that everyone who reads this post make a solemn commitment to ask, every time he or she hears anyone talking about Wright, “what did Hillary’s preacher say?” and leave it at that.  Hopefully, this single question will bring those folks back around to recognizing what’s important and why.


http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/hillarys-preacher-said-what.php

Report this

By cyrena, April 30, 2008 at 9:00 pm Link to this comment

I’d really like to hear what Michelle Obama has to say, (since I’ve damn sure been wishing that the press would move on to some stuff that actually matters).

But alas, from the looks of this video in it’s still form, it would appear that I’d have to sit through Hillary and Bill O’LIE-ly first, and I’m just not up to it.

That’s because, quite frankly, I TAKE OFFENSE to anything that comes from either one of them.

Report this

By MackTN, April 30, 2008 at 8:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

For the past 7 years, progressives have been dissing U.S. policies that have led to the destruction of a country and its citizens, tortured and abused potential suspects, abandoned cities of people in the wake of a hurricane, made neoslaves out of Mexicans for profits, and protected corporations at the expense of citizens.
But Rev Wright finds reason to criticize and all of a sudden we’re offended. 

Rev Wright is no more unpatriotic than any other non Republican.  Anachronistic, yes.  Bombastic, yes.  A terrorist? No. 

We are so manipulated by broadcast media in search of ratings that we are allowing these ambitious news personalities to create reality.

Rev Wright has more in common with most people than not.  How many folks got on tv after 911 to promote   conspiracies about buildings inexplicably melting?  Most people in New Orleans believed that the government exacerbated the damages from Katrina in order to change the demographics.  Scholarly studies have been written about how minorities were used for medical experiments—black men in Alabama deliberately infected with and/or not treated for syphilis (Bad Blood, Jones). 

Silly, yes.  Scary?  Hardly.  The outrage here is that a man who seemed to be loved and respected acted out and hurt a friend, a family, deeply and needlessly.  I suspect he’ll regret his foolishness for the rest of his life.

Report this

By jerry pearl, April 30, 2008 at 8:14 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton would sell her own mother for a vote. O’Reilly had the nerve to ask if Wright was offensive? What is he talking about? He has said the most offensive things about Democrats and politically minded people who disagree with him. He has been abusive, insulting and anti-American himself. I find that offensive. And there sat Clinton pandering to all of it for a vote. Does she stand for anything at all except a vote? If public opinion was in support of Wright, she would be the first to say that what he said was justified. But no, she says she was offended by his remarks. Who cares!!!!! Did Wright vote for the war as Clinton did? NO. Does Wright make national decisions on health care, or soldier benefits, or alternative energy development, or anything pertaining to our government, nation and the citizens within it? NO. He is just another person—-agree or disagree with him—-shooting off his mouth for attention. He is no different than O’Reilly. They are one and the same. Did Clinton say that? NO. She pandered for votes. Clinton has no shame. She has no integrity. At least, Obama has integrity.

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.