Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 17, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide





Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
The Idea of Justice

The Idea of Justice

By Amartya Sen
$19.77

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

No Clinton-Palin ‘Cat Fight’

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

Posted on Sep 9, 2008
Clinton and Palin
AP photo: Charlie Neibergall / Charles Dharapak

Hillary Clinton is campaigning for Barack Obama but seems intent on avoiding personal attacks on Sarah Palin.

Hillary Clinton is doing another campaign push for Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, but she’s apparently being careful not to take on Republican VP hopeful Sarah Palin in any way that might signal “cat fight” to those media types watching for any hint of strife between Clinton and Palin that might be cleverly reimagined using fun and original gendered terminology.


The Boston Globe:

“Don’t hold your breath. It’s not going to happen,” wrote Howard Wolfson, her former campaign communications director, in a blog post on the New Republic’s website. “It’s not in Hillary Clinton’s interest, and it’s certainly not in the interest of Barack Obama and the Democratic Party.”

Clinton, who came closer to the presidency this year than any woman in history, has been watched closely in the days since Palin electrified the conservative base with her convention speech last week and began helping GOP nominee McCain draw crowds in the thousands. In the last several days, leading Democratic women including Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Senator Barbara Boxer of California have drawn sharp contrasts between Obama’s and Palin’s positions on abortion, global warming, and other issues, but Clinton has only done so obliquely.

“Women as well as men make their decisions after they weigh the evidence,” Clinton told a 500-person rally [Monday] in Kissimmee, Fla., according to the Associated Press. “As Americans go into that voting booth, what they have to ask themselves is not so much who am I for, as who is for me? And I don’t think it’s an even close question that we have the ticket that is going to do the best job in restoring the American promise.”

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.

Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 16, 2008 at 7:19 am Link to this comment

rage,

I have not seen any cleavage?  Just a dead bear on Palin’s couch and McCain standing in the background staring at her butt. Must admit Palin does wear a skirt instead of a pantsuit, if you had said legs I would agree.

Report this

By Jamie, September 15, 2008 at 10:42 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Someone should call Sarah Palin out for overtly playing the gender card.

Why is no one doing this?

She is saying in campaign speeches about “shattering the hardest glass ceiling of all.”

She is OVERTLY playing the GENDER CARD. What if Obama goes out and says that this is a wonderful time for black people? How would that play in the media? Yet, the media is letting her get away with this obnoxious statements.

Report this

By rage, September 10, 2008 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Hillary and Bill couldn’t be happier of the events of late. Smiling from ear to ear, bubbling over with joy.

Quietly they are shouting “I told you so”!

She will play the obedient party loyalist role, but not with the same vigor as she did in the primaries.”—Sue Cook

Neither kid nor flatter yourself. If the Clintons had been any-what remotely VETTABLE, Hillary would still be whining and clammoring to get on this ticket right now, even though Biden has gotten the tap. She’s half-heartedly rah-rah-rah-ing for Obama more from the stress of knowing that when he takes oath for the first of his two terms as President, the distinction of being the first woman in the Oval Office will go to some other younger, more progressive woman for whom vetting isn’t tangled up with a lot of Bill.

Hillary should have shown this much cleavage back in 2004 when we wanted to cheat to Dumya out of a second term. If she had deployed this ruthless campaign strategy on that field of tired competitors, like the ever gaffing Kerry and the bland Dick Gephardt, Hillary would be an encumbant by now. Dems were no less sick and tired of Dumya stupidity back then they are right now. Dems were literally SCREAMING for someone to stand up to Bush and Cheney, instead of kissing their blood-covered asses, whining about not having a veto proof, filibuster defiant majority, or cravenly smelling every fart those idiots let out. America would have overwhelmingly forgiven Hillary her support for this war if she had shown some guts and ran in 2004. Everyone was just certain that Hillary only entered the Senate in 2000 to break out at such a time as 2004 to save us from what we have now. But, Hillary let Dumya’s surrogates talk her out of her turn in the driver’s seat. When her surrogates were unable to convince Obama to wait his turn, she became vendictive and pissy. And, when Obama’s ground game proved to be more flawless than hers, Hillary’s recalcitrant petulence and phony sanctimonious indignation became an embarrassment to real feminists and labeled her very sore loser with basically everyone but her PUMA-base.

Right now, she’s still pissed. Worse, she knows at 60-plus now, in four, eight, or twelve more years, no one is going to give a damn about her centrist political ambitions. The PUMAS will probably all be dead by then. Right now, it’s fuzzy whether Hillary is even up to running to keep her Senate seat in 2010, with her political brand in tatters, steeped in debt from a 2008 Party Nomination campaign her election-retarded surrogates ineptly ran afoul of her party. Face it, the Moynehans are going to run as feirce a native New York Dem as they can find for that seat. The Albany Dems only endured Hillary for as long as the Clinton franchise carried the most leverage with Dems on the Hill. The Clinton name still carries huge clout, but not more than the Illinois Dem Machine. Hillary is not going to be granted more Senate supremacy than Dick Durbin once Obama is in Office. Hillary is not going to replace Harry Reid in 2009. That’s why she’s mad as hell.

Despite all, Hillary is right to not dignify the media’s request to politically mud wrestle Sarah Palin. Love or hate ol’ girl, Hillary is better than that! It’s a disgrace and an unnecessary destraction that does nothing to help the party nor Hillary. Furthermore, Hillary’s succumbing to so much as acknowledging Palin’s existence would grant Team Gramps’ unvetted unqualified churl credibility as Hillary’s equal, when the truth is Palin isn’t fit to take Hillary’s least favorite pantsuit to the cleaners. That’s legitimacy of Palin’s fitness that’s best established through vetting Gramps won’t permit. That notwithstanding, Hillary’s commentary on that would prove far more damaging to Hillary than to the candy heiress, whose notorious political chicanery will definitely end in November when she and Gramps lose this election.

Report this

By Sue Cook, September 10, 2008 at 10:48 am Link to this comment

Hillary and Bill couldn’t be happier of the events of late. Smiling from ear to ear, bubbling over with joy.

Quietly they are shouting “I told you so”!

She will play the obedient party loyalist role, but not with the same vigor as she did in the primaries.

Watching Obama implode over yet another woman on the campaign trail is their most ardent wishes coming true right before their eyes.

It is fun to watch.

Report this
Allan Krueger's avatar

By Allan Krueger, September 10, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

A catfight is in order! Take the gloves off, Hillary!

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, September 10, 2008 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

Hippy Pam:

You wrote, “DO WE REALLY NEED AN EX-BEAUTY QUEEN MAKING DECISIONS ON A NATION WIDE SCALE?????I say “NO”!!!!!”

Hell, this country elected an ex-B movie star President back in the 80’s, twice.  Why not an ex-beauty queen.  Then, someone thrown off a reality show.  Then someone who does toilet paper commercials.  Can’t you see it now:  THE SARAH PALIN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT in Wasilly, Alaska.  She already has her own action figure. 

There’s just got to be something being said in all of this that is good about America.  I just can’t yet figure out what it is.

Report this

By hippy pam, September 10, 2008 at 6:04 am Link to this comment

Gee….I thought this site was a way/place to STATE AN OPINION WITHOUT BEING ATTACKED BY OTHERS WITH DIFFERENT OPINIONS….We are-ALL OF US-OFF TRACK…I believe[me-myself] that CLINTON IS A POLISHED COMPETENT PERSON….She knows “the way of the forces” that make up OUR GOVERNMENT….I[me/myself] believe that PALIN will be a petty spoiled brat if she should GET THE 2d HIGHEST position in government.I [me/myself] do not believe PALIN has the experience…..and have we considered WHAT WILL HAPPEN IF THIS PERSON SHOULD STEP UP TO #1 POSITION??DO WE REALLY NEED AN EX-BEAUTY QUEEN MAKING DECISIONS ON A NATION WIDE SCALE?????I say “NO”!!!!!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 9, 2008 at 2:18 pm Link to this comment

Rus,

Flatter yourself, for me your one person circle jerk is over.  You accuse everyone on TD of not saying anything, while you very seldom provide substance on issues. Interesting you accuse others of what you promote, nothing on issues.

You need to calm down and not make unsound accusations, maybe read a book and stay away from the Telie.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, September 9, 2008 at 1:18 pm Link to this comment

Rus7355

Good enough.  I’ll take that as a “You got me, Knowitall.”

Not that that is what I wanted.  I was really looking forward to being educated.

Seriously, what grade are you in?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 9, 2008 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

Rus,

Sorry, I am confusing you with rowman and rightarm, I will remove you from the feet of clay list. Made an unsound assumption from your

“Mona Charen” post which seems to be pro Wolf Killer Palin.

“Sarah Palin is no ordinary pro-lifer. She is an attractive, intelligent, ambitious, successful woman who has actually lived her convictions.” Of course I am focusing on trooper gate.

Living ones principals, so you are pro choice and pro war, guess that makes it okay. How about the killing for oil that Pailin suggested why we are in Iraq?

Convictions of war which you have in common with her, maybe you can explain why these are principals of reason?  You are in support of the war, seems we had this discussion in depth quite a while ago?

Report this

By Aegrus, September 9, 2008 at 12:54 pm Link to this comment

Rus, that statement didn’t make any sense. Were you missing a word or two? Maybe it is the realism I exhibit which prevents wars from taking root. Maybe it is diplomacy and lack of self-righteousness which inhibits all-out-war where people with the least resources and least wealth have the greatest amount of suffering?

Report this

By Aegrus, September 9, 2008 at 12:49 pm Link to this comment

Rus, it has nothing to do with evil or good. It’s just practical policy ideas. The neoconservative movement wants big government spending on huge international projects of democratic imperialism and economic imperialism. The doctrine has also begun to hover over original conservative concepts of controlling the masses, limited power to the people and increased privatization of basic needs of people.

One can argue the effectiveness of the dynamics of progressive and neoconservative ideology; however, Americans aren’t in lock-step with the idea of wealthy owners having a bigger say in government than the majority of other Americans. This is why we constantly hear deceptive moral rhetoric and bullshit issues from both parties.

The real question is, what side are you fighting for? Democracy or Oligarchy?

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, September 9, 2008 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment

Reply to Russ735

You wrote:  Dr. Knowit,

It is my firm opinion that Saddam Hussein was the most dangerous single individual in the world. It’s the same opinion held by two (2) U.S. Presidents, and hindreds in the Senate and House, from separate political parties, spanning a decade.

You can say I “make it up” all day long, however, that’s cheap and useless rhetoric. You are in no position to say, much less assume, that I must be “making it up”.

With that said; what type of “reasonable” argument do you require? Be specific and I would be more than happy to oblige. But, understand, this will not be a one way conversation. I must be allowed frank and succinct answers to any questions I ask of you. THAT is something rarely seen here on TruthDig.

Russ735, I thought I’d ask you to document your assertion that “Saddam was a threat to the US” but I’m going to help you out.  I allow you to make up stuff, convincing stuff, that “Saddam was a threat to the US.”  I’d like your made-up stuff to include, when he would carry out his threat, what weaponry, if any he’d use and how he planned to deliver it, and, most important, how did he plan to circumvent our 3/4 $trillion/per year department of defense.

I’m listening.   

I’m listening.  Make it good because I’m hoping I can ask the Pentagon for a refund.

Remember, for this exercise, you can make stuff up, make up convincing stuff supporting your lame-brain claim that Sadaam was a threat to the US.

Go ahead.  P.S. Just to satisfy my curiosity, what grade are you in?

Report this

By rage, September 9, 2008 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic immediately began circulating rumors that Trig was not the governor’s baby—that she had engaged in a huge charade to cover up her teen daughter’s illegitimate child.”

Team Grampers is smothering all investigations into that charade. It has been suggested that Palin is covering up the sins of the son who is soon to be deployed to the dessert. His longtime lover who was pregnant during the time Trig was born has conveniently gone underground. Hospitals in Alaska will not confirm Palin’s claims of pregnancy, labor, and birth during the time this child was born. No airline will verify her wild tales of her water breaking between flights on a campaign run in Texas. Most of the PR teams for the airlines maintain that pregnant women are discouraged from flying at four months pregnant, and absolutely forbidden by reason of FAA safety regulations and insurance liability reasons after five months. And, during that period, no medical evacuation airlifts betwen Alaska and Texas are documented in any FFA flight logs. So, the whole round world is wondering what commercial airline would allow Palin to board a plane going from Texas to Alaska nine months pregnant AFTER HER WATER HAS BROKEN!!!

I know politicians are serial fabricators, but this strains even the most vivid imagination. And, for what? To convince a willfully ignorant pack of rabid right wing neo-conniving religio-fascist ideologues that the McCain-led GOP is still God’s Own Party by manifest destiny of Divine Providence, despite the perdition of the Bush Administration? Come on! This woman is clearly LYING! That baby is her grandchild, not her child. And, I don’t have an issue with her raising her grandchild because Trig’s parents may not have been ready to face the responsibities that come with a special needs baby. Just don’t insult my intelligence with a stupid lie that the least amount of leg-work by a good reporter can too easily debunk. I would actually respect Palin more if she’d just tell that truth, and dispense with this fallacy of being the super Gov-mom-of-five whose bringing home of the Alaskan bacon is now being scrutinized for possible fiduciary malfeasance.

And, she’s proven to be a colossal hypocrite. It’s okay for her out-of-control kids to have babies in highschool out of the bounds of matrimony, but she and the members of her prayer circle have been condemning it as the scourge on the American fabric by people of color forever. She and her family chose to coerce her poor daughter into having a baby its father has made clear he doesn’t want and marrying the father to legitimize what amounts to statutory rape. Yet, she would presume to legislate that same coersion imposed on her daughter into law and onto the world, taking away every woman’s right to decide with her family what is best for them.

I personally don’t have a problem with Palin being a born-again believer. I’m a Christian in a Protestant church who loves the Lord too. For me, abortion is a very last resort. I don’t think abortion should be a regularly used form of birth control. But, I maintain abortion, birth control, and all means of sexual protection are every woman’s personal choice to make. Every woman has the right to make decisions about their bodies themselves. And, let God be our judge. Only GOD knows the context of the contents of the hearts of these women at the moment they choose.

Report this

By wfairbrother, September 9, 2008 at 11:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

cat-fight? - that is totally sexist, in the title? - you might learn to bury away such things in the future… I’m appalled

Report this

By Aegrus, September 9, 2008 at 11:04 am Link to this comment

Rus seems to be convinced it was absolutely 100% necessary to invade Iraq because Hussein, like Ahmadinejad, liked to shit on America and our nation’s interests.

That’s not an imminent threat, and everyone should acknowledge the use of force is a last resort because the loss of life, liberty, property and the financial burdens of war and occupation greatly outweigh the self-serving tough talk of dictators and phony prime ministers on a scale of pragmatic foreign policy.

I’m very happy to not share an opinion with the likes of Rus because my opinion is a responsible one based in the facts of reality and not based on the speculation of rhetoric and ideology. Neoconservatives live in a fantasy world.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, September 9, 2008 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Rus,

Now you are talking about the war, good for you, something that contradicts your soft hearted diatribe on Choice.  Death is death, and the war is and has been nothing but death, because Hussein was a threat to our what?  How can war mongers be against choice with open armed passion on one hand and support with open arms war and killing with impunity?  Killing people who are in Iraq is acceptable, while choice is not. 

Now, does this not seem skewed in the reason department?

Report this

By felicity, September 9, 2008 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

Much ado about not much. 

Mona Charen said, “Obama’s speeches (are) all balm and mood.”  Not a few of us (the other side) would say that Palin’s speeches are all balm and mood.  Seventy-three percent of the American people would probably say that Bush’s speeches are all balm and mood.

So, are we going to end up with a president and vice who do the best balm and mood, issues be damned? Probably. If we continue to concentrate our attention on superficial crap we’ll get the president we deserve. 

As to the cat-fight excuse,  I suspect Wolfson spoke the truth when he said that it isn’t in Hillary’s interest to directly oppose Palin.  True, that is, if she’s started running for the 2012 election. Sad, if her decision ends up electing McCain in 2008.

Report this

By Hulk2008, September 9, 2008 at 8:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Rus & Friends, 
9/11 -  19 hijackers: 15 Saudis 2 UAR 1 Egyptian
1 Lebanese - well-educated, mature adults, whose belief systems were fully formed.  Notice NO Iraqis involved - ALL Al Qaeda.  Cheney, W, McCain and Co. wanted the OIL - to be “greeted as liberators” - to establish democracy in a former dictatorship (one which Rumsfeld et al coddled and bribed for years).  The result:  no oil, no democracy, no cheers for the liberators, $10 billion-a-month in cost, and a hearty here’s-your-hat-what’s-your-hurry from Maliki and his tribal relations, 4,154 US deaths as of 9/5/8 (779 in non-hostile action) - with most casualties LONG after the declaration of “victory” (“MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”) by George Bush on May 21, 2003.  So much for the “imminent victory” declared in recent Palin speeches. 
We veterans of other wars wish the victories had already come - but since we were misled in the 60’s and 70’s, I guess we should be used to being misled in the 2000’s.  So, Rus, return to your euphoric land of cutting-and-pasting other neocons’ drivel; like Saigon, our troops will be lucky to escape with their lives, hanging onto departing helicopters as the tribal maniacs close in from all sides - those same tribal sand-kickers who have been fighting each other in Mesopotamia since Adam got kicked out of the Garden.

Report this

By Aegrus, September 9, 2008 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

Rus, if we already achieved victory, why are we still in Iraq? Why are we spending billions of dollars a month for an occupation of a sovereign nation?

Saddam Hussein was not a threat to America, and there is no debate to take place about the subject without being rudely fallacious and exaggerated.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, September 9, 2008 at 7:44 am Link to this comment

Russ7355 I for one would like to see your evidence for your conjecture that Saddam was a threat to the US.  You can’t just “make stuff up.”  Show me (us) what supports your claim that Saddam was a threat to the US, please, all due respect.  In fact, the opposite is probably more true. 

If you can’t reasonably support your claim, then could you give me that perhaps it is you and not Agerus who is the “misguided” one?  “Reasonably” is the operative qualifier here. 

And, since you’re off-topic here, I’ll add for everyone else that Obama has to shorten his responses.  McCain and Palin have aptly demonstrated that sloganized one-liners are what this country likes and wants and associates Obama’s rambling with elitism. 

I predicted Hillary wouldn’t touch Palin with a “ten-foot pole” and still believe that. It’s not Hillary; it’s the electorate.  Palin is the electorate’s dog to love and, as they say, “Love me; love my dog.”

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, September 9, 2008 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

The Hillary Sarah Cat fight?

This is the epitome of everything wrong with our country.

Report this

By Aegrus, September 9, 2008 at 7:01 am Link to this comment

Isn’t it funny how mocking your tirade on something irrelevant to this article is deemed emotional, Rus?

Have you, as of yet, found out what “victory” means in the occupation of Iraq?

Report this

By Aegrus, September 9, 2008 at 6:21 am Link to this comment

Wah, Rus. Don’t defend your queen of pork on a non-issue no one is obsessed with more than the conservative base.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
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.