Top Leaderboard, Site wide
September 16, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






On the Run


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

The Clinton Backlash

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

Posted on Mar 31, 2008

By E.J. Dionne, Jr.

    WASHINGTON—Chill out.

    More specifically: “We’re going to win this election if we just chill out and let everybody have their say.”

    Thus, Bill Clinton’s advice to Democrats who are gnashing their collective teeth over whether the extended struggle between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will cause their party to lose an election it once seemed certain to win.

    One person who took Clinton’s advice was Obama, who went out of his way last weekend to defend his opponent’s right to stay in the contest. That was a shrewd move since the Clinton campaign is gifted at turning any effort to push her out into (1) a form of sexism, (2) a fiendish plot against her by Washington “insiders” and (3) a way of raising lots of money online.

    In any event, the argument about ending the race now is miscast. Even a miraculous intervention by Al Gore and John Edwards would do little to settle the matter. St. Al and St. John are powerless as long as Clinton and Obama want to keep their battle alive. Only one thing will end this brawl, and that is the self-interest of one of the candidates.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    For now, Clinton has a strong argument for continuing. Obama leads in delegates but that advantage is not overwhelming. Clinton still has a chance—a pretty good one, according to an analysis posted by Michael Barone on U.S. News & World Report’s Web site—of emerging from the primaries with a lead in the popular vote, though it seems impossible for her to overtake Obama in the delegate count. Clinton’s campaign song has become “Don’t Stop Thinking About the Next Primary.”

    For the long run, it is neither sexism nor insiderism to say that unless she sweeps the next contest in Pennsylvania and also primaries in other places such as Indiana and North Carolina, the decision to end the race by dropping out will fall upon Clinton.

    But there is a more immediate decision for her to make: As long as she is in the race, how will Clinton choose to win? The Clinton campaign needs to examine not what this fight has done to Obama, but what it is doing to her.

    For all Democrats, the worst thing that has happened since January is the tarnishing of the Clinton brand. Clinton haters: Don’t laugh. The truth is that when this whole thing began, the vast majority of Democrats—including Obama supporters—and a fair number of independents had largely positive views of Bill Clinton’s record and Hillary Clinton’s merits.

    In light of today’s economic crisis, most Americans look back fondly on the rapid and widely shared growth of the 1990s. What neoconservatives see as a “holiday from history” in foreign policy, most Americans see as a time of peace when the United States was respected in the world, and even rather liked. 

    And while Bill Clinton’s triangulation (and his scandal) did damage to the Democratic Party, Obama himself has acknowledged that President Clinton was right to pull the party back from “the excesses of the ‘60s.” Bill Clinton, Obama told me in an interview last fall, “deserves some credit for breaking with some of those dogmas in the Democratic Party.”

    As for Hillary Clinton, nobody doubts her intelligence. Those who know her reject the media-built image of Clinton as a cold, calculating machine. Such a person would not inspire the loyalty she has earned from her partisans. If Obama does win, he will draw on her policies, some of which are better crafted than his own.

    Yet much of this has been lost. Bill Clinton’s approach to the South Carolina primary, the Clinton campaign’s effort to ignore everything it once said about the irrelevance of the Florida and Michigan primaries, Hillary Clinton’s willingness to say (or imply) that John McCain is more prepared to be president than Obama—all this and more has created a ferocious backlash against the Clintons. The result is that when the word Clinton crosses their lips, many Democrats sound like Ken Starr, Bob Barr and the late Henry Hyde.

    “Chill out” is good advice. Hillary Clinton has every right to keep fighting. But her campaign has suffered from a ricochet effect. Attacks aimed at her opponent and efforts to exaggerate her experience have weakened rather than strengthened her claim to the nomination.

    This is obviously a problem for Hillary Clinton herself, but it is also very bad for a Democratic Party that cannot afford to see the entire Clinton legacy discredited.
   
    E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is postchat(at)aol.com.
   
  © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


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 Conservative Yankee, April 6, 2008 at 6:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Lee, April 4 at 1:43 pm

“It seems your Hero is a war monger too!  tee hee ...”

Absolutely correct. They are both “warmongers” as is Bush, Bill Clinton, G.H.W. Bush, Reagan… etc. 

During my mother’s lifetime we fought:
1914-17—Mexico.
1915-34—Haiti
1916-24—Dominican Republic
1916—China
1917—China
1917-18: World War I
1917-22—Cuba
1918-19—Mexico
1918-20—Panama
1918-20—Soviet Union
1919—Dalmatia
1919—Turkey
1919—Honduras
1920—China
1920—Guatemala
1920-22—Russia (Siberia).
1921—Panama - Costa Rica
1922—Turkey
1922-23—China
1924—Honduras
1924—China
1925—China
1925—Honduras
1925—Panama
1926-33—Nicaragua
1926—China


To be continued

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 6, 2008 at 5:37 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

caucusdebacle

“You have to go to the town clerk and verify that you are unable to attend—leaving out again the people who can’t go out. I am not aware that any other caucus state allows an absentee ballot procurable simply by mail.”

Nope, wrong again…Two things Going to the town clerk or having the town deliver the absentee is EXACTLY the way ballots are obtained for a general election here.  There is no longer a requirement in Maine that a “reason” must be given for the procurement of an absentee ballot.  All one must do is request one.

The campaigns of both Token, and the Business shill were on the phone all day offering to bring these ballots to the house. When the ballots are obtained by someone other than the voter, a notary or dedimus justice must authenticate signatures, but most campaign workers have these credentials BUT if you can not make it to the polls,Dedimus can be found at at: maine.gov/sos/cec/notary/dedimus.html OR by contacting your county commissioners. The person will come to the house for election documents FREE OF ANY CHARGE!!!

Voting is a serious business in northern New England.

....and over the line in New Hampshire where the business-shill won, the number of absentee ballots would not have changed the election one iota. The percentage of absentee ballots cast for the business shill, were (within the point spread) close enough to not have made a difference.  Since age is not recorded on the ballots, not collected by the election commission, no one is sure what of the age of the average absentee ballot user.

In my circle of friends (admittedly not a scientific sample) NO older woman expressed a preference for the business shill. Only one was voting for Token.. The great majority (Xtian and conservative) voted Republican!

Oh, one more thing.. There is no requirement (except handicapped access)in Maine that caucuses be held in any particular buildings. They are OFTEN held in senior centers, Legion Halls, and Nursing homes.

Report this

By caucusdebacle, April 6, 2008 at 2:13 am Link to this comment

The reason I know about the 15% of disappeared Hillary voters in Caucus States is that I made 2400 volunteer phone calls and this was the number of older women for Hillary whose dread of falling kept them at home instead of at a caucus. It’s not official polling but a pretty fair sample. I had no idea of the extent of this fear of falling until I now bring it up and everyone says ‘Oh yeah, my mother/grandmother never goes out in the winter.’

My percentage was ratified by Texas—Hillary’s voters were plus 4 in the primary and minus 12 in the caucus on the same day. A 16% swing! Suppose we had only seen the caucus results in Texas? Well, that’s what happened in Iowa etc. 

There were many other people disenfranchised by the appalling caucus system, but they seemed to be a push among the candidates.

Maine does allow an absentee ballot but according to David, a convener or chairman of a caucus in Maine, it is not the standard procedure you’d use to get an absentee ballot in a regular election. You have to go to the town clerk and verify that you are unable to attend—leaving out again the people who can’t go out. I am not aware that any other caucus state allows an absentee ballot procurable simply by mail.

As it happens, if the situation were reversed &, say, 15% of black voters for Mr. Obama were arbitrarily prevented from participating, I would be equally outraged at a system which pretended to be about “the will of the people.” The will of which people. The will of (healthy) people? “Just because I’m sick doesn’t mean I can’t think!”

Since JFK was murdered on my 19th birthday, one person one vote has been precious to me. I just think it’s wicked to pretend that the results of pledged delegates and popular vote from the caucus states aren’t hideously skewed. That’s exactly the kind of ghastly injustice the non-lemming superdelgatesare supposed to think about.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 5, 2008 at 8:16 pm Link to this comment

Sometimes it is necessary to go back and check our posts for follow ups from others.  Almost missed this one, thanks cyerna. As a Vietnam vet I really oppose war, any war.

Report this

By bert, April 5, 2008 at 7:52 pm Link to this comment

democracy : A system of government in which the citizens hold the legislative, judicial, and executive power, based on majority rule.


democratic republic : A political system in which a country is ruled by law, has representative government, and is democratic in nature.

From:  Regents Prep: Global History & Geography:
Vocabulary

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 5, 2008 at 6:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By Joe in Maine, April 4 at 5:38 pm #

““Re: Another vicious Clinton Lie

You are correct sir! Your 90-year old grandmother was allowed to vote absentee in the Maine caucaus. Did you stick around to watch, or did you drop and run? The caucus in our little neck of the pine forest waited until the end to count them. When Obama had a slight lead the Obama captain, acting as caucaus chairman, asked for a show of hands to decide if the absentee ballots should be counted. She was sure to remind everyone that people who vote absentee favor Hillary. The vote to open the absentee ballots was denied to my horror.”“

No Joe, I always stay for the Caucus, AND if I had been present at your caucus I would have immediately contacted the Maine Ethics commission, <www.maine.gov/ethics> The Bangor Daily News,<www.letters@bangordailynews.net> The Portland Press Herald, and The both the Token,<my.barackobama.com> & Hill-the-business-shill campaigns <www.hillaryclinton.com> and the super delegates (John Baldacci, Mike Michaud, Tom Allen,  John Knutson, Sam Spencer Marianne Stevens Sam Spencer and Jennifer DeChant.) all to be found at <www.maine.gov>

To fail to count ALL votes is a criminal offense, as well as being unethical. What was done with the sealed ballots?  It is illegal to dispose of active ballots in an improper manner. Who chaired your Caucus? Anyone who condones voter fraud is guilty of a class II Felony, and subject to a prison term.

IF you have your facts in order (better than your post which refers to my “Grandmother” who has been dead for 55 years, and therefore intelligible to vote…even in your town) Why not make them available to folks who can make a difference, instead of posting worthless criticisms here?

There you go, I’ve done the work for you.. all you have to do is write a letter copy it to all, and submit a list of witnesses. As you know a real Mainer isn’t afraid of a fight in defense of old people! You’re It… I’ll be watching the papers!!!

Report this

By cyrena, April 5, 2008 at 1:31 am Link to this comment

Leefeller,

Leefeller,
On the ‘war on the backburner’ concept, I understand that it certainly seems that way. We are of course too manipulated by the mainstream media, and so what they fail to cover, seems to indicate that it’s been forgotten.
BUT…I came across an excellent piece from Zbig Brzezinski the other day. (and I’ve since posted it on a couple of threads. You may remember him as National Security Advisor to Jimmy Carter, and I’m more familiar with him as a scholar on foreign policy, and particularly as a realist and a pragmatist. He is ONE of the current foreign policy advisors to Barack Obama, and I’ve tried to follow his thinking in the past few months.
The article (and I’ve posted the beginning with a link to the rest below) is pretty much in keeping with what I’ve sort of ‘pondered’ for the past year or better, in reference to what Obama can or cannot do, in respect to bringing about the closure of this most horrific disaster that is the war on, and occupation of Iraq. What we DO know, is that he is obviously limited in what he can do NOW, as opposed to what he can do as the President. I think that’s already been considered. He has to get there first.
Having said that, and keeping with what Obama recognized and articulated long ago; “There are NO ‘good’ options for the Iraq debacle, only bad options and worse options”..I think the piece from Brzezinski holds some measure of a workable plan for ANY new administration willing to consider it.
I don’t personally believe that the Clinton administration WOULD consider such a plan, because it requires engaging with Iraq’s neighbors and the remaining geopolitical players in the ME and elsewhere.
I DO believe though, that Obama would, if only because it DOES follow with what he has generally held from the beginning of his campaign.


The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War
  By Zbigniew Brzezinski
  The Washington Post

  Sunday 30 March 2008

  Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until “victory.” The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it.

  The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.)

  The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for “staying the course” draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios.

President Bush’s and Sen. John McCain’s forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of “falling dominoes” that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier.

  Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush’s obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -…...”

  Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there….In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is thus in the highest national interest.

More at the link

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/033008Z.shtml

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 4, 2008 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment

Here is the Meet The Press transcript that I quoted in my post.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17065119/page/5/

She didn’t appologize. Why the hell should she? She was fucking lied to!!!!

When was the last time you gave the I’m sorry speech to your signficant other when they lied to you?

Honey? Hey I know you told me that you were going out with Agnus last night but I happened to see your car at Arthur’s house and when I peeked inside I saw you two rolling on the floor in the throws of passion. I want to appologize to you for not taking you at your word. I sure am sorry that you lied to me, dear.

Is this what she should say?

Hillary: “I’m sorry I voted for the war. It was a mistake and I blew it. I took the best information I had at the time, Top Secret information that would have convinced anyone that the threats were real and that Saddam was in bed with Osama. I saw reams of classified documents that showed mobile chemical weapon labs, I saw nuclear materials and photos of the reprocessing reactor, I saw meetings took place between terrorists and Iraqi government officials and you know what? It was complete and total bullshit from the word go. I’m sorry alright! Sorry Nancy Pelosi sat on her ass and didn’t impeach W’s lyin’ ass…” (Storms off the stage)

The whole demand for a “I’m sorry” is totally without merit.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 4, 2008 at 6:51 pm Link to this comment

Of course the military complex made sure Gravel was out of the race.  So guess we can go back to racism, but you may have to attend you KKK meeting, so catch you next time.

Look, I have said it before our choices are selected for us by the elite, the wealthy people of power, they must protect their interests and increase them.  We live in a Plutocracy. It was planed that way by our founding fathers.

I prefer Obama to Hillary, only because I cannot stand seeing anymore of the Clinton’s, 

Anyway, Le thanks for noticing, guess I will have to go back to Kucinich or do like George Carlin and stay home on election day.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 4, 2008 at 6:38 pm Link to this comment

You are correct sir! Your 90-year old grandmother was allowed to vote absentee in the Maine caucaus. Did you stick around to watch, or did you drop and run? The caucus in our little neck of the pine forest waited until the end to count them. When Obama had a slight lead the Obama captain, acting as caucaus chairman, asked for a show of hands to decide if the absentee ballots should be counted. She was sure to remind everyone that people who vote absentee favor Hillary. The vote to open the absentee ballots was denied to my horror.

So don’t tell me about any vicious lies. I saw it with my own two eyes.

Report this

By Lee, April 4, 2008 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment

Re: Lefeller

Hey Lefeller ...

I see you took some time away from your racism/obsession
... white racism that is ... to say that the
war has been placed on the back burner ... and, that
Hillary is a war monger!!! Well, genius, check out what
hit the news today:

Obama Adviser Suggests Up to 80,000 Troops Remain in Iraq By 2010

It seems your Hero is a war monger too!  tee hee ...

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 4, 2008 at 8:34 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Bert says “the founding fathers created a “democratic republic”???  What please tell, is that?

A democracy is one man (or woman) one vote. We are representative Republic (See Franklin). This means instead of voting on issues we hire representatives to do our governmental work.

The USA has never been any type of democracy.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 4, 2008 at 6:07 am Link to this comment

Do not know about some of you, (actually I do) but I believe having the Clinton’s in the Whitehouse would make little difference from Bush, especially for the war, she seems quite the war monger to me.

Sadly the war has been placed on the back burner of politics, and seems to be staying there.

This classic blunder of imperialistic pomposity is what drives this bus, while we the people are forced to sit in the back seats with blinders on, the sad thing is it may seems to be by choice for some of the people, seems most people do not want to see, hear or speak of blunt truths.

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 11:15 pm Link to this comment

That link is priceless, Joe in Maine!!!!!!!! I didn’t understand what you menat until I clicked on the link. Thanks for the laugh. I needed that today.

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 11:12 pm Link to this comment

Oh grow up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 11:04 pm Link to this comment

Anti-war speech delivered on Wednesday, October 2, 2002 by Barack Obama, Illinois State Senator, at a Chicago anti-Iraq war rally (organized by Chicagoans Against War in Iraq) at noon in Federal Plaza in Chicago, Illinois.

This speech is the basis of his entire assertion that he was right from the beginning on Iraq.

Day after the Dem National Convention speech though he was already back peddling from his anti war speech. In fact, he began back pedlding when he ran for US Senate.

Boston Globe
“In July of 2004, the day after his speech at the Democratic convention catapulted him into the national spotlight, Barack Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an “absolute obligation” to remain in Iraq long enough to make it a success.

more stories like this"The failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster,” he said at a lunch sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, according to an audiotape of the session. “It would dishonor the 900-plus men and women who have already died. . . . It would be a betrayal of the promise that we made to the Iraqi people, and it would be hugely destabilizing from a national security perspective.”

The statements are consistent with others Obama made at the time, emphasizing the need to stabilize Iraq despite his opposition to the US invasion. But they also represent perhaps his most forceful language in depicting withdrawal from crisis-ridden Iraq as a betrayal of the Iraqi people and a risk to national security.

Obama spoke out passionately against the war in 2002 as an Illinois state senator, while many in Congress were silent. But his thinking on how to resolve the crisis in Iraq evolved.

During his 2004 Senate race, he supported keeping troops in Iraq to stabilize the country. But starting in 2005, as violence engulfed the country, he grew increasingly disillusioned.

[.....]”

Report this

By cyrena, April 3, 2008 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

“The last person Khalid is shadowy involved in getting Obama into Harvard.  This is just blowing me away the implications are enormous.”

Holy CRAP Lib in TX.

There you go again. Promises, promises, promises.

Obviously, You have NOT been ‘BLOWN AWAY’ or we wouldn’t all still be subjected to this stupid shit that you keep posting.

Where did you learn about Black Liberation Theology anyway? Was it in the Tuesday, Wedenesday, or Thursday night bible study sessions?

Blown away my ass. If only…

Now THAT would be some serious black liberation theology..YOU blown away!

Report this

By cyrena, April 3, 2008 at 10:46 pm Link to this comment

Correction, my bad. The anti-war demonstrations of Feb. 15th, 2003. That was the day of the global turnout for millions against the Iraq war that hadn’t yet been launched.

I’m still trying to figure out which speech is it that bert can’t find.

Report this

By cyrena, April 3, 2008 at 10:44 pm Link to this comment

What speech are you talking about bert. Are you talking about a speech made by Barack Obama during the global anti-war activities of February 15th, 2002?

Or, are you talking about his speech delivered at the Democratic Convention?

What speech are you talking about that nobody can find bert?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 3, 2008 at 8:58 pm Link to this comment

And bert speaks the truth.  I wouldn’t of believed it unless I saw it with my own eyes.

bert’s quote:  “I support Hillary because I know she’ll do whatever it takes to win!”

Hey…  at least we agree on something. Although it does make me wonder about bert….

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 3, 2008 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

Sixpack,

Could you provide the link which shows Clinton’s apology?

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 8:49 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<<<  I’m concerned about how disappointed people will be if and when the screen goes blank. >>>>>>>

Brilliant post and the line above is great.

<<<<<<<  I support Hillary because I know she’ll do whatever it takes to win! People think this is so distateful, but we’re not talking about running for president of the PTA. She can beat the snot out of McCain and she will. We need to win because another 8 years of Bush energy policy, blindness to global warming, conservative judges on the SCOTUS, and on and on, means we’ll all have no more hope. >>>>>>>>

I AGREE WHOLE HEARTEDLY !!!!!!!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 3, 2008 at 8:46 pm Link to this comment

bert,

You can trash talk all you want, but at least I don’t quote Joan Rivers as a measure of my intellectual capacity.

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

Joe in Maine, April 3 at 11:58 am #
(162 comments total)

<<<<<<  You’re flat out wrong. She has admitted her war vote was a mistake given what we all know now.>>>>>>

Great post Joe in Maine. I am so glad you pointed out that Obama’s name was not even mentioned in the newspaper accounts of that anti-war rally. He did not make the TV News either.

Amazing how one can build a whole Presidential campaign on so little.

But there is more about that day. No one, and I mean NO ONE has been able to find an audio of that speech and evidently there is no video of that speech either. In one of Obama’s ads there is an audio clip of Obama delivering that speech. IT IS A RECREATION. I wonder, since he has no records of his time in the IL legislature, how he ever managed to keep a copy of that speech in order to be able to recreate it for a political ad. It gets curioser and curioser.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 3, 2008 at 7:20 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for the help. Your link is exactly what I meant.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 3, 2008 at 7:16 pm Link to this comment

Better take another look at those precious polls of your ‘raged.

More people think Obama is too inexperienced to be President than think Clinton is untruthful or hold McCain responsible for his stance on the war, for that matter.

Report this

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

Keep drinking the kool aid Outraged. If you knew how to read and understand polls your posts would be more intelligent. Why don’t you take a course in statistics, or poll creation, or poll analysis at your local college. Oh, I know. That would involve WORK. That would take MENTAL EXERTION. You on the other hand just prefer to HOPE and criticize and belittle others.  Joan Rivers used to have a great line – Oh grow up !!!!!

Report this

By cyrena, April 3, 2008 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment

You’re actually very wrong here about Dr. Ron Paul. However, I’d admit that had he been given more ‘exposure’ the truth would have come out, and then we’d be even more screwed than we are.

Because, while the war is at the top of the issues concerning Americans in this election, it is not the ONLY issue, and the economy, the loss of jobs, the effects of the free market, etc, etc, are very much on the minds of most Americans.

Dr. Paul has zero solutions for any of those other concerns. You talk about what ‘even homeless’ people might think, as if their homelessness should be an ‘accepted’ reality of our collective society. Ron Paul DOES think that way, but it’s clearly NOT the way most Americans feel.

When we talk about Ron Paul, we are talking about exactly what Barack Obama declared of the current admin, “You’re on your own” folks, and let the survival of the fittest be the doctrine by which to live.

So, there you have it. In a Ron Paul rabbit hole world, we wouldn’t be ‘at war’ in Iraq, because we’d be ‘at war’ with each other right here at home, in the Hobbsean view of dog-eat-dog, and that’s just the way it is.

Had Ron Paul ever gained enough attention, all of this would have eventually come to light. He has no platform other than ending the war, and embracing isolationism, while still encouraging a free market in all sense of the literal term. “Club your neighbor as you would anybody else”….only the strong survive.

He also has no problem with maintaining the dictatorship that our government has become, since he was the only one to present a case AGAINST the resolution prepared by Dennis Kucinich, to impeach Dick Cheney.

It goes without saying that it has been the JOB of every single congressperson to do…EXACTLY THAT..IMPEACH, and Ron Paul has been among those most ferverently devoted to STOPPING any efforts to do exactly that.

That (and many other things) speaks volumes. He’s basically just another Authoritarian under the wrapping.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 3, 2008 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

Re: Sixpack

Maybe this link will give you a broader view of reality.

http://news.google.com/nwshp?tab=wn&ned=us&ncl=1148268362&hl=en&topic=el

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 3, 2008 at 6:11 pm Link to this comment

Re: bert

You never learn do you?  As people read through these posts sixpack and yourself consistently show your negativity and overarching BS.  It’s too bad that you are always wrong, lying or otherwise spewing fictitious garbage.  Somehow in your demented logic you think you are changing public opinion in your favor.

But you are not, as evidenced by the fact the Obama just passed Clinton by 2 pts in the polls today in Pennsylvania. Remember, the ones you said that didn’t matter but then the next day said they did matter since Clinton was ahead.  So what is it today…? I’m guessing that in your opinion they don’t matter again.

No, this 15% of older women will not support Clinton.  A portion possibly.  But most people don’t endorse viciousness and lying.  So the majority will not, most people are much nicer and smarter than you give them credit for.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 3, 2008 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

Since I do not and maybe some ohers of us do not get our information from the Mass Media, maybe you could keep us up on the good news about Obama?

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 3, 2008 at 4:43 pm Link to this comment

So on the day it’s announced that Obama only raised $40 million dollars last month the headline is this:

“Obama has second-best money raising month to date!”

It could easily have been:

Obama raises $17 million less than last month.”

I just wish that the media outlets would stop feeding us a thin veneer of objectivity and simply endorse Obama.

Instead they focus on Hillary’s “money troubles”. She also had the second best money raising month ever but this is what they reported on MSNBC this evening:

“Hillary has a new 3AM phone call add airing today in PA. I wonder if it’s a bill collector calling?”

Fair and balanced? You Obama-lovers better hope the media keeps loving you for the next nine years. It can get so ungly when they turn on you.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 3, 2008 at 4:07 pm Link to this comment

Sorry Mikhail.

Dr. Paul has some interesting ideas but unfortunately he’s not taken seriously because those good ideas are all wrapped up in a wacky package. I tried to listen to what Paul had to say in the debates but he was so shrill and out of breath from trying to get 3 points into every answer I found him caustic and I like some of his ideas.

Too bad he doesn’t have a more polished personality. He’s too easy to dismiss with a chuckle.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 3, 2008 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.

(Your proposed Hillary Answer:

Hillary - “Steve, I have to ask, what’s wrong about being a Muslim? In my state of NY I represent one of the largest Muslim populations in the United States. I think to some people when they hear Muslim they think radical fundimentalist. Nobody believes Barak Obama is any type of radical. So I reject your question and remind you that Muslim Americans are being unfairly singled out.”

Obama supporters would LOSE THEIR MINDS!

There would have been a far bigger and nastier response to “Not that there is anything wrong with that.” than a little, “as far as I know”.

The media would have forced her to withdraw in a single newscycle.

Report this

By Mikhail, April 3, 2008 at 1:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Reading all these comments and replies to comments gives a good view into the base of the Democratic Party.  And, damn, what a view.  Most of you choose one or the other as your hero/heroine based on personality.  And I’ll admit there isn’t much more to base judgment on.

Some play up experience.  Screw experience, get some fresh blood in there.  That’s why all you folks that are so anti-war seem so silly arguing the pro’s and con’s of these two.  What is so painfully obvious is that you all are motivated by prejudice or you would have voted for the one true anti-war candidate regardless of party affiliation….and that was Dr. Ron Paul.

You that play up experience, he has it.  Those of you that play up judgment, he has that, too.  But instead, you as faithfull Democrats are blinded by your own prejudices and instead of voting for the true anti-war candidate, you choose to vote in accords with what makes you feel warm and cozy inside instead of making harsh decisions in a time of harsh reality.

So we come to the end of this pre-election campaign with three of the weakest people available to vote for for President of the United States.  No even a homeless person void of any type of media for years coulda dreamed up such an unrealistic scenario as this. Unfortuately America’s tendency to wear rose colored glasses to filter out reality is why we’ve been stuck with a president that dances like a puppet with the Saudi’s and a president that sucked on a cigar that smelled like a used Tampax while in the Oval Office.

Get a grip people.  Bad as I hate to say it, if we know much about any of these, that’s more than enough not to vote for them.  But you make your choices based on that warm fuzy feeling and not what is good for this country.  Had you all woke up to reality and voted for Dr. Paul, this country would be on the way to fiscal responsibility instead of saddling our grandchildren with insurmountable debt…which will come about more and more regardless of which one of these candidates you vote for.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 3, 2008 at 1:50 pm Link to this comment

I hope the fact that Obama’s “caucaus advantage” was nothing more than a mugging in a lot of places. That should make you feel really proud of your fellow Obamabots. In Maine overzealous caucaus captains took over polling places with weak democrat leaders and dismissed absentee ballots by a show of hands after explaining that most of them were “just Hillary votes anyway”. I hope that reminds you a little of Gore getting screwed in Florida and Kerry in Ohio four years later.

Imagine. Some people only think Rethuglicans do stuff like that. Funny thing is that in November the real pros will be out at the polls with much dirtier tricks and this time people actually have to vote, so no more caucaus advantage. Sorry Obamabots.

Somehow, I feel if you were feeling like you were going to win against McCain your answer would be quite different. But that is just me.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 3, 2008 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

I appreciate you taking the time to get into specifics about why you support Obama. I have a better understanding of your positions and I value them. Thank you.

You wrote: “But seeing clearly other’s positions first comes from not projecting your own viewpoints and emotions upon them.”

That’s refreshing to read. Too often I am reminded of the line in Obama’s book.

“Undoubtedbly, some of these views will get me in trouble, I am new enough on the national political screen that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripe project their own views. As such I am bound to disappoint some, if not all of them.”

I find many Obama supporters are looking into that blank screen and projecting all of their hopes and dreams onto it. People who dream of universal healthcare, people who dream of their husbands and wives and children coming back from the wars. People who dare to dream about alternative energy or just keeping the home they live in. I’m concerned about how disappointed people will be if and when the screen goes blank.

I believe that the republicans will peel Obama like a banana in the fall and all those Hopes for Change will spill out on the ground and spoil there. I worry that Obama is too young and too inexperienced to take on the last job he’ll ever have. I am frieghtend when I consider all of the true leaders we’ve ever had have been murdered. I have been so bitterly disappointed in past elections when I thought Kerry was a good man, that Al Gore would have been a great President, that we should never have nominated Dukakis or Mondale. I hate to lose. I am concerned that the Obama campaign is riding on the uncertain rails of a friendly media that can so quickly turn on you and swing opinion from greatness to nothingness with nothing more than a little stain on a blue dress.

I think it’s wonderful to dream. I get accused of having no more hope. Well a bright little spot inside me is so happy to see what I call the Youth Brigade in Obama’s Crusade get all Fired Up and Ready to Go! I fear for their disapointment too.

I support Hillary because I know she’ll do whatever it takes to win! People think this is so distateful, but we’re not talking about running for president of the PTA. She can beat the snot out of McCain and she will. We need to win because another 8 years of Bush energy policy, blindness to global warming, conservative judges on the SCOTUS, and on and on, means we’ll all have no more hope.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 3, 2008 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment

You’re flat out wrong. She has admitted her war vote was a mistake given what we all know now.

Febuary 10, 2007

SEN: HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): Well, I have said, and I will repeat it, that, knowing what I know now, I would never have voted for it. But I also—and, I mean, obviously you have to weigh everything as you make your decision. I have taken responsibility for my vote. The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress into a war that should not have been waged.

Shortly before the vote to authorize, the Senate Armed Services committee was given a classified TOP SECRET briefing in the basement tank (electronically sealed room). The briefing was given by the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency and in that briefing where the committee members, including Clinton. They were shown the “bonifieds” - actual raw intelligence data that include the crown jewels - the sources of the intelligence and the methods of collection giving the arguement to go to war. All of them left the brief convinced of two things. The confirmed presence of WMDs in Iraq and the connection of Saddam’s WMDs to Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. This briefing was the case to go to war, including half-truths, information that was single-sourced and plenty of fat lies. This case was produced mainly by the DIA because Rumsfield and Cheney couldn’t get the CIA to play fast and loose enough with the truth to produce such a thick file of lies.

Given what she was told, and not all the Senate had this erronious information, she voted to authorize the war. She was LIED to. So were the American people. In my opinion this was enough to impeach the Administration, but Nancy Pelosi chickened out.

Go ahead and tell yourself that she should have known better because we ALL should have known better. I think if someone wants to lie to you and is clever and bold enough, you’ll believe what they want you to believe. Who’s fault is that? Hillary’s? Please.

Now let’s talk about Obama’s favorite subject of judgement.

Would you prepare for a speech to be given in front of a large, anti-war crowd, people you are trying to get to vote you into the senate and not make the central theme of the speech an opposition to the war? Of course not. The write up the next day in the Chicago papers didn’t even mention Obama spoke to the crowd of perhaps 1000 anti-war demonstrators.

His 2002 words were before he was a Senator. After he became one in 2004, he admitted he didn’t have access to the Senate Intelligence Reports, and admitted he doesn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War Resolution had he been a Senator. Subsequently, he voted multiple times to fund the war, and called early withdrawal a “slap in the face” to the troops. Now he is back in the anti-war stance, trying to pretend he was there all along.

If he was so eager to give the anti-war rally some red meat that October day in 2002, it makes me wonder if, once in the senate, he was just as eager to please a different crowd. He could have easily voted not to fund the war, at least once, to show his disapproval, or maybe even abstain on principal if he was so strongly opposed. Some say the reason he didn’t do that is because of raw ambition. Let’s face it. It’s tough running for President when people are scream at you for not supporting the troops and aiding and abbetting the enemy. That makes the who question of Obama’s great judgment seem more like armchair quarterbacking to me. It took no political courage to deliver raw meat to the anti war crowd that October. He showed no political courage or the courage of his convictions to keep funding the war.

Clearly that’s the kind of judgement you want in the White House, but I sure don’t.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 3, 2008 at 8:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Spin for whom?

Unless English is your second language, or you just read what you wish, and leave out parts (inconvenient facts)

I do not support Obama (whom I refer to as “Token” in most posts) So the question becomes “who’s spinning?

I support your right to vote for business shill, token, or G.I. Joe, unless one of these empty suits (including badly designed pant suit) breaks out of the pack with a speech on restoring constitutional rights, helping manufacturing workers retain the few jobs left, or some issue which I have failed to mention but is equally important to my friends and family, I’ll do what I usually do and default to the Republican.

For the record, they are all assholes.. I’d prefer someone else, but the perfidious Democrats have once again turned me off. Treasonous, self-serving liars will never get my vote.

Report this

By Lee, April 3, 2008 at 8:11 am Link to this comment

Dear lib in texas ...

Could you please post the url which explains how
Khalid Abdul Muyhammad (who was a member of the
Nation of Islam and the Black Panthers) assisted
in getting Obama into Harvard? The implications
are enormous ... and, if true, should be brought
to light, big time.

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

True - the Ameriac’s founding fathers created a democratic republic.

Report this

By bert, April 3, 2008 at 8:05 am Link to this comment

OMG - that fact is all over the place and very well known. In fact, ageism is alive and well here in TD. Haven’t you seen posts where the usual suspects (cyrena and her gang if ignornat bullies) call this large denographic groups old ladies and grandmas. And those are the nice terms.

Yes, consistently Clinton is winning older white and black women and Obama is not.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 3, 2008 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

How do you know that this 15% of older women voters would have voted for Clinton?  You are “claiming” them as Clinton’s yet I do not see any data to prove that nor any links.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 3, 2008 at 7:55 am Link to this comment

Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community
... Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.
I don’t know what to say Google and see for yourself.
James Cone, Kamau Kambon, Khalid Abdul Muhammad.  The last person Khalid is shadowy involved in getting Obama into Harvard.  This is just blowing me away the implications are enormous.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 3, 2008 at 6:48 am Link to this comment

FYI

We do not live in a Democracy, how about the electoral college for starters?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 3, 2008 at 6:42 am Link to this comment

Somehow, I feel if you were feeling like your were winning your comments would be quite different. But that is just me.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 3, 2008 at 6:35 am Link to this comment

Got to give it to you, you sure can spin. However your post was very interesting. Blacks have had the vote longer so why is Obama having an up hill climb. With the MSM behind him hes going pretty fast.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 3, 2008 at 6:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maine allows absentee ballots for caucus participants.  My 90-year-old mother cast her absentee ballot, and I know this is true, because I trotted it down to the Caucus myself… She voted for Kucinich, and has given me permission to divulge this fact. two myths blown to hell!

I know… maybe people can cast absentee ballots for other candidates, but not for the business shill?

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 11:10 pm Link to this comment

Thanks for your comments. I never realized until this election how bad the caucus system really is. Almost anyone can show up and vote. In several states ther were busloads of people who showed up wuth no ID and just said we are college students. From videos of some caucuses there was a lot of chaos and little accountabilyu. It lloked like what I would imagine would happen in a third world country. There are a lot of stories out there and many folks are gathering evidence of the shenanigans that went on this year.

Again, thanks for posting and sharing your story. No one should be denied the opportunity to vote on a primary or general election in the United States of America.

Report this

By caucusdebacle, April 2, 2008 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment

15% of Hillary’s older women voters are cheated of their rightful share of the pledged delegates & popular vote because Caucus States forbid them an Absentee Ballot. “If I can’t be there in my body, I don’t count.” These disappeared folks have a terrible fear of falling.  No ride can help them.  It’s the will of only the (healthy) people? Can we really accept that in a democracy?

This Caucus Skew travesty of democracy is the kind of shameful injustice that the non-lemming superdelegates were designed to account for in their thinking.

When the extent of the Caucus Debacle finally get reported fully, people’s notion of what’s actually fair will change. “Oh, no, honey, I don’t dare go to caucus. I’m off-balance.” (In Texas, Hillary was +4 in the primary & -12 in the caucus on the same day! Suppose we had only seen the caucus results? That’s what we saw in Iowa etc. Hillary didn’t ‘gain back women’ in New Hampshire because she teared up in a diner. Nonsense. She never lost them. They just got cheated in Iowa & had Absentee Ballots in New Hampshire.) Unlikely that the Obama-besotted Media will report on this shameful Caucus Skew, but like Diogenes, I hold out hope for one honest reporter.

Report this

By cyrena, April 2, 2008 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

Wordsonfire,

Thanks (again) for your excellent post. Your perception of these various remarks and other incidents referencing Hillary’s “Kitchen Sink” campaign, from the Muslim comment, to the endorsement of McCain over her own party’s candidate, to the whole damn kit and kaboodle.

Reasonable people have reached the same conclusions over these past many weeks, and your own ‘perceptions’ and values and principles, (at least as displayed in your posts) seem to me at least, to be in line with the thinking of the average Americans who read and comment on these threads.

In other words, not so different from what I guess I would call the mainstream, though admittedly the term is relative these days.

That said, your mainstream opinion seem to have attracted the wrath of Lib in Texas. It would appear that you have replaced me, (and a few others) at least temporarily, as a “RADICAL” who HATES Hillary Clinton.

Now of course I’m not a ‘radical’ and I don’t ‘hate’ Hillary Clinton. It probably goes without saying that I don’t LIKE her, and would NOT want her as the president of this country that has always been my home, and the home of my ancestors, and theirs before that.

I’ve not always felt this particular dislike for Hillary Clinton, because we simply have not (or I have not) been privy to ALL of her former dealings, which have begun to surface in the consciousness of the public. Even more than that however, are simply HER OWN ACTIONS including some of the votes and legislation that she’s sponsored in the Senate.  Her vote for the illegal and immoral aggressive war on Iraq IS NOT A SMALL THING, for anyone we might consider for the highest office in the land.  Her support of the Kyle-Lieberman bill is equally egregious, and proves her lack of judgment in most matters of foreign policy.

And, that was all BEFORE she started the most negative mud slinging campaign that I’ve even witnessed, with the exception of a long ago TX Governor’s race. (But, that was TX, so that’s SOP there—-ankle-biters and all of that).

So, just to reiterate, reasonable people make reasonable decisions based on rational judgment and logic. Reason intertwined with values and principles are what I believe the majority of us use for our basic decision-making exercises.

There will always be those who operate from raw emotion that is totally divorced from reason, (ie, Lib in TX and others) and so we accept that as well. Ignoring the ignorance doesn’t always work, but it seems to be the best of bad options.
March 31, 2008
Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior

As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.

The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes

http://www.northstarwriters.com/dc163.htm


There’s no other way to put it. The woman who would be President inflated her resume, lied outright about being “under fire” in an attempt to bolster her national security credentials, plotted to overturn the will of pledged delegates at the Democratic National Convention in August and lobbied to change the rules after she signed a pledge to honor her party’s decision on voting in Michigan and Florida.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cat_politicselectionscorruption.html#081846

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 6:26 pm Link to this comment

apprehended . . . that there is no “them,” and there is only “us,” doing the very best we can . . .

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 6:24 pm Link to this comment

want someone who can win in November . . .

On that we agree. 

I’m so confused Bert!

Hillary . . . politically savvy and brilliant. . . (pointing out her differences playing on our national security fears, willing to kick ass and do what it takes) . . . GOOD!

Obama . . . (purportedly . . . as I can’t really tell what the central point of this sentence actually says!) political opportunist . . . not voting NO to please his constituents . . . BAD

Or, when something gets the negative connotation of “opportunistic” or the postive one of “politcially savvy.”

It’s all about the filters we employ.

How much would it enhance our democracy to be able to engage a substantive conversation instead of name-calling and invective?


Thanks!

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

SO LIB IN TEXAS ABSOLUTELY NOT BY A MILE DON’T GET IT . . . unless by “GETTING IT,” you mean:  “NO MATTER HOW CLEARLY AND FORCEFULLY YOU ARTICULATE YOUR VIEWS I WILL TWIST AND LIE ABOUT THEM,” which based on your last post would be a more accurate reflection of what you “get.”

I have repeatedly stated that I don’t hate Hillary.  But, in your mind . . Black is white . . . Now, if I end-up with Hillary as a democratic candidate and she is my most progressive choice, I’m not stupid, I know that she is a much better choice for this country than McCain.  Do you know that?  Is one of the reasons you don’t know that is because Hillary told you that?  I’m not saying that’s the reason, but given her words and your deep support for her I need to ask that question explicitly.  Again, please learn from my modeling . .. I’m not projecting onto you what I cannot know, hence, the question!

I now also need to state I don’t “love” Obama.  I support him because of his position on the Iraq war and his fine, nimble mind . . . and maybe because I’m ready for something new and Okay I’m willing to admit because in my largely white upper middle class somewhat moderate world, he is enthusiastically being supported by many inde-repubs I know who are very tired of the Bush Administration and they won’t vote for Hillary—for reasons that aren’t either particularly fair or well articulated and I do have some distaste for that idea and really have had to do some deep soul searching on this supporting reason for me to vote for Obama.

I’m tired of the Bush Clinton Bush Clinton roadshow.  I worry about having the seat of power reside in two families in this country for close to three decades.  That makes me neither a hater nor a lover, but does make me a citizen who takes my franchise of voting seriously and my obligation to be as informed as possible.

I hate how telling the truth about someone is “bashing.”  I see it as sharing information so that we may all be more enlightened and informed . . . you clearly have calcified your views and I fear no amount of illumination will ever radiate through.  Because you have a closed mind, you PROJECT that others have a closed mind . . .

Thanks for calling me names!  No, I don’t like liars . . .
I’m very interested in how all of the candidates are financed.  Thank you for sharing that information.  I will due my due diligence on this topic.  I’ve been very worrie about Obama’s health care policy and believe Hillary’s is stronger . . . But, again . . . the whole Iraq War Vote and then the McCain is ready thing . . .those two things in concert concern me more!  Don’t need hate/love to make this decision. You may weight your decisions on a different set of values and priorities and that’s your complete entitlement.  But it is not your right to intentionally lie about my positions.

And, clearly this e-mail circulating has a bunch of people in a twist . . . but I’ve never seen it and have little interest in it . . .  I already on my own have researched both candidates’ positions/views/votes, so I probably wouldn’t pay any attention to it anyway and would wonder it’s origins regardless.

But, again, you just don’t get it . . .  as a proud member of the reality based community . . . I don’t like lies . . .I actually haven’t seen the ad with the claim on financing and I know I actually haven’t done enough work on this front . . .I do know I was very interested in how they both voted on the Bankruptcy bill and how in bed they are with Big Finance . . .

Exactly what “untruth” did I speak about Hillary?

You don’t get anything at all . . .

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 5:36 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<<<<<<  I want someone who demonstrates good judgment.  >>>>>>>>>

I want someone who can WIN in November.

Plus Obama’s so called judgement is a pretty flimsy example of judgement. He was not under fire and in the US Senate and had to actuaally excercise that judgement. Based on his record in IL who knows, he may have voted “present”; he may have pushed the “wrong” button’ or he may have voted “no.” But I doubt that last one. He is too much a political opportunist.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 2, 2008 at 5:12 pm Link to this comment

Yes, we know there is only two ways to look at Hillary, you either love her or you hate her.  You are with us or you are against us, the mentality seems to be similar to something I heard from the enlightened mind of a moron, guess who?

Report this

By lib in texas, April 2, 2008 at 4:31 pm Link to this comment

Okay we all get it you HATE Hillary Clinton and LOVE BARACK OBAMA.  So much so that you are posting untruths about Hillary.
April 1, 2008
A widely forwarded e-mail claims that Obama’s bills are more substantive and numerous than Clinton’s. Don’t believe it.
Summary
A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We’ve had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what’s the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.


It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.


It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.


It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail’s assertions, Clinton’s and Obama’s contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

arch 31, 2008
Obama says he doesn’t take money from oil companies. We say that’s a little too slick.
Summary
In a new ad, Obama says, “I don’t take money from oil companies.”

Technically, that’s true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race.

We find the statement misleading:

Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses.


Two of Obama’s bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.
Since you LOVE OBAMA so much I guess you love his lies too!!!
Just from your post you are a radical person and I for one know you’ll never change your mind just lay off Hillary cause some of us do like her and you constant bashing will make no difference.
The above are from Factcheck.org who does tell the truth.

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 3:45 pm Link to this comment

They both have tons of “experience” being flat-wrong on Iraq.  That fact is not in dispute.  And, I won’t cut them any slack, because I knew just from reading the newspaper and doing some good research, etc. that there was a very low likelihood that there were WMD and that we had some pretty serious work to do in Afghanistan. 

And given her very wrongness on Iraq, which she has never admitted . . . she exacerbates her bad judgment by aligning her foreign policy with McCain’s vis a vis “I’m ready, he’s ready,” language.  And the biggest capper, she condescends and says Obama doesn’t have the “experience.”  Will let’s just reframe this . . .  I don’t care about her “experience.”  I care about her “judgment.”  And, again, her words, actions and behaviors lead me to believe that she makes judgments that are neither in my family or the country’s best interest.

Nor did I say there was anything wrong with pointing out the differences—but if the difference you are pointing out that the most significant vote you had to make . . .the authorization for war was wrong and you mock your opponent’s experience who was right in his judgment and align yourself with someone who lies about what is currently happening in Iraq whose platform is the antithesis of your own . . . I say to hell with her wonderful experience.  I want someone who demonstrates good judgment. 

And, this total non-sequitor “gotcha” at the end . . . who said he can’t stand the heat . . . he has withstood the heat . . . what does that even have to do with anything that we are discussing . . .?

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 3:14 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<<<  Edwards has been known to have a vibrant dislike of Hillary. >>>>>>>>>>

Or so the MSM would like you to believe. I stopped listening to the MSM years ago. They like stoires that sell. They like to create ‘narratives.’ Problem is narratives by definition are fiction.

Better not to belive 90% of what you read.

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 3:09 pm Link to this comment

If Obama cannot stand the heat of the kitchen then maybe he should NOT be in politics. That is just stark reality.

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 3:08 pm Link to this comment

Hillary does have more expereince than Obama.
McCain does have more expereince than Obama.

There is absolutely positively nothing wrong with defining the differences between you and your opponent.

if Obama cannot stand the ehat of the kitchen then maybe he should be in politics. That is just stark reality.

Report this

By felicity, April 2, 2008 at 2:56 pm Link to this comment

Each of us - without access to first-hand knowledge - gets information from what she reads and what she’s told from the tube crowd.

Obviously, political opinion, polls, rhetoric changes day to day.  Eliz Edwards says one thing one day, seems to contradict it the next - and in the end it all boils down to what is politically expedient one day is not necessarily so the next. 

Edwards has been known to have a vibrant dislike of Hillary.  ‘Monster’ was my word - for the sake of brevity.

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

5.  “As far as I know” disgusting . . .
I don’t care how many times she had to say NO . . . “as far as I know” should have never been said . . . even if she had to say it 1 billion times.  Again . . . you called her “brilliant.”  Someone who is “brilliant” and “engaged” knew exactly what that would mean or do in the public sphere . . . Actually, she shouldn’t even have been talking about him not being Muslim . . . she should have pushed back and challenged the inherent bigotry of the question . . . Or, stood up for herself and said “I’ve answered that question numerous times, do you have any questions of substance and interest to the American people.”  My perception of that AS FAR AS I KNOW was that it was totally calculated to generate just the negative buzz about Obama that it did . . .but, she didn’t count that it would also generate negative buzz about Hillary too.  As an attorney who has participated in depositions, etc., it would have been easier and more straightforward to say “I have answered that question numerous times.”  She’s a skilled leader/negotiator and she can’t handle that exchange and deflect that question without doing damage to a fellow democrat who is being maligned?
Her comment that she and McCain are ready . . . pretty much explicitly telling her supporters that McCain is better than Obama . . .when issues like the Supreme Court are up for grabs . . . I consider that well beyond the pale . . . when my children have lost the supreme court for at least a generation . . . I will look back at that one moment . . . “McCain is ready, I’m ready and Barack has a speech he made in 2002” (BTW . . .that speech was his principled and prescient opposition speech to the Iraq War).

Clearly, we have very different perspectives and values.

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 2:51 pm Link to this comment

So . . . thanks for your thoughtful post and here’s the pushback from my perspective.
1.  flag burning – You may have thought she told the republicans “to go screw themselves.”  But, in fact, CO-SPONSORING OF THE BILL WITH A REPUBLICAN, told me as a progressive believer in the first amendment TO GO SCREW MYSELF.  So, I won’t EVER under any circumstances vote for anyone who sponsors an anti-flag burning amendment.
2.  Iraq War – Yes, and the most populated city in the State voted overwhelmingly 85% against Bush in 2004 post-9/11 . . . I knew that going into Iraq was a bad idea and I don’t sit at the seat of power.  Again, she played it safe, I want a leader who knows the difference between who attacked us and those who just superficially looked like those who did.  There were people who knew the truth and spoke truth to power . . . including Obama.  But, again, her positions/vote in no way reflected my values.  AND THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE THING UPON WHICH I AM BASING MY VOTE. WHO WERE THE PEOPLE WHO KNEW WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN? and WERE THEY WILLING TO STAND UP WHEN IT WAS AN UNPOPULAR POSITION?
It is a leader’s job not just to do what’s popular, but also what’s RIGHT.  And, she didn’t.  I think she didn’t for political expediency, at least that is the narrative you find in places like the Atlantic, New Yorker, New York Review of Books . . . That was her strategic gamble . . . She must face the consequence of this gamble, just like Obama will have to face the consequence of being a member of a black church.
And, she has not fully answered for this vote yet, or that she was wrong . . .
3.  Marriage conflation:  Actually, this one I don’t feel so strongly about, but the fact that she keeps touting her “experience,” makes me actually able to say . . . now wait a minute, how many elective offices has Hillary held, etc., etc.  I agree that she’s totally brilliant.  In fact, in 1972 all of her professors, etc. pegged her to be the first woman president.  I had been looking forward to putting Hillary in the White House ever since she was there the first time.  Imagine my surprise to discover through evaluating what type of temperament, etc. I would want there now, is not Hillary.  Again, not because I HATE her, but because of the way she has overplayed her “experience.” 
4.  Support of anti-worker organizations.
No, I’m not suggesting that she did that work poorly . . . Again, I don’t HATE her for “being able to get a job at the very top levels of a corporation.”  I’m just such a type of person myself.  I won’t take on a client or work with any individual or organization that does not reciprocally add value to the community.  Which under my own personal code of ethics would estop from taking either on as a client (and yes, I do play in those playgrounds and yes, I’ve actually had the honor of saying NO) . . I’m one of those weird “social capitalists/social venture philanthropists” who operates under at least a triple-bottom line and reinvests its profits into the community . . . You’ll be hearing more and more from businesses/organizations like mine . . .

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 2:13 pm Link to this comment

Joe in Maine . . . I’m putting this up here, because I haven’t quite got the hang of exactly where the “replies” to posts show up . . . so sorry to start anew!
In response:  YOU ABSOLUTELY DO NOT “COOL.  GET IT” . . . I don’t hate Hillary.  That’s just my point.  I don’t hate her now & I didn’t hate her in the beginning and only through her words, actions and behaviors have I determined that she is not the candidate I want to vote for.  That’s the problem with political dialogue in this country.  I expressly point out that I’m not saying generalized things and it comes back “I get it you hate Hillary, explicitly NOT what I said.
My position on Hillary comes not from sexism and not from racism and not from hate, but instead result only from her behaviors/words/actions . . . They are not made out of passion or anger, but with a strategic eye to what I want to help build/create for my future, the future of my family and community.  Because I am a proud member of the reality based community, when a candidate’s words, actions and behaviors no longer correlate to the outcome we are trying to achieve I am forced to select/elect a different candidate.  Thankfully, as time as progressed and I’ve learned more about Obama . . . . although I’m not high on his position on universal healthcare (oh that a leader just stood up and said the words “single payer” in this country, but then again, none of the current field of candidates has managed to say that yet!)  Of course, this is a frequent tactic . . .when one accuses another as just “hater,” as in “Bush Hater,” then it gets delinked from a completely rational and not-emotionally based reason for not supporting someone on a policy level . . .
I agree that there are frequently more than two sides to a story . . . Rashamon anyone?

But seeing clearly other’s positions first comes from not projecting your own viewpoints and emotions upon them.
& Bert . . . I have a post from you saying “what is sad is my reply to Joe in Maine” but I was talking to Lee . . . this is my first time posting here and I haven’t quite got the hang of how the whole reply thing works to a reply . . .

I just have had time to read Joe’s thoughtful post about the Rev. Wright flap and it seems we are in agreement and without quarrel with one another on this front.  Joe I hope you didn’t think I was say “sad” to you!

It was Lee’s need to call Obama “do-nothing” and Wright “the devil,” etc. that got me riled up.

Report this

By David, April 2, 2008 at 2:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

This article I think is pretty accurate.  The biggest mistake the Clinton campaign has made (other than endorsing McCain) is that she underestimated her base’s (and Democrats in general) anger with the negative campaign tactics of the Republicans, not to mention their policies. She voted for the war and won’t admit it was a bad decision. She more or less ran a Rovian campaign following her loss in Iowa.  She got caught planting questions in audiences, got caught lying about her experience.  I mean come on. This has been an painful campaign to watch after all we’ve been through over the past decade - not to mention somewhat insulting to our intelligence.  She’s not campaigning for Joe Six Pack/ Jedd NASCAR’s vote in the primary!

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 2, 2008 at 11:43 am Link to this comment

Well I am glad you have made your decision on the race for the nomination.

“We demand change”

Good for you.

If you think a one-third of one-term freshman senator with no foreign policy, executive or economic experience is the answer, then so be it.

You can at least temper your feelings of defeat in November by remembering how much you hate the Clintons. That’ll help you and the Youth Brigade and the racists and the elite and the other “true believers” sleep better at night, right?

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 2, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

By lib in texas, April 1 at 3:46 pm #
(221 comments total)
Another “Fact NO ONE remembers”

“Black men were able to vote in ten states in 1868.
Women weren’t allowed to vote until August of 1920!!!!

WHAT ABOUT THOSE APPLES !!!!!!!!!!!!! “

The first Woman Governor of a State was Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming in 1924 Miriam Ferguson became Governor of Texas several days later.

Currently, eight women are serving as governors of U.S. states. In one State, Washington The two State Senators, and the Governor are women.

The first Black governor of a State was Lawrence Douglas Wilder of Virginia in 1990 He is one of the two ELECTED governors in United States history, the other is Deval Patrick currently serving in Massachusetts.  David Paterson the third African American to serve as Governor (New York) is unelected.

The First woman Senator was Rebecca Latimer Felton of Georgia in 1922. Then in 1932 Hattie Caraway of Arkansas became the first female Senator elected to office. There are now three States with two women Senators. There are sixteen women currently serving in the Senate.

The First Black Senator (since reconstruction) was Edward Brooke of Massachusetts in 1964.  There has never been a State with two African American Senators. Barack Obama,  senator from Illinois, is currently the only Black senator. He is the third Black senator since Reconstruction

Margaret Chase Smith was the first Female nominated for president by a major political party (Republican 1964)

There has never been an African American nominated for president by a major US party.

Pretty evident that figures can be skewed on this issue… One might even be able to say, with Some justification, that Hill is coasting, and Obama is fighting an uphill battle.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 2, 2008 at 9:11 am Link to this comment

Cyrena - You are so convinced that the seat at the table you’re inviting all to sit at is going to have any legs after November of this year. I don’t. No one has been able to convince me that Obama can beat McCain and thus set the table full of Hope and Change you expect to be feasting on come January of 2009.

You can’t seem to grasp that calling for change and telling us over and over how good you are at unifying people is not the same as actually DOING it. How long did the bi-partisan efforts of Obama and McCain last in the senate? A week? McCain saw through Obama’s ambition and partisanship very quickly. What makes you think Obama can unite a country with deep racial divides and a government with deep party lines when he can’t even unite his own party that has both?

Hope and Change are political filler cyrena. Show me the answers Obama has to the problems we all face. If he can’t do that then how could you?

Don’t feel sorry for me please. Any personal deficits you might assign for me are only based on the biased filter you use when you read them. I don’t hold it against you that you are one of the leaders of the Dreamcatchers and Rainbows Wing of our party. You can’t see how unelectable Obama is because you choose to hope the facts away.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 2, 2008 at 8:19 am Link to this comment

“It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.”

It helps when the definition of the word “Sponsor” includes tens of bills that were cherry-picked from the actual ‘AUTHORS’ of the bills and Obama’s name was written in above theirs. This was done to make him more attractive to Senate voters and now he uses legislation, the ‘hard work’ and years of effort done by others to qualify him for the presidency.

Don’t think that will go unnoticed in the general election. The media can’t ignore the facts when McCain brings it up.

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 8:00 am Link to this comment

Hillary wins my vote for best sense of humor on the campaign trail. This from yesterday delivered at the beginning of her standard campaign speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0c9PzAPexQ&eurl=http://noquarterusa.net/blog/

And if you don’t get the joke go to you tube and search Obama bowling.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 2, 2008 at 7:47 am Link to this comment

Wordsonfire I have to say that your perspective and mine are quite different. The points you list all have more than one side to the arguement.

1.  flag burning amendment - By all accounts this measure was the latest in a series of controversial election-year votes engineered by the Senate’s GOP leaders in an effort to entice the party’s conservative base to the polls in November. It was a Gotcha vote. Good for her for telling the GOP to go screw themselves.

2.  vote for Iraq War - She’s the senator from New York, remember? Fault her for voting to take action against the enemy that attacked her state on 9/11. Now remember that she is an elected representative of the people of New York. They wanted her to vote in favor of dropping nuclear weapons on Iraq, Afganistan, anyone. Just get us our pound of flesh. Also remember that Bush lied to all of us about WMDs, the terrorist/Iraq connections. all of it made up. It had to have been all the more convincing when the folder was stamped TOP SECRET, right?

3.  Conflating being married to someone with having actual experience…

Hillary is a brilliant woman. She’s interested, engaged and used to being there to advise her husband on all manner of subjects. Now I don’t have any more knowlege about the specifics of the thousands of conversations that took place between Bill and Hillary when they were in the White House than you do. Nor would I presume to know that Bill would wait to hear what Hillary thought about a policy or a crisis situation before he made a decision, but I think it’s a good bet that it did. Bill has said Hillary was very engaged in the business of the White House. That experience is worth more to me that 1000 years in the IL state senate.

4.  Support of anti-worker organizations such as Wal-Mart and Tyson

So are you suggesting that she did that work poorly? She didn’t ‘support’ Wal-Mart and Tyson, she was hired by them. You can hate her for being able to get a job at the very top levels of a corporation. Are you jealous? How does being hired to do tough work make her any different than you? Do you work for an EVIL insurance company? How come you don’t quit over the denied claim of the little girl who needed a transplant? Since when does working at a difficult job somehow makes you a bad person?

5.  “As far as I know” disgusting . . . 

“You don’t believe that Senator Obama’s a Muslim?” Kroft asked Sen. Clinton.

“Of course not. I mean, that. You know, there is no basis for that. I take him on the basis of what he says. And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that,” she replied.

“You said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not…a Muslim. You don’t believe that he’s…,” Kroft said.

“It’s just scurrilous…?” Kroft inquired.

“Look, I have been the target of so many ridiculous rumors, that I have a great deal of sympathy for anybody who gets, you know, smeared with the kind of rumors that go on all the time,” Clinton said.

“No. No, there is nothing to base that on.  As far as I know,” she said.

How many times does she have to say “no” before he stops asking the question? He was baiting her into giving a less than definative answer. It was a bait and she got trapped. Let me also ask you this. How many lawyers ever give a definiative answer to any question you ask them? Lawyers don’t like to use words like “Never” or “Not even one time” without the legal training kicking in that reminds them, “What if I get caught in a word trap?” She would have looked pretty stupid if Kroft had presented the evidence of Obama being a Muslem (HE ISN’T, I KNOW. IT’S JUST AN EXAMPLE!) the moment after she just defended him in absolute terms.

You hate her. I know that. That’s cool. But there are always two sides to it.

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 7:37 am Link to this comment

What’s really sad is your reply to Joe in Maine.

I found his remarks very sensitive and understanding. Joe in Maine has admutted on this blog that he comes from a part of America with few people of color. But he has also related very movingly his expereincing racism up close and personal. And it is obvious to me from this post and others that he is not a racist. And far from it.

His point is that the Republicans will use Wright to win an election. They will do whatever it takes to WIN. And if we want to WIN in November then we need to deal with that.

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 7:25 am Link to this comment

RE “Elizabeth Edwards might call Hllary a monster”

If asked, Elizabeth Edwards would probably call her a ‘monster.’

Then why has Elizabeth Edwards stated that HILLARY’S heath care plan is better and closest to John’s?

Don’t believe me? Do some fact checking for a change. There was an article in Sunday’s LA Times. Look it up. But why would you want to do a little bit of work when it is much easier to just make it up?

Stop trying to pass off PERSONAL OPINION AS FACT.

Besides, Elizabeth is one classy lady. She would never say anything like that.  No those kinds of personal attacks seem to come only from Obama’s campaign and supporters.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 2, 2008 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

You’re right and it’s more than just ‘sad’ to revisit or be confronted with the plight of black Americans through our sortid history. What the black population has been through is criminally wrong. Systematically flawed as it is and institutionally wrong as she may be, America is still worth being proud of. It’s fine to point out the inequities and call for change. It’s adirable to take a leadership role in righting the wrongs. I think Rev. Wright is more than a spiritual leader. He’s a leader of people. More than a teacher he is inspirational with his life’s work. Many people’s idea of Patriotism may be closer to Nationalism. Those folks were offended by Wright and will remain ignorant forever because they want to believe that.

Obama noted that Wright’s sermons, “can get a little rough”. Taken out of context in soundbite form, many of those words were like a cold cup of water thrown in the face of a portion of the population of this country. Mostly those offended have a completely different set of life experiences to draw from than Rev. Wright, Sen. Obama, or yourself.

Was preaching ‘God Dam America’ appropriate for his audience? I would say so, yes. Was it dramatic? Certainly. Will it wake people up? Maybe. But like ice water thrown in the face it’s a rude reality check. Because he was taken out of context and reported to be preaching more of a hateful message than the gospell of love, many would rather simply condem the man than consider his larger message.

This will be unfairly attached to both of the Obamas in the bare-knuckle world of Presidential politics and in the hastily written words of political blogs.

Whenever I have written about Rev. Wright on this site and others I have tried to make clear that while I do not have racial hatred in my heart, many do. There are evil and racist political professionals and strategists that will prey on the fears and emotions of others come election time. I was very sorry to see that race became one central theme of this election cycle. I was very sorry that people saw racism where it was not intended and missed it when it was. The more this election is about race the more votes it will cost Obama.

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

that both black men AND women should have had the right to vote long before they did and that our home of the free land of the brave failed both groups!  . . . Of course, the franchise meant much more to white women over the years than black men in the ways the law was functionally upheld in this country and particularly in the south. 

I agree that there are a whole lot of people out there who are sexists AND racist.

What I hate is how Hillary makes shots and then can’t take them . . . again, I’m not going on gut . . . so some generalized sense of distaste . . .this view is based on words, actions and deeds . . .

I am for brave women, but I no longer see one in Hillary . .  I see a woman who is angry because she believes it is her turn and she is entitled to the white house and that Obama is a usurper . . . some of the things are:

1.  flag burning amendment
2.  vote for Iraq War
3.  Conflating being married to someone with having actual experience . . .is it my imagination, hasn’t hillary just been in office at the National level on more term than Obama?  And, didn’t he serve in the state leg?
4.  Support of anti-worker organizations such as Wal-Mart and Tyson
5.  “As far as I know” disgusting . . .

There are so many of them . . . As a result my objections aren’t generalized and non-specific feelings . . . they are directly

Of course, I would never call her a “racist, anti-american devil” for saying things I don’t agree with or offend me . . .

Hillary I cannot support your words and actions, therefore I will not be voting for you.

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

Great post, as usual.

Especially this part: “God help the Islamic fundimentalists that piss her off. She wouldn’t just beat them, she’ll destroy them.”

you got that straight. LOVE IR!!!!

If she’s a pure-evil terminator, don’t you want her working for YOU?

Report this

By lib in texas, April 2, 2008 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

Thank you Scotland, from where I stand I think you see it very clearly.

Report this

By bert, April 2, 2008 at 7:04 am Link to this comment

Re:  Women need to quit demanding special treatment

Change every ‘she’ to a ‘he’

Change every ‘her’ to a ‘him’

Change every ‘woman’ to ‘ma’n

Change every ‘Hillary’ to ‘Obama’

Change every ‘sexist to racist’

THEN YOU WILL HAVE A TRUE AND ACCURATE RANT.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 2, 2008 at 6:56 am Link to this comment

vwcar, You are either black, a man, or a stepford wife to have written the above.  Hillary has had it twice as hard as any other candidate.  She has been undeservedly been maligned by many including many who post on truthdig.
I have ask some people why they don’t like Hillary and most answers are “I don’t know I just don’t like her.”  Even the media has not given her a fair shake.
Your post reminds me of some woman thats trying to prove to her man she doesn’t think for herself.
Black men could vote in 10 states in 1868 women couldn’t vote till August 1920. It was brave women who brought this about and there aren’t very many for those kind left it seems to me.

Report this

By RdV, April 2, 2008 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

“...but it is also very bad for a Democratic Party that cannot afford to see the entire Clinton legacy discredited”

  Why’s that?

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 2, 2008 at 6:32 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well Joe, I’ll tell you, I never “see red” as my blood pressure remains fairly even.

My father hired the first African American to an executive position back when Mobil was SOCONY Vacuum. Dangerous and bold,

My mother counseled “caution” and asked if Dad would want to risk the family “position” and the chance that his children attend college for such “paltry gain”

Dad did it anyway, and avoided, for Standard Oil, the criticism leveled at other Companies in the late sixties; That there was not a black face to be found.

In your example I find another instance of Hill’s caution in her own self interest… I love both my parents, BUT look around.  What this Country NEEDS is a bold new direction.  As you say we won’t get that from the Walmart Board member who stood up for no one but herself.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 2, 2008 at 5:56 am Link to this comment

Blazing Saddles is very funny, like your airport story funny.  Seeing bigots as they are funny.

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 5:49 am Link to this comment

I agree totally!

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 2, 2008 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

Thanks for the laughter Cyrena . . .

I’m sure the comment was in reference to my suggestion that some learning could be done from watching a bio-flick . . . I know that reading the actual history of our segregated military, etc. might be a little dry, so I thought something that was readily accessible might be of value or interest . . .  but of course, my recommendation gets laughed at, mocked and compared with a fictitious movie . . .

I fear your words of wisdom downthread are very true!

peace!

Report this
Purple Girl's avatar

By Purple Girl, April 2, 2008 at 5:42 am Link to this comment

When Once I was blind, But now I SEE!!
That ‘Picking on a Girl’ PO’ed me so bad I almost hit the TV
Does His ‘Little lady ’ need a Defender to Champion her Cause? Is she too week or feeble minded to defend herself. Is she too much of a ‘pussy’ to fight Back- Hell No. She fights like a ‘girl’ though-Screams, Kicks and cries.
My husband laughed- he knew those words out of his mouth word have brought him a heap of Trouble. I am strong enough to take on verbal challenges, emotionally and Intellectually. No tonly becasue I’ve got a solid sense of Confidence, but he knows when it comes to the War of Words, I’m the Better Warrior- he just steps aside and lets them take the verbal beating. Actually I usually just let things go- but certain things will light me on Fire (Pick on Girls). This 2x Bill voter, and LONG time HillaBilly defender is disgusted by both of them

Report this

By Expat, April 2, 2008 at 5:12 am Link to this comment

^ on by a thread (no pun intended).  I’m pretty discouraged.  Not so motivated to post anymore.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 2, 2008 at 4:46 am Link to this comment

Selective history is a dangerous thing to practice.

A President granted the most amazing, once in a lifetime foreign policy opportunity, and he openly says that he doesn’t want to be bothered with foreign policy.  And dealing only with crises in foreign policy, rather than a proactive foreign policy.  (hint: our current problems with Russia are directly linked to Clinton’s support of Yeltsin and Clinton’s willingness to expand NATO.)

Prosperity linked to shifting the old economic model overseas without replacing it with anything, and borrowing from Social Security to boot. (hint: bringing NAFTA back from the legislative dead to win friends in big business and figuring that everyone would/should be happy working at WalMart.)

Deregulating banking/finance so that we are faced with the mess we have today. (hint: the housing bubble actually started in 1996 and the tech bubble was bursting before Clinton left office…and then there’s the repeal of Glass-Steagall.)

Consolidating media so that we are left the the atrocious MSM we have today.

“Reforming” welfare (which is a good idea) without making sure that there are living wage jobs to replace the government dole.

Raising the number of non-violent criminals in US prisons…many for a crime that several members of the administration were clearly guilty of themselves.

Not lifting a finger, when times were good and oil was cheap, to get the US started in extricating itself from the petroleum economy.

The world was not at “peace” during the nineties, you just spend a decade navel gazing and careening blindly towards the horrors that are dead ahead now.

The “bridge to the 21st Century” was made out of Popsicle sticks and Elmer’s Glue…and only half finished.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 2, 2008 at 4:32 am Link to this comment

here here and here here.

Like you, Expat, i almost left TruthDig for good.  But i decided that a good fight was more fun.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 2, 2008 at 4:28 am Link to this comment

I’m writing in Samuel Clemens…

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 2, 2008 at 3:51 am Link to this comment

So I suspect your distain for the Clintons has you seeing red. I’m sure nothing anyone says in their defense will make one spit of difference to you, right?

Put yourself in Hillary’s pointy shoes for a second, though. If you were asked to serve on the board of Wal-Mart who is your boss? What is your job and chief responsibility? The board at Wal-Mart or Exxon Mobil for that matter is there to make strategic decisions that will make the company more profitable. Think what you will about the company but Hillary wasn’t hired to that job to make sure the Wal-Mart workers had healthcare, or that the workers were well paid, or that there was enough toilet tissue in the Men’s room. She was on the board to make the decisions needed to make a profit. Now if you owned stock in Wal-Mart you’d be pretty pleased with the performance of the entire Wal-Mart team. Now are you suggesting that she should have stood up, banging her shoe on the table and took a stand on workers rights, wages and health care? That wasn’t her JOB! You don’t really understand what a board of directors does, do you? 

Try to remember that she worked for the OWNERS of the Chicken Company. Not the employees, the little guy or the Arkansas EPA, the Tyson family, right? At what point would you have had her stand up and say, “Hey I know I’m your lawyer, but you really suck and I demand that you change your act!” How do you know if she didn’t. Again she applied for a job a very small percentage of Americans could interview for and she got it done for the people that hired her.

Would I want her on the team of people for me or against me? I think she’s exactly the kind of fuzzy little kitten we want in the Oval office. God help the Islamic fundimentalists that piss her off. She wouldn’t just beat them, she’ll destroy them.

If she’s a pure-evil terminator, don’t you want her working for YOU?

I’m not going to get into the Bubba defense business except for this one point. To hear the media’s recent downplaying of the violence and terror in Bosnia you’d never confuse it with any war zone. ;->

Report this

By cyrena, April 2, 2008 at 12:45 am Link to this comment

I never saw the movie Leefeller. (Blazing Saddles).

However…I have yet another true story of ‘bigotry’ in America, this one at the Boston airport.

An airline passenger was attempting to purchase a ticket from one of the ticket agents at the airport. It didn’t appear (from the sidelines at least) to be that complicated a deal.

BUT, the passenger began to rant and rave about the fact that the ticket agent was an African-American female, and claimed that she (the ticket agent) didn’t know what she was doing, and on and on. The standard stuff that one hears when they are in the public service sector.

So, there was the demand to ‘see a supervisor’. (maybe to put this ‘woman of color’ in her appropriate ‘place’?)

Ayway, the ‘supervisor’ was called out. The supervisor turned out to be…(you’ve probably already guessed it)..
ANOTHER African-American female!

I was pretty sure the guy was going to have a heart attack, and I was just watching from the side lines.

Well, the guy was so frustrated and pissed off, that he decided, ON HIS OWN, to contact the REAL ‘authorities’. As I watched in amazement, he went to one of those airport phones, (I had no idea who he was calling) and contacted the Port Authority. This was close to two decades ago, and the Port Authority provided airport security.

Well, damn if the ‘officer’ who responded to the call wasn’t…YEP..you guessed it again! An African-American. (‘cept at least it was a guy this time).

The passenger of course was completely beside himself at that point, and so he shouted some nasty stuff, and started to walk off. At THAT point…

HIS TROUSERS FELL TO THE FLOOR!!!

I thought I was gonna have a heart attack myself, just from laughing.

Geeze…a day in the life, eh?


Is Blazing Saddles that good?

Report this

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

agreed.  the smugness of the self-declared ‘great minds’ that post on this site have grown redundant and tiresome, the very root of libralism’s collective problem.  this isn’t fun anymore.  enjoy your falling empire americans, seems its inevitable now.  as you yanks say, ‘see ya, wouldn’t wanna be ya!’

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 1, 2008 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment

I wonder how many black men were able to employ the franchise?  I mean that seriously . . I’ve got to go look into that.

Does this have to be mutually exclusive?  I remember the “FACT,” but am uncertain where to place it either within context of the Wright Sermon or, for that matter, what it has to do with Hillary shooting her ownself in the foot.

Nobody called you a racist . . .  Although your deep offense at Wright’s words lead me to deduce you might be a person who isn’t around a lot of black people as friends.  Or, if you are . . . you are in the great majority ethnically.

And, I might ask for some empathy and understanding given the “offense” and “hateful rantings” that made you liken Wright to the “devil.”  You feel free to say he’s like “the devil,“in a public forum because of a few sermons that you feel weren’t flattering and reflective of your experience of the US. . .  Yet, we aren’t allowed to use perjoratives when speaking of centuries of systemic physical and financial subjugation.  Are there no irony gods nearby to say “pot, meet kettle?”

Yes, I’ve been following AJ the disaster at HUD for quite some years now . . . but Alphonso wasn’t a “black man.”  Alphonso was a “Bush man.”  (hee hee . . .you all know why I’m giggling!)  an entirely different animal.  He should have been kicked out at HUD long before Katrina happened.  Now, why do you think it would be of interest to me that the head of HUD resigned in ignomy?  That is a regular pattern for Bush officials.  Hmmm, was it his melanin content?  I’m so confused by your insertion of AJ into this conversation?

I started out with HIllary.  And through her words, actions and behaviors and solely her words, actions and behaviors, she lost my vote.  I really loved it when they were in the white house . . . even with their triangulating, but I don’t like the way either of them are behaving now.  And, that for me is sad.

If necessary, I will vote for her though . . . I understand that this is about the Supreme Court more than anything else, and we can’t afford to lose the white house for four more years.

Thanks for the shoutout Cyrena . . .if you’d like to know more about my work in the world go to marnitastable.org.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 1, 2008 at 9:07 pm Link to this comment

Listening to all the tripe and arguments from the enlightening minds of some posters, I cannot help, but bring to mind the movie “Blazing Saddles”

A movie about racists and bigots, “Blazing Saddles’  ah yes,  the same kind of mental makeup we saw in the movie, has been permeating here on TD. 

One part of the picture I find most comparable, is when the black sheriff comes in after walking though the town of bigots, he tells his friend and assistant, about the people of the town and they really they mean well and cannot help them selves, (I will have to watch the move again) and they look at each other and in unison laughing say, they are Morons.

Yes, I will have to watch “Blazing Saddles” again.

Report this

By vwcat, April 1, 2008 at 8:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Seems to me that far too many women are seeing Hillary as their vessel.  They feel they are owed the white house and look to her to make whatever disappointments and anger they feel better.
She is not a candidate but, their therapist.
They feel because many women, like myself, reject Hillary we are rejecting them.  And all men who don’t support her are women haters.
Whatever the problems are with their lives, a politician running for president is not going to make things better.  You need a good psychologist for that.
Making Hillary president is not going to cure your rage or validate you.  You have to do that yourself.
And because so many women seen to be thinking along the same lines, they also think everyone is being sexist.
Hillary is a politician who has played in the rough sport of politics for a loooooooong time.  She is not some faint hearted novice.
She has been treated like any other politician.  Complete with her rivals going after her when she was the frontrunner and the press finding fault like they do with all politicians. 
Hillary has been treated like all the others.  But, that is not what the women really want.  They want her treated with kid glove, special treatment.
That is not equality.
And we will never achieve equality until her supporters let women like Hillary be treated like other politicians and equally.
As long as her supporters cry about sexism and want special treatment for her, no woman can ever run as a true equal to men.
As such, I can never live with 4 years of this kind of whining and demanding special treatment.
Hillary goes against a tough world leader in hard negoatiations and you guys cry for them to quit being mean and sexist.  How can she ever be taken seriously.
You want a woman president.  Then start by accepting that it is a rough game and for a woman to be treated equally and taken seriously, you have to quit demanding special treatment and calling people names and thinking some politician is going to validate your life and cure your own rage and disappointments.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 1, 2008 at 8:41 pm Link to this comment

Rigging is a potential reality and you may be correct when you state “I don’t think we even get to select from the selected.” 

Let’s face it, As George Carlin says, “they do what they want”

Report this

By magouche, April 1, 2008 at 8:20 pm Link to this comment

Hear Hear!  Thank you for a voice of reason. 

As Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., said:

“I knew that I could never again raise my voice against the violence of the oppressed in the ghettos without having first spoken clearly to the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today: my own government.”

Report this

By wordsonfire, April 1, 2008 at 8:19 pm Link to this comment

that you found it offensive.

Interesting that you feel “pride” for the Airmen and not outrage at our country that caused that story to need to be told at all.

I respectfully request that you do me the honor of actually just residing in one quiet moment from the film. 

“A country that will lynch you for serving it.”

Report this

By bert, April 1, 2008 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<<<Good point Ms. Bert >>>>>>>

LOL smile  and thank you.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
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.

Like Truthdig on Facebook