Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 21, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!






Mad Pilgrimage of the Flesh


Truthdig Bazaar
Hope: A Tragedy: A Novel

Hope: A Tragedy: A Novel

By Shalom Auslander

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Wheeling and Dealing for Unity in Denver

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

Posted on Aug 25, 2008
Clinton and Obama
AP photo / Elise Amendola

Hillary Clinton kicked off the Democratic convention with a plea for unity, but behind closed doors she has been busy negotiating what that might look like. One thing’s for sure: It may be Barack Obama’s big week, but there’s going to be plenty of Clinton face time in Denver.

Both Hillary and Bill have prime-time speaking slots, and there will be a Chelsea appearance and even a screening of a short biographical video celebrating Hillary Clinton.

On top of all that, the AP is reporting that Hillary may play the role of kingmaker.


AP via Google:

Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama are working on a deal to give her some votes in the presidential nomination roll call, but end the divided balloting quickly with a unanimous consent for Obama.

Democratic officials involved in the negotiations say the idea is that at the start of the state-by-state roll call Wednesday night, delegates would cast their votes for Clinton or Obama.

But the voting would be cut off after a couple states, perhaps ending with New York, when Clinton herself would call for a unanimous backing for Obama from the convention floor.

Read more

More Below the Ad

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 hetzer, August 27, 2008 at 5:14 pm Link to this comment

The constitution (except for the bill of rights) is just an official license to accumulate wealth and power in order to legally steal.  Even the bill of rights has been misused to serve endless corporate rackets.  It is not just a matter of interpretation alone.  The document is terrible.

Report this

By cyrena, August 27, 2008 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment

By Lotty, August 26 at 8:00 am

Part 1 of 2

Lotty,

Thanks so much for your essay, and bringing up these points. I agree that these scenarios haven’t been discussed, and while it might be because they haven’t been considered, (I’ll say why I think that is in a moment) they probably SHOULD be, though my conclusions are different than yours.

It’s true that the VP never really had that much of an ‘obvious’ presence in the government prior to Cheney, and of course even his overwhelming power is still not obvious to a large portion of the population, which might be part of why he’s been able to manage the destruction that he has. His legacy will always be that of having created and maintained the most secretive administration in the history of the US. The fact of the matter is that the majority of the American population STILL are not are that Dick Cheney, aided by HIS VP, David Addington, are running the country to hell, without even the benefit of the handbasket.

Hillary’s supporters aren’t upset that she didn’t get the VP slot. They’re upset because she wasn’t awarded the nomination for president. Many of these same ‘supporters’ were vowing 7 or 8 months ago, that she would NEVER ‘settle’ for the second seat. So, it’s not really a matter of them being upset that she was offered the VP slot now, because they would still find something to bitch about. These are hard core ideologues that aren’t interested in what is best for the collective effort, but what they want, even if they don’t know what that is.

Be that as it may, some may actually be aware that Hillary as a VP, would give us a female Dick Cheney VP, and it would never have worked, because Obama is not a moron, or a personality to be the ostensible figure head, while somebody else holds the strings as well as the hammer, and runs their own shadow government behind the covers of the ostensible one. No. That was never gonna happen.

But, you’re correct about the influence of the Supreme Court, which is definitely something very serious to have in the forefront of our minds, in consideration of what McCain would do to the very razor sharp edge that is currently represented by that body of jurists. A McCain appointment will finish us off.

Unfortunately, Hillary is no more suited or qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice than she would have been as president. In fact, she’s more qualified as president, at least as long as the American public is willing to accept being submissive subjects of an Oligarchy. In other words, she would have been a better CEO than Bush2. (But then, so would I). But make no mistake, that’s what Hillary would have been as president. A CEO, in the best tradition of Wal-Mart and all of the other corporate powers that have merged themselves with the State, to the point where there is no separation at all. The Corporations have become the State, and the government functions now, ONLY to serve the needs of the Corporations. Wall Street and Washington DC are co-joined at the hip.

Hillary would have maintained that Siamese Twinship, but she is not qualified as a Supreme Court justice, because while she may be an attorney by training and education, Hillary practiced law only briefly, and only as a CORPORATE lawyer, serving the needs of the corporate elite. That same entity that has swallowed us whole, and spit us back out in pieces.

Report this

By cyrena, August 27, 2008 at 2:40 pm Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2

Supreme Court Justices must be Constitutional legal experts, and geniuses in Jurisprudence. That isn’t Hillary’s forte. In fact, she failed the DC bar exam when she took it, and never bothered to take it again.

If you remember from that really bizarre interview that Obama & McCain gave the church folks in Orange County, they were asked about SC Justices that they would not have appointed. Obama named Clarence Thomas, because he didn’t know shit about the law. (my phraseology, not Obama’s) Still, that’s basically what he said. And, that’s true. Thomas knew nothing about Constitutional law or Jurisprudence, and had no such experience. Since being appointed to the bench in the slimmest margin EVER (something like 52-48 confirmation by the Senate..double check that) he has delivered/written less than a handful of majority opinions, or even dissentions. All he’s there for is to deliver the vote to whatever the repugs and right wingers want.

It would be the same with Hillary, although her ideology would hopefully be more to our favor. (like I don’t think she’d be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade). And if she had become president, I also would like to believe that she would have made a far better appointment to the high bench than McCain would. But just because she would be capable of making that decision, (because there are many excellent possibilities, including many women currently serving as justices at the federal district level from which to choose) it doesn’t follow that she would be able to accomplish the job herself, any better than Harriet Meyers.

So maybe there’s another job for Hillary in an Obama Administration, though I can’t think off the top of my head, what that might be. It can’t be as Attorney General, for the same reasons we’ve already observed. She doesn’t know the law. (Her husband is actually a far better scholar in this regard than she, but he’s lost his mind to his ego). Can’t be as Sec. of State, since diplomacy isn’t exactly her strong suit either. (remember the obliterate Iran suggestion?) So, Secretary of Defense wouldn’t work either, unless we’re just resigned to perpetual wars of aggression until we’ve either blasted all the rest of the world off the planet, or gotten ourselves blown off in retaliation. Can’t be as the Treasurer, since she couldn’t even manage her own campaign without going into the hole and having to loan herself money. (I doubt she’d be willing to go into her own pocket to bail us out).

So I don’t know. Can you think of something for her to do? Maybe something with health would be good, though I’d actually rather see some real docs and other health care professionals in on that.  But, she could be an able enough administrator I suppose.
Or, maybe you all can come up with something else for her to be.

But no. Not a Supreme Court Justice. That foundation is already sitting on a very precarious edge.

Report this

By hetzer, August 27, 2008 at 11:00 am Link to this comment

Can a sociopath be a woman?  Maybe Madeleine Albright and Nancy Pelosi could tell us.  A sociopath deceives constantly in order to get almost any advantage.  It doesn’t matter what issues and causes they use to throw out as bait.

Report this

By DoctorSmith, August 26, 2008 at 4:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

During the 90’s, I was happy to support the Clintons, even sending hundreds of dollars to Bill’s campaigns while a poor graduate student at the time, taking a week off to work multiple precincts in 92 and 96, and defending Clinton environmental policies in the MSM.  I would do it all over in a heartbeat—no regrets, especially given the abuse by the cowards of the Arkansas Project and the liars of the GOP. I savorred every minute of battling those folks, and then enthusiastically supported Hilary in her run for the Senate, and this past Winter for president.

But, then I saw what a nasty, corrupt campaign by innuendo and smear she was running, and departed from her camp in May.  At the same time I realized just how awesome Baraks talent and leadership really are, and why Clinton felt so threatened by him.

Clearly, the only lesson that the Clintons learned from this abuse was how to be like their abusers in attempting to hold on to power.  It has been deeply embarrassing to watch the smear campaign run by Bill and Hilary over the past 8 months, while they new full well that their lies would become the centerpeice of the standard GOP smear campaign in the Fall.

So here we are.  The Clintons and the remaining handful of bitter, selfish, self-righteous supporters obviously couldn’t care less about the good of the party or the good of the country.  And, I can promise that I will, with similar vigor, work as hard as I can against any Clinton who runs for office any time in the future.

Message for Clinton, PUMAs, and the GOP. This is what you get when you act so unethically: thousands of people like me willing to devote their time to your defeat.

Report this

By Anna, August 26, 2008 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

THE DNC AND THE FAR LEFT SET OUT A JIHAD AGAINST HILLARY TO GET HER OUT OF THE WAY FOR OBAMA COUNTING ON TIME TO HEAL AND ‘UNITE THE COUNTRY’. THEY UNDERESIMATED HER SUPPORTERS.

Report this

By felicity, August 26, 2008 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

All this shit-stirring should remind us that Hillary has attested to the fact that her mother named her for Sir Edmund.  Well, she was born in ‘47 and he climbed in ‘53.  Obviously her birth circumstances, certainly timing, are suspect to say the least.

And then how did POTUS candidates ‘qualify’ for office when the first some were not born in the United States - only those born in what had become states after 1787 were.  How about those candidates for POTUS born in what were for years territories, not states?

Report this

By cyrena, August 26, 2008 at 10:03 am Link to this comment

Outraged,
I hear you on the ‘social response’ to home schooling, among other things. It’s standard stereo typing, so of course I know it well. I lived in Texas when I had my daughter, and had we stayed there, or had she lived long enough, I would have probably home schooled her, just because I couldn’t afford private school, (and wouldn’t have been able to find a suitable one anyway) and because the public school system there is the pitts.

We don’t have those same stereotypes for home schooling here in California, because so many people do it. That said, some of them ONLY do it, to prevent any ‘mixing’ with the general public. In other words, to be sure the kids aren’t exposed to the ‘other’, whatever the ‘other’ might be. Statistics for that sort of thing are always hard to come by, the same way that people rarely admit that they are racist. I don’t think it’s an overwhelming percentage, because most people home school their children for reasons other than that.

As for the hospital birth certificates, and the registered certificates from the state, I’m sure you’re correct that it varies from state to state for some things, maybe even Driver’s Licenses. It seems like I was able to use my hospital certificate for my first DL, because back then, they were only interested in verifying the age, and it was still considered to be only what it is, and nothing more. That is to say that a driver’s license is simply a license to operate a motor vehicle, and nothing more. It serves the dual purpose of personal identification, because it’s got a number, and they can put it in a data bank and keep track of us. But a drivers license does not serve as proof of citizenship, because one does not need to be a citizen to obtain a DL, and there’s nothing on it that confirms where one was born, or the citizenship of the person. However, that’s taken on a whole new meaning in the past few decades. So now, (at least in my state) a certified copy of the actual state record is required, even for a DL. (immigrant phobia)
But for travel purposes, (like international travel outside of the Continental US) the hospital record isn’t enough. They will only accept the certified copy from the state, as proof of citizenship, which is what the requirement is for travel. For US citizens, the ‘soil’ is the primary determining factor. As long as you’re born here, you’re a citizen. Of course you can still be a citizen if you’re born elsewhere to US parents, (particularly the military) but the soil gives the absolute right. So any BC indicating a US place of birth is acceptable, but it has to be the certified state copy.

For a passport issuance, the certified state record, or naturalization documents are the ONLY things they’ll accept, since the passport is the only document that absolutely verifies one’s citizenship. (aside from the supporting birth records or naturalization records used to obtain them) The state record is ‘official’ and can be certified, whereas the hospital records are not necessarily maintained, and don’t carry the kind of authorized state certification.  (no ‘number’ for their data bases) So for any right/privilege/function that requires proof of one’s citizenship, like voting or passport issuance, the state copy is the only one they’ll accept. Then again, we get back to the DL question, because that is acceptable for voting, even though one need not be a citizen to obtain a DL, but must be a citizen to vote.  So, maybe that’s why they now require the certified copy of the BC, before one can obtain a DL. Complicated, eh?

Report this

By cyrena, August 26, 2008 at 10:01 am Link to this comment

Part 2 of 2

At any rate, there’s no way in the world that I’m gonna believe that Barack Obama, (regardless of whether or not they called him Barry along the way) hasn’t needed to provide these records many, many, times. In fact, for the time that he was in Indonesia, there would have been requirements for his mother to provide paperwork, and that DOES get tricky, assuming that they traveled by air or sea, and I can’t think of any other way they could have done it. I know Obama surfs, but he doesn’t walk on water or fly under his own power.

Still, there’s extra bureaucracy when one is leaving the country with a child under the age of 16. If only one of the parents is traveling with the kid, then they need a letter from the other parent, and sometimes more. Imagine how tricky that can be if the parents aren’t in touch with each other any longer. Ann Dunham could have run into that problem, since Obama’s father had returned to Kenya by then. I say “could” have, because I don’t know.  If they were still in touch, it seems like it would have been an easy enough to get his permission, or whatever documents may have been required. Still, since we don’t know, that might explain why he was allegedly adopted by his stepfather, because Indonesian laws may have required it as well.

But, EVEN if that were the case, if would not have meant that he lost his US citizenship if he was born in the US. That’s just stupid. So, that’s probably why the attorney is trying to float the first part of it, by claiming that he wasn’t born here. It’s people like Hillary and her type of lawyers that give the profession a bad name.

That said, Obama would have also needed to provide similar documentation at Columbia, and possibly at Harvard. Obviously not because one must be a citizen to attend those private schools, but just because they require some verification of whatever ones citizenship or residency happens to be. Citizenship isn’t required to practice law in this country, though it is in many. Still, he would have needed to provide proof of SOME country’s citizenship in that application as well.

And now a thought just came to me. Remember when Obama’s passport file/records were breached at the State Department, allegedly by a contractor?  (why are the contract employees working for the feds?)  And then a day or so later, the rumor floated that Hillary’s supposedly had been as well? I knew something was up then. This allegedly forged birth certificate story had been floating around even before then though. But if the certificate had been forged, he would never have been issued a passport.

And Marie Cocco claims that Hillary ‘knows how to loose’. My ass she does.

OK. I wanna finish looking at the paperwork that her good friend/supporter/lawyer filed in the suit. I don’t know WHY I wanna look at it. It’s not that I don’t have other stuff to do, or that I just like being pissed off at the degree of treachery they’re willing to perpetrate. Still, it’s interesting to see how they’re gonna try to work this, and what the responses will be.

Report this

By felicity, August 26, 2008 at 9:58 am Link to this comment

Listening to a few unhappy Dems, Obama’s ‘sin’ is not trying hard enough to convince his supporters to give money to Clinton’s defunct campaign.  Perhaps all this Hillary hoopla is directed finally to bringing some bucks into her political coffer?

Also, it seems that the Clintons blame Obama for their loss - while they should be ‘blaming’ those who voted for him (to my knowledge he didn’t stage a junta), and now they’re ‘blaming’ him for the fact that his supporters won’t give her money - perhaps because they don’t like her?  perhaps her $100 million personal worth doesn’t indicate abject poverty? 

At least the Clintons are consistently not responsible for what are finally their screw-ups:  If it’s not a ‘vast right-wing conspiracy causing all their troubles, it’s an upstart politician stealing their candidacy. They really need to grow up.

Report this

By Lotty, August 26, 2008 at 9:00 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I don’t understand why the Democrats need to go through all this - or why Clinton supporters are so upset that Clinton was not chosen as Obama’s running mate.  You know, at least until Cheney, the vice presidency has never been a very powerful or influential position unless something bad happens to the president or if the vice president has to break a tie in the Senate.  To my understanding of government, the ten most powerful and influential positions belong to the president and the nine justices of the Supreme Court.  Supreme Court justices have the power to profoundly influence our nation for many, many years.  In 1864, Abraham Lincoln, fighting for re-election, was up against a formidable rival in his Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase.  Luckily for Lincoln, Chief Justice Taney passed away and Lincoln was able to dispatch his opponent to the Supreme Court, thereby easing tensions within the Republican Party.  Personally, I think Hillary Clinton, being much more qualified than, say, Harriet Meiers, would make an excellent supreme court justice - and a justice Clinton would have much more influence on our nation’s long-range future than if she was merely vice president.  I know of no reason that a sitting senator cannot be nominated to the supreme court, so I think that this may very well be the “grand bargain” that Obama and Clinton have made.  Clinton supporters shouldn’t be bummed out; they should be excited about this prospect.  I would like to hear what others think about this, yet no one in the media seems to have thought about this scenario.

Report this

By hetzer, August 26, 2008 at 8:10 am Link to this comment

Bogus politics (except for assassinations), Bogus govt. bogus capitalism (really crookism), bogus military, bogus media, bogus people starting from Kindergarten.

Report this
thebeerdoctor's avatar

By thebeerdoctor, August 26, 2008 at 4:50 am Link to this comment

Do you think the Clinton crime family is through with what Maureen Dowd called “teaching skinny a lesson”, think again. Of particular interest is the Democracy Now! interview Monday with John “Rick” MacArthur, tales of what happened to Howard Dean, Ned Lamont, and why Obama follows what he is told to do, is quite revealing. The silence of Obama in Chicago, over the “big box” Walmart issue, reveals that the exciting “new” candidate, is really just another product of Cook County politics.
Even more stunning to myself, is the tacit acceptance of Biden as his running mate, a Democratic hawk by any definition. So much for the “peace” candidate. Still, as a political image, Obama is easier on the eyes than the gnarly McCain.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, August 26, 2008 at 12:23 am Link to this comment

Re: Cyrena

I agree this is odd, to say the least.  However, I do know that in MY state a hospital record can be used in place of a state issued birth certificate.  So it may depend on the laws of the particular state.  Do we have federal laws which super-cede this…?  I have no clue.

I found it strange at the time, that hospital records were as “official” as state issued birth certificates.  But then again, I have found many “curious” situations arrive if one has their children at home and then OMG… teaches them at home.

Not always, and of course not everyone has “a reaction” to this.  But it’s a real eye-opener to see the reality of the reactions.  You’d have thought my children were ALIENS or possibly something even worse…..like liberals, or god forbid… Christians.  The stereotypes abound, use your imagination….....

The facts are, that my children, in-spite of some minor shortcomings are very good people.  And even more-so, INDIVIDUALS….something I hold in high esteem.

Report this

By cyrena, August 26, 2008 at 12:11 am Link to this comment

Outraged..

PS..The similar ‘technicality’ with McCain is that he was born in Panama before Panama officially became a US possession. Since his father was a member of the US military at the time, it’s a no-brainer. As much as I despise the guy, any person born to a parent in the US military is a US citizen, no matter where it happens to be.

And, I don’t believe this shit for a moment…

•  “…In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama’s mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, “apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight.” As Sen. Obama’s own paternal grandmother, half brother and half sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham Obama’s mother gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

So we’re to assume that ‘before giving birth’ (what…8 months before giving birth, or 1 month before giving birth) Ann Dunham traveled to Kenya, and then the Kenyans wouldn’t let her fly black because of a ‘normal restriction to avoid births in flight?” In Kenya, in 1961? Bullshit. The only ‘restriction’ on pregnant women flying is where they can sit on the aircraft, and that’s a USA/FAA restriction. No such thing even applies in Kenya or any other part of Africa for that matter. And when was all of this supposed to have occurred anyway? He even claims that this has been ‘verified’ by Obama’s half-brother and half-sister, both of whom are younger than him. How the hell would THEY know?

And, if this wasn’t bullshit, why does he have to back it up with a ‘just in case’…like this…

•  “…Moreover, even if Sen. Obama could have somehow been deemed “natural born,” that citizenship was lost in or around 1967 when he and his mother took up residency in Indonesia, where Stanley Ann Dunham married Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian citizen.”

There is a name for lawsuits like this, though I can’t call it to mind right now. But it’s specious charges. In other words, if the first lie can’t be proved, then let’s try this one. I can’t believe any court would even accept it.

Report this

By cyrena, August 25, 2008 at 11:40 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,

Thanks for the link. It’s more than bizarre, and I found at least 3 obvious ‘lies’ here, without even going to the books.

For instance, one does not lose their natural US citizenship via ‘adoption’ by a step parent. He claims that Obama’s birth certificate is a forgery as determined by 3 independent forensic whatevers, when it’s clear that he’s talking about hospital records which aren’t recognized as proof of citizenship anyway. Ya need the thing from the State, the same agency that records deaths, and it doesn’t even include a hospital. What about all the people born at home? They don’t have these hospital records, which is why they aren’t recognized as proof of citizenship.

Obama wasn’t born in the 19th Century, he was born in 1961. Hawaii was recording births then. And if his records weren’t in order, he wouldn’t have a US Passport.

Lastly, ANY person born to a US citizen, (regardless of her age) is automatically a US citizen, WHEREVER the hell they are born!! Sometimes, they are allowed to retain a dual citizenship of the country they happened to be born in, and other times they have to choose.

Meantime, Frank Cajone so well expressed my sentiments. I am truly SICK OF HER ARKANSAS ASS!!!

Thanks again for the link.

Report this

By Frank Cajon, August 25, 2008 at 7:41 pm Link to this comment

Two days of elecronic Ipecac is the price that we must pay to have a candidate that may give us change. This is the pound of flesh that is being required of us all by those who still cannot get over the fact that this bitch beat herself by running a low-road, racist campaign in a country that finally had had enough of old fashioned Arkansas backroad politics. And still, we must see her and her flawed and fallen demigogue hubby shoved in our face for two thirds of this spectacle. The Democratic party is a mess and should be ashamed.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, August 25, 2008 at 4:41 pm Link to this comment

I still wish this was an Barack Obama vs Ron Paul affair, it would put “real” issues on the table.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, August 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm Link to this comment

Article quote: “Part of her job at the convention will be letting those delegates know “that however they decide to vote, we will all be united behind Senator Obama,” she said.

The senator’s role at the convention has been carefully negotiated over weeks and months with Obama advisers, but Clinton denied those talks have been difficult.”

> Clinton’s comments seems a bit disingenuous if this article dated 8-23-08 at Global Research is accurate:

“A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit this afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission. The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Philip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit—just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver—for the health of the Democratic Party.”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9920

> Wasn’t there a “technicality” with McCain’s qualification to enter the presidential race for reasons similiar to this…?  Could it be that all this money will be spent and all this wrangling over non-issues merely for nothing….

Bizarre.

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.