Cyrena:

“Paul Krugman is a professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton University. He is also an author and a columnist for The New York Times, writing a twice-weekly op-ed for the newspaper since 2000.  Krugman is well known in academia for his work in trade theory, which provides a model in which firms and countries produce and trade because of economies of scale and for his textbook explanations of currency crises and New Trade Theory.  Krugman majored in economics as an undergraduate at Yale University.  He earned a Ph.D. from MIT in 1977 and taught at Yale, MIT, UC Berkeley, the London School of Economics, and Stanford University before joining the faculty of Princeton University, where he has been since 2000. He spent a year working at the Reagan White House as a staff member of the Council of Economic Advisers. He is also a member of the international economic body, the Group of Thirty.”

And Krugman is NOT an economist?  Cyrena, how CAN I take you seriously?

As for the “competition” comment, once again, this is of a piece with your many other deliberate misinterpretations of my comments.  I was responding to YOUR comment that “no one” was paying attention to me.  How did you mean that, if not to suggest that people did not RESPOND to my comments?  It has NOTHING to do with competition.  In fact, you only reveal more about YOURSELF by making comments like this, contrary to what you CLAIM about yourself and accuse others of.

Nice try, liardweller.

Peace.

CY: Sorry.  You have my sincere apology.

Peace.

“you are all so blinded by your irrational hatred of her…”

I don’t “hate” Hillary, I just like Obama more - quite a bit more, every time Bill opens his mouth. I don’t go for this highly protective husband/night errant defender of Hillary’s honor. He’s talking trash and I don’t like it. It looks like overcompensation for the Monica thing to me.

Cyrena:

I have stopped taking you seriously ever since you proved your ignorance by claiming that Paul Krugman was not an economist.  I posted a response to that in three different threads, yet you did not have either the courage or the humility to admit your error.  Too bad.  It only makes YOU look foolish.

Your accusations continue to fall wide of the mark, and show only that you enjoy hearing yourself speak.  You claim not to speak for others, yet end your diatribe with “So, if you want ANYBODY to pay attention to what you’re saying, then you’d better change your MO.”  You are assuming that no one is paying attention to me.  Yet my posts get as much response - both negative AND positive - as yours. So, clearly, people ARE paying attention.

As for the rest of your drivel…

Your comment that, “You attack Obama, claiming that you don’t ‘hate’ him, and but that you actually do ‘like the guy’. It’s kind of like saying, “Some of my best friends are Negroes” but I just wouldn’t have them over for dinner” is a very thinly veiled accusation of racism.  This would amusing if it weren’t so pathetic.  I spent most of my young life as a socio-political activist, engaged primarily in civil rights-related causes.  I not only marched with Jackson, Abernathy and other black leaders on many occasions (I was too young to march with King), but was also arrested numerous times in non-violent civil disobedience actions at civil rights-related protests.  To say nothing of the fact that my primary ministry is outreach to and advocacy for the homeless in my area, most of whom are black.

Yet even setting the racism accusation aside, you miss the point entirely.  No, it is not like saying what you said.  I can like someone and yet disagree with them.  In this regard, my liking Obama and my LEGITIMATE concerns and criticism of him are NOT mutually exclusive.  I can admire and respect him in some ways, and yet not only criticize HIM, but also criticize the (largely hands-off) way he is treated by the media.  This has NOTHING to do with your equally ridiculous claim that I believe Hillary is “entitled” to the presidency.

As well, your comment - “The reality is that as an African-American candidate for the office, he already walked into the ‘race’ with a disadvantage, just because THAT’S THE WAY IT IS in AMERICA!!” - seems to dismiss the fact that the same is true for a female candidate.

As for your comment that “[Y]ou DON’T have the insight into the particular mechanics of whatever the bill or resolution happens to be, and haven’t bothered to study the language, or any of the other parliamentary components of it,” you are incorrect. I am the one who spent an entire day comparing the Senate voting records of Hillary and Obama, and finding out the TRUTH about those records.  Yet you even questioned THIS.  As well, I happen to be very close friends with my House rep, and have been for over 25 years.  And having discussed these types of things with him over a 25-year period, I DO know how things work, including the “real politic” of how bills get written, presented, voted on and passed.

Finally, as for “The last line of your post PROMISES to keep ‘attacking’ Obama,” you are clearly lacking in any sense of humor or common sense, since that was not what I was saying or suggesting.

Cyrena, your attacks on me are getting old.  Even the others who generally agree with you - including troublesum, CY, rage et al - do not hurl epithets at me, use vulgarity to engage with me, or constantly attack me the way you do.  They have their say when they disagree with me or think I’m being idiotic - and they can be forceful in their responses.  But NONE of them show the willful, hateful malice that you have shown me on these boards since I got here.

Maybe you should think about that.

Peace.

Maani, You keep whining about the same thing over and over and over again.

So, understand this, and I understand that I am speaking only for myself, so you can stop lumping us all together, even though I know (from at least a year of communicating on this blog) that Tony and I generally sit in agreement on most issues and ideology.

I’ve said this stuff before, and UNLIKE YOU, I DON’T like repeating myself. So, listen up…I generally make it a point to stick with what is on the record, for ANY of these candidates. YOU are the only one who consistently whines that Obama is somehow getting this ‘free ride’ and everybody is ‘picking on’ Hillary. You sound like a kindergartener who got the blue marble when he decided he wanted the green one, but only after the kid next to him got the green one, instead of the blue.

You attack Obama, claiming that you don’t ‘hate’ him, and but that you actually do ‘like the guy’. It’s kind of like saying, “Some of my best friends are Negroes” but I just wouldn’t have them over for dinner. In reality, you only like Obama if he’s not a threat to what you and other Hillary supporters have come to believe as the only ‘acceptable’ reality, and that is that she is somehow ‘entitled’ to this presidency. Obama is a threat to that entitlement mentality, and so that’s why you have to consistently put him under attack, INSTEAD of just putting forth what it is that is so EXCEPTIONAL about Hillary.

I’ve said it before. You run a negative campaign, and a negative campaign is based on pointing out the faults of other candidates, instead of pointing to the ‘strengths’ of your OWN. And, you’ve consistently proven this, in each and every one of your posts. The last line of your post PROMISES to keep ‘attacking’ Obama. How much clearer does it get, even for a moron?

To clarify, NOBODY here has said, (and certainly not Tony or I) that Barak Obama is PERFECT. And, he can HARDLY be said to be getting a ‘free ride’ on ANYTHING, so you really should just stop saying that. It makes you look foolish. The reality is that as an African-American candidate for the office, he already walked into the ‘race’ with a disadvantage, just because THAT’S THE WAY IT IS in AMERICA!!

So, you can keep pointing out that he isn’t so brilliant, (which you’ve said a dozen times at least) even though the fact of the matter is that he IS a pretty smart guy. You can point to the fact that he isn’t ‘perfect’, except of course nobody here has said that he IS perfect.

I do not personally agree with everything that Obama has come up with, and I wouldn’t expect to, in a real world. I do not pretend to know what Hillary is thinking, or necessarily what Obama is thinking, so I have to go by what they SAY, and what they DO, and make the appropriate connections. Words are of limited value, if the legislative actions that they ARE in fact capable of performing, don’t follow the words through.

I’m sick of you quoting past voting records, when you DON’T have the insight into the particular mechanics of whatever the bill or resolution happens to be, and haven’t bothered to study the language, or any of the other parliamentary components of it. In other words, you’ve created your own reality and impressions based on NOTHING but your emotion. You have NO CLUE to the reality of ‘real politick’ which is a fundamental component in any legislative process. You cherry pick whatever you want out of thin-air, and always out of context, and then you put it forth as if it’s some sort of absolute.

So, if you want ANYBODY to pay attention to what you’re saying, then you’d better change your MO. Start finding everything wonderful about Hillary. Start ‘defending’ HER bad moves, instead of attacking the competition.

troublesum, Tony, Cyrena:

troublesum said, “If Hillary “wears the pants” why can’t she stand up for herself?  Why does she need him to defend her?”

She doesn’t “need” him to defend her any more than Obama “needs” Michelle or Edwards “needs” Elizabeth.  Candidates’ spouses traditionally support them on the campaign trail.  As Obama noted, Bill may get more “play” than Michelle or Elizabeth given that he was president.  But even Obama stated that this was not a problem per se.

Tony said, “I said the same thing…that no politician is perfectly clean so it is a matter of degree, and that Clinton is dirtier than Obama.”

Now it is YOU making accusations without support. Exactly HOW is Hillary “dirtier” than Obama?

Tony also said, “As to voting “present” 100 times…He said this was a method often used in the Illinois state senate to indicate support for a bill with which one had some disagreements.”  Setting aside the COMPLETE lack of logic in that (I SUPPORT a bill so I’m NOT voting for it?), that is NOT what he said.

Actually, voting “present” is not unique to the Illinois legislature; this is pretty much true across the board, including the U.S. Senate.  Say an “agricultural” bill comes before the Senate, but in addition to the 90% of the bill that is actually agricultural, there are riders that include money for a new warplane.  This kind of thing happens all the time; we know it as “pork barrel” politics.  So now what?  Does a senator vote “yea” allowing the funding of a warplane s/he doesn’t want to be built?  Or does s/he vote “nay,” possibly defeating a generally good bill, and be seen as “anti-farm” or “anti-agricutural?”  This is where a “Present” vote would SEEM to be the answer.  Yet as Edwards noted, a TRULY principled person does NOT take the “easy out” of a “Present” vote, but takes a stand, even if it means being “seen” or “perceived” as something one is not.

Cyrena said, “You have no idea…how or why he voted or did not vote on ANYTHING. YOU don’t know what his intention has been, or what his own reasons have been behind ANY of his voting activity, and quite frankly, with the exception of what he says, ON THE RECORD, none of us does.”

Fine.  So why is this true of Obama, but not of Hillary?  Why do all of you presume to know what was in HILLARY’S mind when she voted Yes, No or Present on something?  In fact, you all flatly DENY what HILLARY says “on the record” about this - and about almost anything.  Indeed, you not only presume to know what was in Hillary’s mind AND deny what she says “on the record,” you are all so blinded by your irrational hatred of her that you put her in a position in which she is constantly “damned if she does, damned if she doesn’t,” presumed to be disingenuous if not lying, triangulating every which way, rationalizing and spinning, etc.  Yet Obama is somehow seen as some near-perfect, unassailable, uniquely principled politician.

Don’t any of you three see how unbelievably hypocritical you are?

Obama is NOT near-perfect, unassailable, etc.  He proved this without any doubt in his rationalizing and obfuscating at the SC debate.  However, like “slick Willie” and “tricky Dick,” Obama is able to “convince” people of his sincerity by covering his dissembling and spin in a veneer of “integrity” and “principle.”  In fact, his new favorite “explanatory” phrase - “You must understand THIS, ...” (which he used over half a dozen times at the SC debate) - is the essense of spin.

Finally, contrary to all of Cyrena’s personal attacks, I am a lifelong Democrat who has never voted for a Republican; I hate the GOP as much as the next guy.  And I do not HATE Obama.  I generally like the guy.  But I am SICK AND TIRED of the free ride that HE gets while all of YOU flog Hillary on and on and on.  When you end your myopic hypocrisy, I will end my “attacks” on Obama.

Peace.

In other words if you can do it the way they do in a banana republic then it’s ok.  I suppose it depends on what the word “elect” means.  If Hillary “wears the pants” why can’t she stand up for herself?  Why does she need him to defend her?

“Obama is not the second coming of Christ.”
————————————————————————
Who said he was? Not me. I just said he is cleaner and more principled than Clinton.

“He does not have a perfect record, either in the State Senate or the U.S. Senate. “

Again, who said he did? Not me, and not Obama either. In fact, what he said is that no politician is perfectly clean. I said the same thing, if you read my previous comment, which is that no politician is perfectly clean so it is a matter of degree, and that Clinton is dirtier than Obama. I say
if you can’t tell the difference, and think Edwards won because he “stayed above the fray”, then you missed the point of what he was saying.

As to voting “present” 100 times, that is a completely unjustified attempt to smear him as cowardly. He said this was a method often used in the Illinois state senate to indicate support for a bill with which one had some disagreements. If you want to dispute this you will actually have to sutdy the history of the Illinois senate, bring up some of the bills on which he voted this way and we will see why he voted that way. But I don’t think you want to go to that level of detail. You just want to stay on the Republican smear level of “he voted present so he’s a coward. Flip-flop, flip-flop. Republicans did this to Kerry and they will try it on Obama if he gets the nomination.   

Obama precisely said that

Tony et al:

First, for the record, I am of the male persuasion.

Second, as for calling Obama a “weasel,” in every single response to Hillary, he obfuscated, dissembled, spun, rationalized or justified each accusation.  Indeed, she was completely correct when she said that one could not engage in a debate on his record without having him do so; he simply proved her point.

What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: if he is going to accuse her of dissembling and spinning, then he should not engage in it himself.  As well, if he is going to accuse her of “inaccurately” representing his record - his words, votes, history, etc. - then he should not be engaging in such blatant spin and rationalization about that record.  Indeed, even Edwards felt the need to chastise Obama in this regard because Obama sidestepped the issue of his numerous “Present” votes in the Illinois Senate.  (Not brought up were his numerous NV votes in the U.S. Senate.)  And when Obama tried to “spin” this by saying it was 100 votes out of “4000,” Edwards caught him in THAT spin and basically said, “then you should not do the same by cherry-picking a few votes that Hillary and I have made out of hundreds.”  As well, Edwards was correct - and I have been saying this on the boards here practically since my first appearance - that a record of “Present” or “NV” votes does NOT show a “principled” person; it shows someone who is not willing to take a stand, one way or the other.  And for someone who cloaks himself in a mantle of principle, this is blatant hypocrisy.

Obama is not the second coming of Christ.  He is an ambitious man who wants to be president.  He does not have a perfect record, either in the State Senate or the U.S. Senate.  He is not without his share of errors in judgment.  He is as likely to engage in rationalizing, obfuscating and spinning as any candidate.

In short, he is no better or worse than any other candidate.  Vote for him if you like him.  But don’t try to convince me that he is somehow more “cleaner” or “principled” than Hillary or Edwards.

Peace.

Re By G.Anderson, January 21 at 8:54 pm #

“I realise that one of the things I didn’t like about Hillary was that she seemed to feel “entitled” to the job, but watching her lately I am feeling much more comfortable with her.”
————————————————————————-
G,

I too feel more comfortable with Hillary that I did a few months ago. She does seem to have “found her voice” and does sound like she believes most of what she says. I could live with her, but I like Obama better. He is cleaner and more principled.

Hey, I have been nominating Edwards for AG too. Sounds like a perfect fit.

Re By jeff in chicago, January 21 at 8:19 pm #
(21 comments total)

“Re: Re: I’m still cheering for Obama.
Wow Tony. You have taken the sycophantic love-fest of Obama to a new level. Not only does he have the ability to change the entire system of government, now he speaks a language that we mere mortals cannot even understand. Those who worry about his religious affiliation no longer have to worry. He’s obviously a Scientologist.”
—————————————————————————
Are we going to have a discussion about the debate or just throw dirt around? First Maani calls Obama a weasel and now you call me a sycophant. Neither of you supplitest the slightest substantiation for these highly negative statements.

Actually I’m feeling much better about Hillary than I was at first. I don’t know if I will ever completely warm up to her, but I think she will make a good president.

I can understand why you would worry about Obama, but I think he is realtively young as politicians go and still assumes that others are as smart as he is, he dosen’t understand that what’s obvious to him is not obvious to everyone else. Still, he will continue to grow and someday make a great president, and what ever happens after this he will always be a great political leader.

I realise that one of the things I didn’t like about Hillary was that she seemed to feel “entitled” to the job, but watching her lately I am feeling much more comfortable with her.

I also was impressed by Obama’s performance. I hope he will be our next president. Maani calls him a “weasel” but once again she does not say why, which means that this is just a smear.

G.:

Two comments.  First, even though I’m supporting Hillary, if Edwards doesn’t win SC, there is truly no justice in the world.  His performance was masterful: he stayed above the fray, and addressed the issues honestly and forcefully.  He deserves to win.

Second, were you and I watching the same debate?  In my opinion, Obama came off worse than he has at any other time.  I have never seen a man weasel out of so many things.  Indeed, although many here fault Hillary for saying whatever she needs to to get elected and for talking out of both sides of her mouth, I am now convinced that Obama is no less guilty of obfuscation, dissembling and spin.  And the fact that he cloaks it under a self-proclaimed (veneer of) “integrity” - and that so many people are ready to swallow it - actually makes him more “dangerous” than Hillary in this regard.

I will support whoever is the Dem nominee.  But Obama is truly beginning to worry me.

Peace.

Wow Tony. You have taken the sycophantic love-fest of Obama to a new level. Not only does he have the ability to change the entire system of government, now he speaks a language that we mere mortals cannot even understand. Those who worry about his religious affiliation no longer have to worry. He’s obviously a Scientologist.

Well, I just watched it too, and I was cheering for the big O all the way. So, if you would like to accuse him of “weaseling”, please explain to me exactly and precisely what you saw as such, and we can talk about it. What I see is that Obama is making such intelligent and high-level points that neither Edwards nor Clinton nor the TV talking heads are up to understanding his meaning. For example, when Edwards objected to all the “bickering” between Obama and Clinton, aying how is this going to bring health care to a single child, etc., was anybody listening when Obama answered that health care and so forth are important issues, but it’s also important that the American people believe that politicians aren’t people who will say anything to win elections? That one really resonated with me.

There is no doubt in my mind and heart that one day he will be president. I hope it’s in 2008, but I think that in some ways any of the Democratic front runners would do well. Though like many I don’t trust politicians.

Though my personal favorite is Edwards, because I believe he understands what American families are experiencing now, even if he’s not elected he would make a dam good attorney general.

The American middle class has not shared in the boom times, it’s all gone to the wealtlhy classes. I’ve watched the standard of living fall drastically for the middle class under Bush. People have had to put everything on plastic, and with the new bankrupcy laws, and credit card minimums there are going to be a lot of people loosing everything.

Reagan got it started, he made it impossible to get ahead working for a living. Many saw their homes as the only way to make any money, because they couldn’t do that by working.

That’s what started the housing boom, people looking for a way of making up for their lost wages. It was the only hope they had short of bank robbery.

What happens next will affect us all. If you haven’t experienced food shortages in the market already you soon will, better store some food, like beans and rice and canned food, this recession is likely to be long and severe. Full of crazy politics.

There is nothing that can really be done now except freeze prices, wages, and forclosures - otherwise, when the bond insurers start to default you may not have anything to eat.

Actually, the 22nd Amendment only addresses being “elected” to the office.  Since we are not voting for Bill (and since Hillary CLEARLY wears the pants in the family anyway…LOL), it is not a violation.

Peace.

Tony:

Actually, what I saw during the South Carolina debate makes me comfortable using a word for Obama that I have thus far held back from: weasel.  I have never seen anyone weasel more than Obama.  Not even Hillary.  And now I am convinced that Obama is equally likely to say whatever he needs to in order to win.  And I truly feel sad having to say that.

Peace.

Actually, you are technically correct, since Nader did not win any electoral votes.  However, had he not run, it is likely that Gore would have received all or most of his popular vote, which was just under 3,000,000.  Given that Gore won the popular vote by only about 500,000, had Gore had the additional 3 million popular votes, it would have been harder (though by no means impossible) for the Bushies to win the legal case.  At very least, Gore would have looked a lot less like a “sore loser” for pressing the legal case.

Peace.

Clinton is making it quite clear that he intends to be co-president with Hillary just as she was with him: “If you vote for him, you get me too” (Hillary, 1992).  Can people not see that this is a violation of the 22nd amendment?

Maani, I should add that I also have very good health care here and access to world class doctors.

By Maani, January 21 at 9:30 am #
(182 comments total)

Some random comments:Cyrena said, “I
Some random comments:

^your fellow citizens and what you think “they” want.  They are frightened and want protection from womb to tomb.  We may all be surprised who “they” vote in to office.  Yes, corporations are everywhere: Its not only politics; its also economics for me.  I have been priced out of my own country.  I’ll not be in poverty for the first time in my long and hard working life.  I left because of a fascist asshole and I’ll stay because of my quality of life.  At least I’ll die with some dignity.  I’ll not let the bankrupt bastards take that from me.

Agree. This is the slimiest crap from the bottom of the Republican sewer.

I’m still cheering for Obama. There has never been such a thing as a totally clean campaign, so it is a matter of degree. What I have seen is that the Clintons are much dirtier than Obama. They are willing to do whatever it takes - whatever it takes - to win. Obama appears to me cleaner and more principled. I say this as someone who voted for Bill Clinton twice. My feeling then and now is that wishy-washy and unprincipled though he is, he is also intelligent, competent, not a warmonger, and certainly far better than any of the realistic alternatives.  If Hillary gets the nomination I will feel the same way about her, and of course I will support her against any Republican. But I think we can do better, and Obama still looks better to me.

To…..nvs9940:......You are So full of it.

Cyrena—

I remember when Harold Washington was running for mayor of Chicago.  I canvassed and worked polls for him in the ugliest race in U.S. history.  This thing between the Clintons and Obama doesn’t even come close, thank goodness.  But if he thought the Clintons were going to foxtrot through the primaries, he was ill advised.

Once the Clintons begin to lose, they’ll pull out every trick in the book…and this may be the experience that is counting at the moment.  If Obama can’t handle the Clintons now, how can he expect to make the kind of grand changes he’s planning as president?  In this country, with the kind of entrenched corporate forces and special interests, you’ve got to play hardball…and you’re going to get muddy shoes. 

We want him to develop these calluses now because he’ll need them if he wins the nomination & certainly if he wins the presidency. 

Sad…but true.

If Barack had spent time developing his support in black communities where people, especially the older people, know the Clintons and if he had focused on developing experienced leaders for him (not kids) in those communities, not just from the upper and educated segments but all segments, he wouldn’t be having this problem today. 

I’ve heard too many people decry the number of white kids leading his campaign offices and hardly any blacks or latinos from all walks of life.  As a newcomer, he faces the more formidable task of creating these bonds. 

Out of curiosity, I’m going to see Bill and Hillary this evening.  I want to see what’s going on first hand; I want to see who else is there from this community.  Interpreting events through news reports can be a big problem.  Best see events for yourself.

Mr. Anderson:

You “can barely feed [yourself] or support [your] family. [You either] starve or pay [your] taxes.”

If you are so poor, I suggest you sell your computer and cancel your internet service. Food for your family is far more important. Clearly, I don’t believe your statement.

And by the way, you emigrate to another country, not immigrate. Stupid and a liar. Sad.

Jacks:

I could add more things to your list, but instead I will just say: Ditto.  And Bravo.

Peace.

Some random comments:

Cyrena said, “I sure hate to see Barak have to get down to their level.”  And this was why Obama showed a remarkable lack of insight, foresight and reality when he initially said he would not engage in “negative” campaigning.  Because it is impossible NOT to, no matter how well-intentioned, even noble. And if he can’t live up to his words vis-a-vis other candidates in his own party, how does he expect to handle the kind of blistering, withering, negative campaign the right wing is certain to launch against the Dem nominee?

Expat said, “McCain will have a very good chance to beat Hillary after the republican attack dogs get their act going.  Is Hillary electable?  I fear maybe not.”  I disagree.  70% of the country is against the war and wants out.  This is DESPITE the “surge,” and includes Dems, Inds AND Reps.  As long as McCain and Romney continue to beat the war drums, there is almost no chance the GOP will prevail in November.  As well, re the economy, most of the Reps would make Bush’s tax cuts (for the rich) permanent, which most of the country is against.  As well, the GOP economic plans are minimally tweaked versions of current bad policy. The Dem plans, to the degree that they have been articulated, are far superior.

Cognitorex said, “[Bill Clinton’s] national standing was then so hemorrhaged that he became quasi toxic in the 2000 election thus single handedly denying Gore his Presidential due.”  I would add to Tony Wicher’s reply that Clinton’s situation was MAYBE fourth in the things that affected Gore’s election. First, Nader siphoned off enough votes to cost Gore the election.  Second, Gore ran a truly lackluster denouement to his campaign.  And third, of course, was the illegal coronation of Bush by the SC.  So let us not engage in revisionist history: Gore DID win the 2000 election.

Re the discussion on expatriating, I would simply point out that, while you might escape what is occurring in the U.S., you cannot outrun the global zeitgeist; i.e., there is nowhere to run to that the transnational corporations and the “NWO” (whatever each person believes that to be) will not eventually reign, or does not already do so.

Finally, I would like to say “Amen” to the following two posts:

From Inherit the Wind: “It never fails to disappoint me that the view of the the Clintons by Truthdig is identical to the views of them by Fox Noise.
Truthdig NEVER fails to post any and every story negative about either or both of them, true or not, and never, EVER posts a positive story about either of them. It’s sickening, because lies from the Right are expected.  But lies from so-called “Progressives” are unconscionable.”

And from Dave in BP: “Obama is no panacea. The “anti war” candidate basically gave one speech opposing the war before it happened, and then went on to vote for it exactly as Clinton did, supporting everything and anything that Bush and his criminals wanted. Is this a man of change and hope? Honesty and integrity? Is this a man worthy of your support? Is Clinton? Is Edwards? They are all the same.
And that is the shame of America.”

Peace.

I hate Bill Clinton for what he’s doing. My vote doesn’t mean much in post-democratic America, but you can bet your bottom dollar that I will vote against Hillary - because I don’t want Bill to ever set foot in Washington again.

Proof?

What didn’t he?

What did he lie about?

“Barack Obama has tried to infuse his campaign with a certain loftiness and positivity…”

No he hasn’t.  He had Axelrod blame Clinton for Bhutto’s assassination, he praised the myths of Reagan, he had Jesse Jackson, Jr. launch a racial attack against Clinton, he refused to denounce a Spanish race-baiting ad that accused Clinton of not respecting “nuestra gente,” he blasted Edwards on 527s knowing full well it it was illegal for him to somehow stop them, he welcomes the support of homophobic bigots on the campaign trail (McClurkin and Rev. Caldwell) ensuring he exploits bigotry for political gain, his campaign pushed false accusations of racism against the Clintons, he repeatedly screams voter fraud after every loss.

What part of his record did Bill Clinton lie about?  Obama’s entire campaign has been run on him being against the Iraq war (in spite of having the same voting record on it as Clinton), against lobbyists (in spite of being corporate-owned, just like Clinton) and being a different kind of politician that will provide “change we can believe in” when he’s the status quo.

But there’s always the big question: do you save your own skin and get out or stand and fight, knowing that there’s a spot reserved for you in the gulag or the graveyard.

^What do you think now?

Iowa, Nevada, South Carolina and New Hamster with the control of the mass media give us our choices, pabulum;  business as usual.  Never mind substance on issues, ignorance cannot handle making real decisions, so we get to choose the best of the worst as usual.

The war is hidden from sight, so we hear the chicken in every pot story again.

Thanks.  My son moved to Taipei (where many of the natives can’t wait to leave) after school ten years ago to teach English and has been there since.  Loves it. Go figure.

Jackpine Savage,
I wish you peace and prosprity in your life…I think you will find your way to that eventuality.  Care to share your moniker’s meaning?  No prob if you don’t.
Peace

Hope you are an unregistered voters as well, your ignorance is case in point.

No, Expat, i don’t need you (or anyone else) to tell me what to do.  Your comment only opened up the argument inside myself that i go back and forth with pretty constantly.

You’re right about Asia.  My last expatting was in S. Korea and i was pretty damned comfortable.  I liked my job, enjoyed the world around me, and had more than enough to live on.  I planned on going back after throwing a bone to the family with an extended visit.  But you know what Shakespeare said about the best laid plans…

Impeach Bill Clinton again for lying!

By jackpine savage, January 21 at 6:51 am #
(61 comments total)

Re: Look to the future; coming soon…..

^decide whats worth fighting for (pick your battles).  If the majority of your fellow Americans were fighting, then hell yes go and kick some butt: Go to jail, die, raise hell: but their not fighting.  So, you going to stick your neck out for a bunch of apathetic do nothings?  Not me man.  I saw this coming in 2003.  We allowed this Cretin to violate everything we have ever stood for in the name of what!!!???  So, JackPine Savage; do you need me to tell you what and when to do?  Based on the postings of yours that I’ve seen, I don’t think so.

G. Anderson,
Look at Asia, cheap and delicious.  You as a native speaker of English can work as an English teacher for at least 1,000 USD per month.  Lunch for one, less than 1 dollar, usually 50 cents.  If you have a university degree it’s more, the pay not the lunch.  Health care, cheap and quality.  Believe me, I’m not rich, just comfortable.

Re By cognitorex, January 21 at 6:34 am #
(14 comments total)

Bill Clinton nakedly lied to the nation and the fact that the Democrats are not discussing it in no way means that it has gone away. His national standing was then so hemorrhaged that he became quasi toxic in the 2000 election thus single handedly denying Gore his Presidential due.
——————————————————————————
This is totally and completely false. The impeachment of Clinton was a travesty, as th American people well understood. His approval rating was at 70% during the impeachment hearings. His legacy of 8 years of peace and prosperity was not “toxic”. If Al Gore had run on it, he would have cakewalked to victory against Bush in 2000. Instead like the pussy he is, he ran away from Clinton. That is precisely why he lost.

Many of us have tried, I for one tried to immigrate to Canada, but couldn’t get in.

I’m already being treated like a felon by my governent, they take so much of my money, to full fill their various give away programs, I can barely feed myself or support my family. I have to make the decision to starve or pay my taxes.

The conservatives decry wealth re distribution but have done it anyway re distributing lots of middle class income to the wealthy. The liberals on the other hand want to take care of the Victim class - to buy their votes.

Of course when your poor, and can’t support yourself you have to rely on give aways or you can’t make it. 

That’s left the rest of us trapped in a falling standard of living. The writing is on the wall for this country, and for the corporations who put us in this position.

The best I can hope for is that my children get out of here.

Why do you have do this?  By this i mean reinforce what i know the answer is but spend most of my time fighting against.  Granted, i’m not here because of my choice, and i would have been back out there two years ago if it was.  My only consolation is that A. i’m a long way from the population centers so i might have enough lag time to move quick and B. i’m close enough to an unprotected border to actually make a run for it.

But there’s always the big question: do you save your own skin and get out or stand and fight, knowing that there’s a spot reserved for you in the gulag or the graveyard.

I’m a little confused here. I’d like to know what office Bill is running for?

Is there an office of Golf? Where ex presidents entertain each other by doing good deeds? One where Bill, and George get together and solve the worlds problems by driving around in electric golf carts.

Maybe they will come up with the idea that electric golf carts will solve our transportation problems.
I’d much rather see him as a good will ambassador than some who is protecting Hillary.

If her really wanted to protect her reputation, then he wouldn’t have done what he did to her. His current behavor suggests that he still doesn’t respect her, or her abiity to be a president.

I really don’t think Ms. Clinton needs him anymore, she can stand on her own. If your really want to protect her Bill, then disapear.

Bill/Hill will increase nation’s rancor and antagonism

(The “Fairy Tale” in the Clinton campaign)
.
Bill Clinton nakedly lied to the nation and the fact that the Democrats are not discussing it in no way means that it has gone away. His national standing was then so hemorrhaged that he became quasi toxic in the 2000 election thus single handedly denying Gore his Presidential due. It somehow seems dead wrong that a process has begun, the culmination of which will be to again place this once disgraced man in the White House. We live in the era where stardom supersedes values for the masses, a la American Idol and the “Brittany” effect, but primary voters and the Democratic Party should think long and hard before they offer philandering Bill the first spouse position.
I don’t dislike Bill and could easily vote for the Clinton him/her or her/him combo but there is a “Fairy Tale” being told in the Clinton electioneering speeches.
The fairy tale is that Hillary can remotely match Mr Obama’s ability to affect change in Washington. She/he can claim more experience in the legislative process, etc. but the fact that so many people despise her/him will end up with the legislative process being hallmarked by brutal antagonism. Look for the first ever Republican congressperson to perform self immolation rather than give Bill and Hillary passage of any historic legislation. Sadly, they simply have too much negative baggage to approach Mr. Obama’s potential for a massive November turn out leading to systemic change in Washington and some modicum of national healing.

Labels: Barrack, change, Clinton, fairy tale, Hillary Clinton, Obama

For better or worse I have already made my move.  There comes a time when citizens need to look realistically at the possibility of moving off shore.  Yeah, it moves slowly in the beginning, but then speeds up and…..!  It is a big world out there and the possibilities are endless.  There were many Germans who saw the coming despotism and fled, but most didn’t.  At a point it becomes too late.  Can’t happen here (I mean there, because I’m not there, I’m here) is the stuff of denial and it ain’t just a river in Egypt, you know.  Think about it.  When?

Dr. Dr.,
You have had some gems and this is one of them.  You give me a chuckle at a time they are hard to come by.  “Bomb everything” is still your best and I have a copy saved.

The one US President who spent many an engaging sexual, in uncharacteristically in non “tete a tete” encounters and proceeded to under oath testify that “why he never did have sexual intercourse with “whats her name” and according to an ex-lover named Ms. Flowers bio. is quoted as stating that, “Hillary has had more female sex partners than I” is now being attacked by Senator Obama as a liar.

Shame on you Senator. Slick Willy and Mama Hill just love gutter sniping.

Dave in BP,
As much as I hate to admit it, yes.  Even though it shouldn’t, it still does amaze me.  I just can’t wrap my mind around how we perennially, stupidly, keep doing the worst thing for our selves and thereby our country.  You’re comment is right on.

It never fails to disappoint me that the view of the the Clintons by Truthdig is identical to the views of them by Fox Noise.

Truthdig NEVER fails to post any and every story negative about either or both of them, true or not, and never, EVER posts a positive story about either of them.

It’s sickening, because lies from the Right are expected.  But lies from so-called “Progressives” are unconscionable.

Most of us in the demo. choir agree GE and Disney aren’t telling it like it is. So let’s stop referring to “it” as a “war”. It is not a war. It is a criminal invasion and occupation. It is not a war, it is a war crime. It is the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Mass murder should obscure all other issues, like the bought and paid-for Clintons. What a shame, Bill was so bright. There was reason to hope.

expat

don’t you find this utterly amazing: that with all the lies, all the crimes, the economic hardships, the pro-business/anti-consumer laws, ALL that has happened in the last few years especially, that people will still not support the one voice of reason that is kucinich? they will still march willingly into the voting booth and pick from the pre-arranged candidates offered up to them. they will still vote against their own experience and self-interest. I find that amazing. and sad.

Our choices will be Clinton/? and McCain/Romney?.  The media have already deemed the contenders and we will accept their choices.  McCain will have a very good chance to beat Hillary after the republican attack dogs get their act going.  Is Hillary electable?  I fear maybe not.  The republicans haven’t come all this way to lose now.  We are still in lala land and can’t see the force for the trees.  In a way, it really matters little who of the front runners gets it (elected), because we are way beyond these small differences; republican/democrat no longer really matter.  Could you feel the difference between a stiletto and a dagger as it goes in your back?

Dennis, thanks for trying.

The internet is an amazing thing!

Bud Collier hosted “To Tell The Truth”

Ralph Edwards, “Truth or Consequences”

They’re both dead, but Truth is on the gurney, still gasping for air, on life support. Bush is searching frantically for the plug.

they all lie. they are all cut from the same cloth. they all propose the same ideas, all approved by corporate america. who cares whether clinton smears obama, or obama smears clinton. do you think there will be any fundamental difference between the two regardless of who gets in the white house?
whatever happened to single payer health care? who talks about that besides kucinich? both these trolls were bought off.
obama is no panacea. the “anti war” candidate basically gave one speech opposing the war before it happened, and then went on to vote for it exactly as clinton did, supporting everything and anything that bush and his criminals wanted. is this a man of change and hope? honesty and integrity? is this a man worthy of your support? is clinton? is edwards? they are all the same.
and that is the shame of america.

Since when is the truth such an important element in American politics?

It’s apparent from Kucinichs’ campaign that the electorate doesn’t need or want the truth.

Me?, I’m just holding out for the Bush Money Store to come through. Now, that’s truth!

What was the guy’s name?  Was it Bud Collier and “Truth or Consequences” back in the good old days?

CYRENA, DID BILL TURN YOU DOWN,OR DO YOU LIKE SOME OTHER FORM OF ENTERTAINMENT ?????

So, Barak is gonna need somebody to confront the HillBillarys on every single lie that they tell, and every false innuendo that they drum up.

And, that is really the shits, because we’d prefer to hear and talk about the issues that matter.

I sure hate to see Barak have to get down to their level, so he just needs to sic somebody on them, that can make it clear to Slick Willy, that he just needs to go sit his old ass down.

BECAUSE….whatever ‘regard’ we may have ever had for him, (and I actually did approve of him on a few levels when he was the Prez) he’s really jacking it up now, with all of this gutter fighting.