Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
July 23, 2017 Disclaimer: Please read.

Statements and opinions expressed in articles are those of the authors, not Truthdig. Truthdig takes no responsibility for such statements or opinions.

The Unwomanly Face of War
The Life of Caliph Washington

Truthdig Bazaar more items

Email this item Print this item

Nobody Votes for a Quitter

Posted on Apr 3, 2008
Hillary Clinton
Flickr / Joe Crimmings Photography

Real politicians don’t quit. They are defeated, indicted, jailed, die or, in some jurisdictions, ousted by term limits. So don’t expect Hillary Clinton to surrender just yet.

Square, Story page, 2nd paragraph, mobile
When Willie L. Brown Jr., then the speaker of the California state Assembly, explained this character trait to me years ago, it made such perfect sense that it has shaped my judgment of political behavior ever since.

But some political reporters don’t seem to consider this kind of intangible as they advise Clinton that she should be a good sport and quit. Their advice, accompanied by analyses, relies on logic and common sense, two qualities that   successful politicians lack when it comes to their own ambitions.

Logic should lead Sen. Clinton to take heed of what Jim VanderHei and Mike Allen wrote on the Web site Politico last month: “One big fact that has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.”

Common sense argues that Clinton pay attention to columnist E.J. Dionne’s concern over the harm she is doing to herself: “The Clinton campaign needs to examine not what this fight has done to Obama but what it is doing to her.”


Square, Site wide, Desktop


Square, Site wide, Mobile
Naturally, Clinton is ignoring all this. Real politicians don’t worry about the harm they may inflict on themselves or even others when they are in pursuit of victory. One of my favorite stories of such determination was told by historian James MacGregor Burns in his book “Roosevelt: The Soldier of Freedom 1940-45.” Burns describes a fall day in 1944 when the gravely ill president, campaigning in New York for a fourth term, was determined to show he was healthy enough to serve. Roosevelt spoke in a drizzle in Ebbets Field:

“It was pouring by the time he was eased back into the car. He was given a rubdown and dry clothes at a nearby Coast Guard motor pool. Then the ordeal resumed.

“Its top still down by the president’s order, the limousine led a long cavalcade through Queens to the Bronx, then to Harlem and mid-Manhattan and down Broadway. ... The cold rain came down relentlessly, drenching the President’s upflung arm and sleeve, rolling off his fedora, circling the lines of the grin on his face, seeping into his coat and shirt. ... Hour after hour the procession continued in the downpour. People waited under umbrellas and soggy newspapers to catch a glimpse of the big smile. At his wife’s apartment in Washington Square he changed again and rested. That evening, the president spoke to the Foreign Policy Association in the Grand Ballroom of the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel on Park Avenue. ...”

That was a real politician. Only his death the following April removed Roosevelt from his job.

When I was a traveling campaign reporter for the Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times, I was forever searching for clues to the candidates’ character and personality. The search was part of what drew me to political reporting. The candidates would have made great characters for a movie or a play that would end in either happiness or misery. There could be no other outcome.

Of course I was supposed to know something about policy—and I did. If needed, I could bore anyone with the details of budgets, the economy and health care, and write about them. I also knew about party committees, state and national chairmen, delegate rules and credential committees. But absorbing this information couldn’t compare to trying to find out whether the candidates had at least a portion of what Roosevelt demonstrated on that rainy New York day—a fighting heart.

The Los Angeles Times editors shared my interest and gave me and other writers the time and space to explore character and personality.

This sounds so old media as I sit here writing. I now write for two Web sites, Truthdig and LA Observed. I am lucky in that the editors of both appreciate thoughtfulness. But generally, the Internet, with its incessant demand for page views and “eyeballs,” wants quantity and speed. “Good enough” is the mantra of too much of the new media.

Traveling with the candidate—a great source for character examination—is in decline. Jacques Steinberg reported in The New York Times last month that the high prices the media must pay for a seat on a campaign air charter are becoming “too steep, in an era in which newspapers in particular are slashing costs and paring staff, and with no end in sight to a primary campaign that began more than a year ago.”

Back in the day, when I traveled on the campaign bus and plane, I could see the many disadvantages. I lived in the so-called campaign bubble, divorced from other events. But I learned a lot by listening, watching, talking to candidates, bouncing ideas off older and smarter reporters and well-connected campaign workers who were also smart and entertaining.

Today, this life is as antiquated as Jane Austen’s novels. Not many readers have time for them or for us practitioners of journalistic character studies. But Jane knew that character—good or bad—counts. I would have relied on her, more than the political writers, in explaining why Hillary Clinton won’t quit.

Banner, End of Story, Desktop
Banner, End of Story, Mobile

Watch a selection of Wibbitz videos based on Truthdig stories:

Get a book from one of our contributors in the Truthdig Bazaar.

Related Entries

Get truth delivered to
your inbox every day.

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.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Jane, April 11, 2008 at 2:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ve always liked her. Couple of years ago, she stood tall against the Republcan onslaught. But after so may years in politics, the money they were making and some questionable alliances. My question is this: How did Obama was able to raise so much money. Are the Republican operatives, who are in control of the federales, have anything to do with this?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 10, 2008 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

What does fishing have to do with Hillary?  She oozes experience, her knowledgeable capabilities are well known and profound in the Hillary crowd, You know the losers win idea may have some merit, I hope that does not happen again, but you know the Supremo Court they do what they are told.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 10, 2008 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment

Yeah, that’s why…sure.  It can’t be because you have no refutation for Bill Clinton calling himself a Republican.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 10, 2008 at 4:19 pm Link to this comment

How many times have i stated that i’m not an Obama supporter?  How many times have i stated that i didn’t vote for him in my primary…nor would i have had he been on the ballot?  And i’ve stated on numerous occasions that i generally don’t vote major party for president anyhow (unless i’m voting against Bush).

Personally, i like guns.  And i would rather have one if/when the powers that be decide to clamp down.  There are strong arguments from the framers’ outside writings on why they wrote the second amendment.  That is, that it provides the penultimate check/balance on government power.

I’m a centrist libertarian, who leans somewhat left because the nation leans so far to the right. (My political score - when working from a point of not correcting for current imbalances - places me dead center and squarely libertarian…as opposed to statist.)

In other words, i don’t go for your ideology or the Republicans’ ideology…i’m not a big fan of ideology.

Report this

By TDoff, April 10, 2008 at 2:22 pm Link to this comment

Why all the carping about Hillary’s campaign?

She is, by her own admission, the ‘experienced’, ‘knowledgable’, candidate. And she has based her campaign on sound historical precedent: Based on the last two presidential campaigns, Losers Win!

So she is right on track.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 10, 2008 at 9:05 am Link to this comment

Some backround on Mark Penn and his company.

“…political incest?

More interesting is that “Democrat” Penn’s Burson-Marsteller Worldwide owns BKSH & Associates, a major political lobbying firm run by Charles R. Black, Jr. counsellor to Republican Presidents. Black now works full time for the campaign of Republican John McCain. In other words, Black heads a firm whose boss is “Democrat” Clinton top strategist, at the same time Black is Republican opponent John McCain’s top strategist.

In turn, Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller is owned by British advertising and Public Relations giant, WPP Group which employs as lobbyists a former Republican National Committee chairman, Ed Gillespie; a former House of Representatives Republican leader, Robert S. Walker, top Republican fundraiser, Wayne L. Berman and the former media adviser to George W. Bush, Mark McKinnon.

In the wake of the resignation of Mark Penn, reports in Washington are that James Carville, former 1992 campaign adviser to Bill Clinton, to Tony Blair and Israel’s Ehud Barak, will assume the role of campaign strategist. It is worth noting that Carville is also deep in Washington political incest. While Carville was running the 1992 Clinton strategy, Carville’s fiancee, Mary Matalin was running the campaign strategy of President George Herbert Walker Bush. As the old expression goes, US politics at least, has indeed strange bedfellows.”

full article:

Report this

By A.Z. Arrow, April 10, 2008 at 9:02 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


Hillary Clinton has proposed a solution to the Housing and mortgage crisis that is virtually a carbon copy of an earlier proposal by Barak Obama.

(During Bill’s presidency) when HILLARY supposedly attempted to introduce “a national health insurance plan”she quickly folded the tent and then turned over the uninsured mess to the corporate HMO’s and the PRIVATE INSURANCE PIRATES at the first opportunity. Bill eventually got corporate kick- backs in the form of donations to his conspicuous and monumental Clinton Library .

One would have to be a fool to think that the Hillary will suddenly stand up to the Home Mortgage Banks or the Financial Lending Pirates. No way!

Hillary, and her unzipped sidekick, Bill, won’t do a damn thing about housing. They are treacherous and underhanded: and everyone knows that they introduced racial attacks into the current democratic Primary campaign contest ( via surrogates while protecting her claim to “plausible deny-ability”) Since then, the Clinton Campaign has continued to play the “race card” (it is obvious that the Clinton Campaign introduced this racist ugliness into her campaign against Barack Obama. So, by past precedence as her track record, there will be no response to the housing crisis and foreclosures from Hillary Clinton for the victims of the lending institutions.

Report this

By A.. Z. Arrow, April 10, 2008 at 8:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Speculative concern: The failure to make public Hillary’s 2007 tax return is potential fodder for possible blackmail by the War mongers (the Military-Debt-Complex), by lobbyist, by Homeland Security ( Sieg Heil!) or by a group of greedy financiers or lenders. If money was transferred from the accounts of the Clinton Library to Hillary’s campaign, it is illegal. If she is coronated as the Democratic candidate, and if elected, her Presidency might start with a scandal and back peddling, and culminate in ultimate impeachment. That would be a disaster. She has not made use of the current opportunity to release her Tax returns (the only candidate in the three major Parties to not do so.). This failure to disclose doesn’t pass the smell text. With the economy entering a depression, and need to end this useless war immediately, to genuinely undermine real terrorism, and to uncover the real source (9/11 was a classic “False Flag’ operation), it would be a disaster for the next administration to have weak executive leadership or to have Hillary’s second choice—“More Bush"John Mc Cain -a rabid, nasty, little Chipmonk warmonger. Lets not vote the“lesser evil.” (If Hillary wins the nomination across the top then consider voting for the Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney,)

Hillary is an intelligent and seemingly qualified to be a Senator. But, in addition to claiming she solved the 800 year old problem of Ireland,(absurd!) and entered Yugoslavia under a hail of bullets (a lie) she also claims that McCain is more qualified to be President than is Barack Obama. (I don’t think so.)

And Bill, has always appeared to me as a sleaze bucket and black slapping phony. I thought he was a horrible President for a multitude of reasons that I won’t go in to, other than to say he acted like a gatekeeper for the Bush gang and for the oil and insurance pirates, and exporters of capital and industry. After Obama’s speech Bill accused Barack of playing the “race card” against Hillary. Get real! What about his “fairyland” comment: or Wolfson, Carville’s, and Ferraro’s comments about “race” via their code words linked to “qualifications”? And Hillary, who applauds herself on arrival, likes to “send messages”to everyone, but these usually appear to be accompanied by “plausible deniability”.

Since the days of FDR, the Democrat Party seems to repeatedly shot itself in the foot. And Hillary’s Narcissism might bring the Democratic Party to its’ final end. We will see. But I wouldn’t be surprised. It might not be all bad news, but there is a problem with timing. “The Moose are warming up.” The current crop of Bush/ Cheney fascist thieves, and plunderers, must go. But another ‘terror attack” (another “false flag operation) could turn the country towards total insanity with elections and the public good overturned and overrun by tyranny (This is not Spain.)

Unlike John Edwards, Dennis Kucinich, or Chris Dodd, Richardson or Biden, I suspect that the Clintons would rather destroy the Democratic Party than see Obama nominated. The Moose are warming up. The refusal of the Michigan Democrats to organize a re-vote can be read as a message by Democrats from that state “for Hillary to step aside.” (Without a seating of Michigan and Florida delegates at the national convention and pro-Clinton submissive “super-delegates” Hillary doesn’t stand a chance to gain the nomination, or for her, and for Bill , to generate new media spin about “momentum” and the “shortcomings of the Black guy” Victory at all Costs. No thanks.


Report this

By bert, April 10, 2008 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

I never denied or claimed there were not military actions and/or strikes in Clinton’s administration. I never claimed that terrible things did not occur.

But that is a toyally different matter and issue than what you wrote and claimed about numbers of military deaths.

I responded to that one email that stated as fact that there were more military deaths during Clinton’s administration that Bush II’s.

Your facts were wrong and I called you on it.

Want to debate the relative merits of Clinton’s military strikes ?, that is a different issue all together.

Report this

By bert, April 10, 2008 at 7:29 am Link to this comment

You write:    “...all of our problems will be magically solved once that happens. ...”

I have never said that. I know Maani never has neve said that either. In fact, she has stated just the opposite.

I don’t for a second believe if Hilary is elected all our proplems will go away. Whoever is elected this time will face one of the most severe set of problems this nation has ever faced.

Nevertheless, I do not believe that. I just think that Hillary would be better than McCain and better at selecting Supremes.

Obama would be too IF he could win. And here is where I part company with Obama supporters. I honestly and sincerely believe that he cannot win against McCain.

Report this

By bert, April 10, 2008 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

Let me ask Obama supporters here a couple of questions.

Isn’t one of the reasons you support Obama becasue he says he can usher in a new era and rid D.C. of partisianship by working with the other side of the aisle?

Doesn’t Obama often say that he has worked with those across the aisle (Republicans) to pass legislation?

Doesn’t Obama take or have several ‘Republican’ positions on various issues, such as gun control?

I believe the answer to all those questions is, yes.

That being true, then why the fixation on and anger over the Clinton’s alleged TRIANGILATION?

Some here at TD toss the word ‘triangulation’ around as if it was a four letter word or something evil.

According the Check in politics triangulation is simply a Democrat advocating a Republican position or vice versa.

How then can you be logical and complain that when the Clinton’s reached out to the other side of the aisle it is wrong, bad, evil and then support Obama becasue that is what he wants to do?

Oh, I get it. All things Clinton, de facto bad, All things Obama de facto good.

Report this

By bert, April 10, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment

Sometimnes silence is the best reply,especially when you are dealing with nonsense and when dealing with a angry petulent child throwing a temper tamtrum.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 10, 2008 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

Occasionally, I like to watch MSNBC, only because Bert pointed out found MSNBC composedly pro Obama. Normaly I do not watch TV.  Bert, what I watched on Countdown,  did seem to be slightly more pro Obama and what they said about Hillary was uncomfortable,  I suppose to the Hillary folks. 

According to Countdown, it seems the Hillary camp is in a tizzy because they really thought the Wright alleged (not alleged to Hillary camp) controversy this perfect fantod would sink Obama and take Obama out of the race. Hillary camp cannot understand or comprehend how Obama is still in the race with this Wright thing hanging in the wind. (I know an allegory of sorts)  Hillary and camp cannot understand why Obama did not abandon his friend of 20 years, jettison him like garbage off a Luxury Liner.  This black racist, anti American saying all those horrible things for 20 years a pastor, maybe even once a Muslim pastor of Obama, who lives in a white neighborhood pastor.  Seems like Obama has something called integrity to me? 

One other thing MSNBC said about Hillary, it seems her only other plan is to attack the rules of the Democratic party, in effect the   Hillary camp tactic is to continue arguing with refs.

Now those were two selective facts I witnessed on Countdown with Keith O on MSNBC.

One can say the MSNBC comments do not bode well for Hillary, but are they wrong? Not facts?  Anti Hillary?  Dost not Hillary seem to bring this stuff on herself?

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 10, 2008 at 3:51 am Link to this comment

Us others make claims that are backed up, and we provide it, but anything you can’t triangulate you ignore.  You wait for a mistake (or a perceived mistake) and then pounce…which is fair.  But if the claim is solid, you stick your fingers in your ear and run around in circles yelling “lalalalalala…i can’t hear you.”

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 10, 2008 at 3:47 am Link to this comment

Aw shucks, bert, you didn’t reply to tell me that all those “opinions” i posted don’t matter, nor did you give any lectures on how they’re wrong.  What, you don’t have the “facts” at your fingertips to dispute Bill Clinton calling himself a “Republican” and admitting to selling out the people who voted for him?

I was really, really looking forward to you showing us all why you’re right and a Nobel prize winner is wrong.

Of course, it does continue a trend of the compadres only dealing with information selectively.  Rule number 1 of compadre debate: if you can’t spin it, ignore it…maybe it will go away.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 10, 2008 at 3:36 am Link to this comment

There’s only one important thing, Cyrena, electing Hillary Clinton…all of our problems will be magically solved once that happens.  Come that blessed inauguration day, we will be magically transported back to the 90’s when everything was just swell and we all lived in gingerbread houses on gumdrop lanes.  You remember that, right?  When America was spelled Elysian.

Report this

By cyrena, April 10, 2008 at 1:34 am Link to this comment

Bert, I didn’t post the original figures, on this. Outraged did, and I admit that I didn’t check them myself, before responding to whomever it was that I responded to. (It wasn’t YOU). I didn’t double check for a number of reasons. The FIRST, (which you wouldn’t know or even comprehend) is that Outraged has been posting on this site for as long or longer than I have, and so by now, I know and trust her work. I have utilized many of the same resources that she uses, and I know them to be trustworthy.

That doesn’t mean that any one of us might not come across bad info from time to time. It is a fact of life in a society that has made it a number one priority to manufacture and market DISINFORMATION. It’s been making its way through the Internet, usually in the form of e-mail, formerly known as ‘urban legends’, and I’ve spent the past several years analyzing it. For the most part, it is IMMEDIATELY recognizable, but I do still occasionally receive the stuff, and always from the same people..OLDER extended family members, or those who are not otherwise exposed to the changing times or anything beyond MSM.

In this particular case, I did NOT verify it when I responded to someone other than YOU, and AT THAT POINT, you had NOT posted anything to the contrary, and so I’m just now seeing this. The OTHER reason that I did not double check on these specifics posted by Outraged, is because this is only one of MANY of the ‘non-peaceable’ issues of the Clinton presidency, and THAT was the topic of the thread at the time. Her post on these particular statistics was NOT offered in a ‘vacuum’ but rather as a series of informational posts, and in the larger picture, is not (by itself) significant.

Now I HAVE done an exceedingly thorough work-up on Clinton’s ILLEGAL military interference in the Balkans, (he too attacked without approval/permission/resolution from the UN Security Council), and much of the motivation for his attack has only RECENTLY come to light, like so many other things. So if you really wanted to get into something like that, (and believe me, it will be re-visited if Hillary manages to steal the nomination) then we most certainly can.

HOWEVER, because it is actually YOU who does the cherry picking of propaganda to spread on this particular website/forum, and since it is also YOU who refuses to deal with the reality of truth and facts, YOU aren’t likely to be the least bit interested, and so I’m not likely to waste my time.

I don’t use ‘snopes’ as a determination for verifying ANYTHING. There was a time, (about a decade ago) when snopes was valuable to the average vulnerable new PC user, for decoding urban myths/HOAXES/stupid virus warnings and other such stuff. Like I said, OLDER people with limited exposure to the rapid changes in technology, and long removed from the ‘way things are now’ still use it to site stuff that doesn’t matter to anybody. (or at least not me) I generally use my academic access to periodicals/journals/etc, etc, to get the information that I need for my own work, and there are multiple other websites that have come on line and gradually evolved into excellent sources as well. Snopes is old school, and not helpful to me. It deals with trivia.
Pretty much the SAME can be said of all the rest of the links that you post, which I recognize as such as soon as I see them, which is why I don’t generally bother.

Another reason (for why I don’t bother with most of your stuff) is that you’ve proven yourself to be less interested in sharing or gaining useful, objective, or analytical information within a public forum context, and far MORE determined to ‘be right’ and to shove what you consider to ‘be right’ down our collective throats. From DAY ONE, your posts have been insulting, aggressive, demeaning, disrespectful, mean-spirited, and condescending. I know a few others like you. (humm, former school teachers…


Report this

By cyrena, April 10, 2008 at 1:32 am Link to this comment

Your stuff is petty, nit-picky, and never, contains even a whiff of objectivity. Consequently, aside from refuting your most OBVIOUS lies and propaganda, there isn’t a whole lot of reason to bother with the stuff that you put out there.

I’ve discovered that you don’t even bother reading or commenting on any thread that doesn’t involve your zealotry in the current election, and getting Hillary elected. The other issues (that ARE interconnected) you simply dismiss, such as the War on Iraq. Based on that, you operate from a very limited capacity to really engage in, or otherwise provide any substance to the conversation. You repeat the same petty stuff over and over, and for the most part, you’re a bore.

So, when I have the time or inclination to respond to your stuff, I do. Otherwise, I dismiss it. Too many other posters have explained this to you, (and you still don’t get it) with far more diplomacy than I’ve been able to extend, since I can generally start out with that, but my patience is limited with what I see as fundamental, or WILLFUL ignorance. There IS a difference you know, between what we don’t know, just because we don’t know it, or have never been ‘exposed’ for whatever the reason, and what we can never LEARN, just because we’re too stuck on being ‘right’ than actually learning something that might be contrary to what we’ve either assumed or incorrectly perceived from past stereotypes or socialization.

You CHOOSE to stay stuck on ‘being right’ even when you aren’t and even when valid and concrete ‘proof’ can be submitted to indicate that. It’s like weather once said long ago, in one of her/his posts about Zionists, (and Israel). “They’d rather be ‘right’ than happy.” (since they’re usually wrong) It’s some sort of psychological state of dysfunction. There is a mania of sorts to your myopia on these current political issues. You passionately claim this is the MOST IMPOTANT ELECTION OF YOU LIFE! (over 60 year old life)

Few people the least bit ‘tuned-in’ would argue that it is an important election. In hindsight, I’d say that it is not ‘the’ most important for most of us, because the Dick Bush/Neocon Coup of 2000 was the disaster that brought this particular election into focus. You seem totally divorced from the overall realities of the damage this regime has done, and while that doesn’t make the upcoming election any LESS important, there is no ONE person that can undo all of this damage single-handedly, in the form of a president. Yes, McCain could and would CONTINUE the disaster, but Hillary Clinton is NOT the only candidate that can best avoid the continued disasters of this repug mob rule, or even be able to undo some of the disaster.

My own sense is that you are of the type that can only continue the division and polarization that plagues us. Having discovered that you are less likely to engage on the other threads, it’s easy enough to avoid your combative negativity, just by avoiding your favored ‘hang-outs.” So, I’ll just move along now.  I can always ‘scroll past’, if you pop-up elsewhere.

Last but not least, if you honestly WOULD like to ‘catch-up with the times’, I highly recommend It’s an excellent site with a variety of information on the issues of TODAY, from a variety of sources, and as they become available.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 9, 2008 at 11:36 pm Link to this comment

Try the links I’ve posted and read my other more recent posts, as well as the links provided there also.  You could also try “googling” the Clinton administration.  I think I tried 1998, but whatever works.  Peace.

Report this

By Maani, April 9, 2008 at 11:24 pm Link to this comment


“In addition, it is a very well established FACT that the Clinton administration had some very creative ways to skew the numbers and the facts.”

Really?  “Very well established” by whom, exactly?

“FACT?”  You have provided none.

This is exactly what bert, myself and others have been saying about you (and others) ad nauseam: you make these wild, generalized, broad-brush claims, but provide ZERO support for them.

So, please…enlighten us.  WHO, exactly, “established” (“very well,” no less) the “FACT” you claim?


Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 9, 2008 at 9:32 pm Link to this comment

In addition, it is a very well established FACT that the Clinton administration had some very creative ways to skew the numbers and the facts.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 9, 2008 at 9:28 pm Link to this comment

I stand partially corrected.  Your post completely ignores the fact that during B. Clinton’s there were military strikes and people died.  From Wikipedia:

“NATO’s bombing campaign lasted from March 24 to June 11, 1999, involving up to 1,000 aircraft operating mainly from bases in Italy and aircraft carriers stationed in the Adriatic. At dusk, F-18 Hornets of the Spanish Air Force were the first NATO planes to take off and bomb Belgrade. Tomahawk cruise missiles were also extensively used, fired from ships and submarines. The United States was, inevitably, the dominant member of the coalition against Serbia, although all of the NATO members were involved to some degree — even Greece, despite publicly opposing the war. Over the ten weeks of the conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions.”

Then there was this:

“In 1998, Richard Holbrooke, representing the Clinton Administration, came to Kosovo and appeared in public ceremonies with the KLA, sending a clear signal that the US was backing them.  Exploiting the tensions between the KLA and the Serbs in Kosovo, the US used staged ethnic protests and conflicts to justify military intervention.  In March 1999, in Rambouille, France, the United States demanded that Yugoslavia accept NATO occupation of Kosovo and the expulsion of all Yugoslav forces.  Milosevic refused, and the United States used this as a pretext for war.

On March 27th, 1999, the Clinton administration initiated heavy bombing of Yugoslavia.  These attacks on a sovereign country were never approved by the United Nations or the US Congress, violating both international law and the War Powers Act.

“Hashim Thaci, Kosovo’s current Prime Minister, was formerly the political head of the KLA.  The KLA is widely regarded as a terrorist organization and is supported in large part by drug dealing and human trafficking, making particular use of Eastern European women.  The US had begun training KLA forces well in advance of the bombing of Yugoslavia.”

And this:
“The links of the KLA to organized crime have been documented by Interpol and the US Congress. The Washington Times in an article published in May 1999 describes the KLA and its links to the Clinton administration as follows:

Some members of the Kosovo Liberation Army [headed by the current Kosovo Prime minister Hashim Thaci] , which has financed its war effort through the sale of heroin, were trained in terrorist camps run by international fugitive Osama bin Laden—who is wanted in the 1998 bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 224 persons, including 12 Americans.

The KLA members, embraced by the Clinton administration in NATO’s 41-day bombing campaign to bring Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table, were trained in secret camps in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and elsewhere, according to newly obtained intelligence reports. 

The reports also show that the KLA has enlisted Islamic terrorists—members of the Mujahideen—as soldiers in its ongoing conflict against Serbia, and that many already have been smuggled into Kosovo to join the fight.    ....

The intelligence reports document what is described as a “link” between bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi millionaire, and the KLA—including a common staging area in Tropoje, Albania, a center for Islamic terrorists. The reports said bin Laden’s organization, known as al-Qaeda, has both trained and financially supported the KLA. (Washington Times,  May 4, 1999,”

full article:

Report this

By lib in texas, April 9, 2008 at 8:31 pm Link to this comment

Outrageous, “For the record Lib in Texas if people with your perspective don’t like me, I consider that a complement and a job well done.”  You consider your posting false information a job well done???  What are you 5 years old???  What a sniveling post, like or dislike has nothing to do with anything.  Get a Grip!!!
You don’t even KNOW what my perspective is!!!

Report this

By bert, April 9, 2008 at 7:08 pm Link to this comment

You write:    “but that doesn’t change that there were at LEAST 4,417 [military deaths] in 4 of the 8 years of Clinton’s PEACE Admin.”

WRONG WRONG WRONG again cyrena. 

But then why would I expect different. You have stated you don’t even open and read the links I and others provide. For an educated woman that is pretty amazing and very illuminating. Seems your modus operendi is to close yourself off to all new learning - don’t confuse cyrena with the facts, she already has her mind made up.

These figures were found to be totally false and misleading by, and other fact check sites.

Statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:

In fact, military were the lowest under Clinton than they were under any other president since 1980.

A quick look at the relevant table on page 11 of the linked PDF file shows that the figures in Outraged post have been clearly altered to make Clinton’s numbers higher and Dubya’s lower.

I am not in any way claiming Outraged doctored the figures. he was merely reporting what he found. But I do fault him for not checking before posting becasue plain good old common sense would/should tip one off those figures are funny.
The real numbers show the following: in total deaths, average per year:
Reagan: 2150
Bush 41: 1556
Clinton: 938
Bush 43: 1465

In accidental deaths, average per year:
Reagan: 1332
Bush 41: 872
Clinton: 494
Bush 43: 521

And in hostile deaths, in combat, average per year:
Reagan: 7
Bush 41: 43
Clinton: 0*
Bush 43: 433
*Clinton’s zero figure comes from the fact that while he was president, only one soldier died from hostile fire–despite harsh Republican criticism that Clinton was putting U.S. soldiers in harm’s way in the Balkans.

In fact, counting by almost any category–homicide, suicide, illness, accident, or hostile fire–fewer soldiers died under Clinton than did under either Bush or Reagan. The only exception is in the category of terrorist attacks, in which fewer died under Bush Sr. But that’s it.

Report this

By bert, April 9, 2008 at 6:53 pm Link to this comment

Sorry MM, didn’t mean to leave you out of my earlier post. Guess 4 of us now have debunked those damn bogus figures. Make me want to doubt just about everything they write. If they can’t even get that straight…........... and I loved your CAPS!!!!!  smile

Report this

By bert, April 9, 2008 at 6:48 pm Link to this comment

I should learn to read further and see if someone has posted ot not before I jump in. LOL I just posted a long reply to these military death figures before I saw and read yours. I include some background and texture plus sats and a link to the government’s records. Great minds…

Report this

By bert, April 9, 2008 at 6:42 pm Link to this comment

You write:      “Clinton style “centrism” brought us the extremes of the NeoCons. Considering how we have spiralled downward—why would we want more of the same?”

How amazingly wrong and just plain stupid. You may disagree with centrism and triangulation - that is your belief and opinion and right.

However, thr Clintons did not bring us the neocons. That was totally and completely 100% George Bush II.

Name me one neocon in Clinton’s administration.

Report this

By bert, April 9, 2008 at 6:33 pm Link to this comment

RE: Number of military deaths during Clinton years.

This is a shortened version of a right-wing e-mail (are you a republican right winger, Outraged???)  that made the rounds a while back. However,  you do not provide the figures for Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 from that same email. WOW!! You really cherry-picked. Surprise ! Surprise !  I WONDER WHY?

The e-mail these figures come from was found to be totally false and misleading by

The basic claim was that more soldiers died while Clinton was president than did under Bush–the obvious implication being that Bush is not costing soldier’s lives with his botched con-job in Iraq.

Do these figures mean that the loss from the two latest conflicts in the Middle East (Afghanistan and Iraq)  are LESS than the loss of military personnel during Mr. Clinton’s presidency; when America wasn’t even involved in a war?

Statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they may be confirmed by anyone at:

The funny thing about this is that whoever it was who wrote the original email included the URL for the actual data on military casualties–a report which shows the numbers claimed are not just wrong, but clearly faked.

As you might expect, military deaths under Clinton were not higher than they are under Bush.

In fact, they were the lowest under Clinton than they were under any other president since 1980. Furthermore, the data cited is flawed in another fundamental way.

Before getting into that, however, one wonders at the idea that hundreds of right-wing bloggers and forum-goers would repeatedly post the fake data, right along with the URL to the proof the data was fake, and never bother to check it out.

Is there that little capacity to self check, that great a desire to believe what they want to believe that so many would do something so lame-brained?

A quick look at the relevant table on page 11 of the linked PDF file shows that the figures in the right-wing rant have been clearly altered to make Clinton’s numbers higher and Dubya’s lower. The number of deaths on both lists remains mostly consistent up until 1994… after which Clinton’s numbers are fictionalized as being higher, and Bush 43’s numbers are artificially lowered. 

The real numbers show the following: in total deaths, average per year:
Reagan: 2150
Bush 41: 1556
Clinton: 938
Bush 43: 1465

In accidental deaths, average per year:
Reagan: 1332
Bush 41: 872
Clinton: 494
Bush 43: 521

And in hostile deaths, in combat, average per year:
Reagan: 7
Bush 41: 43
Clinton: 0*
Bush 43: 433
*Clinton’s zero figure comes from the fact that while he was president, only one soldier died from hostile fire–despite harsh Republican criticism that Clinton was putting U.S. soldiers in harm’s way in the Balkans.

In fact, counting by almost any category–homicide, suicide, illness, accident, or hostile fire–fewer soldiers died under Clinton than did under either Bush or Reagan. The only exception is in the category of terrorist attacks, in which fewer died under Bush Sr. But that’s it.

Even if the creator of the original forged polemic had been honest in reporting the numbers, the basic premise is still flawed–as it counts not just casualties from fighting, but all casualties. The idea being that a president is going to be held responsible for all servicemen who died in accidents of any kind, for example.

But the obvious gist of the article is that Bush is not being irresponsible with the troops, with the natural assumption being that the Iraq War is not as hard on soldiers as was duty under Clinton–and this is patently false, under any pretense, but especially under the only reasonable comparison, which is counting deaths under HOSTILE circumstances.

Report this

By bert, April 9, 2008 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

Some good points, Pack Leader.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 9, 2008 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

Unless You work at Wal-Mart.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 9, 2008 at 1:49 pm Link to this comment

For the record “lib in Texas”, if people with your perspective don’t like me, I consider that a complement and a job well done.  Thanks.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 9, 2008 at 1:36 pm Link to this comment

OMG leefeller, you sink lower and lower pretty soon no one will know WHAT you are talking about.  You ramble on and on.  You and cyrena, Louise, Outrageous, purple girl, savage.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 9, 2008 at 1:32 pm Link to this comment

your welcome, normally I wouldn’t point it out but ya’ll think your so damn smart, can’t help myself.

Think BAARRAACK Hussein OOBBAMA sounds good too IN
IRAQ !!!!!!

Rev Wright was a muslim also.  Have not checked it out but heard it on the radio!!

Your candidate has nothing positive about him.  Thats why you want Hillary to drop out before all of the rest of the crab about Obama comes out. CAUSE THERE IS MORE TO COME.

Report this

By Louise, April 9, 2008 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment

mensa member:



The elevation confuses you.
Why does that not surprise me? wink

When are you going to ELEVATE Hillary, your alleged candidate? As opposed to trying to make Hillary [your alleged candidate] look better by trying to make EVERYBODY else look worse. Which is easy, lazy, and oh so very republican. And eventually makes her and her alleged supporters look worst of all.

Maybe you need to cut back on all those carbs. You’ll find it’s easier to avoid confusion. Amazing how a good diet can keep you off those little pills, blue or otherwise. But then suggesting a drug does not surprise me. There’s far to many folks out there who believe the right drug will cure everything. I don’t happen to be one of them.

Another tip. Start thinking positive and you might actually find something about your candidate to elevate.

Might also find it easier to avoid eating to many carbs, since often the bad diet goes hand in glove with seeking the negative. Or is it feeding the starving beast who absent a positive attitude always feels empty?

lib in texas:

Thanks for pointing out that “redunancy” thing. smile

Whatever would I do without you English majors helping me out?

Actually, I’d have to go somewhere else for a good chuckle.

You guys are such a hoot! Thanks for lighting up my day ... and President Barack Hussein Obama still sounds better.

Report this

By Pack Leader, April 9, 2008 at 10:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What is the purpose of the Democratic Convention if not to “pick” the Democratic candidate?  If there is only 1 choice, how is that picking a candidate?  It would be approving a candidate.  We need the choice.  By the time they get to the convention, all the bad stuff will be out and McCain will have nothing to badger either one with.

Report this

By Pack Leader, April 9, 2008 at 10:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

What does this mean??? What does it have to do with the article?

Report this

By Maani, April 9, 2008 at 9:19 am Link to this comment


As noted by others, this has been debunked by Snopes, Hoaxbusters, and a variety of other similar websites.  Here is the Snopes link:


Report this

By cyrena, April 9, 2008 at 7:24 am Link to this comment

No problem on the codes jackpine…got it. And, thanks for the links. Some I’d read, others were new.

ALL DO state the realities of those times, whether we all could recognize them or not.

Pay back is ALWAYS a bitch. The least we can do is acknowledge that it IS gonna come around someday. The worst we can do is ingnore it at the time, and then continue to deny it when it actually slaps us in the face.

That is unless one long ago committed themselves to an external existence in some alternative reality and parallel existence.

Must be nice. I wonder what kind of drugs ones needs for that ‘ability’ to exist down there with Alice and all of the others in “Wonderland”?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 9, 2008 at 6:27 am Link to this comment

Facts or opinion, it does not really matter, because things will not change.  The wealthy, the elite, special interests, select for us who we vote for and probably who wins, we live in a plutocracy.

All the facts, all the kings men will not put Humpty together again, except in my opinion he was never all together before.

Why would anyone of sane mind want to pick and choose from facts, which can be manipulated to direct thought in any direction wanted by the giver of said facts, my opinion again. 

Truth may be a fact, but we will never know for truth is so will hidden, we the little people like Shultz know nothing.

Report this

By Millington, April 9, 2008 at 6:12 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)


“According to T who interpreted all interrogations and notes pertaining to McCain during the latter"s stay from December, 1969, to March, 1973, when a well-fed looking McCain"s was released, privileges were extended. These included time at a furnished apartment in Hanoi ” furnished with 2 prostitutes. McCain would attribute such absences to solitary confinement.”

”It has been widely reported that following his father"s appointment as CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief of all U.S. forces in the Vietnam theater of operations, McCain was offered an immediate parole. McCain insists that he refused such a preference. Others insist that his father refused to allow such a preference. In any event, such an offer would have required the approval of the Soviet masters, and T would have seen documentation. He has no recollection of such an offer. “


“In 1991 the Soviet Union was in a state of collapse. People and things were up for grabs. During that thaw, a mass document swap took place between the KGB and CIA. All T"s translations were included. If these dots are really connected, it is small wonder that McCain had fought consistently to keep all files sealed, block any attempts to retrieve POWs, and establish the friendliest of relations with his former tormentors.”

”Imagine the possibilities. A Clintonian leak during the presidential campaign. Or, in the unlikely event of a McCain victory, blackmail of the Manchurian Candidate.”

”It is public record that Admiral McCain was on hand to greet his son upon return. According to Major Mark A. Smith (USA Retired), a Green Beret and former POW, a trusted friend of his accompanied the Admiral that day. Later, when the friend referred to that meeting, McCain became enraged, volunteered that he had received “no special treatment,” and then denied that his father was there. “


“In 1989 legislation known as The Truth Bill was introduced in the U.S. House. It required the Department of Defense to publish the names and information on all unaccounted for POWs, MIAs, and KIAs in WW II, the Korean War, and Vietnam. It languished and was resurrected 2 years later. Then came the McCain Bill, promptly enacted, that blocked such information. The DoD does not even have to acknowledge confirmed sightings of live Americans.”

See his web page

Report this

By Millington, April 9, 2008 at 6:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)



“McCain"s 5�-year stay at the Hanoi Hilton (officially Hoa Loa Prison) has ever since been the subject of great controversy. He maintains that he was tortured and otherwise badly mistreated. One of many who disagree is Dennis Johnson, imprisoned at Hanoi and never given treatment for his broken leg. He reports that every time he saw McCain, who was generally kept segregated, the man was clean-shaven, dressed in fresh clothes, and appeared comfortable among North Vietnamese Army officers. He adds that he frequently heard McCain"s collaborative statements broadcast over the prison"s loud speakers.”

”On October 26, 1967, McCain"s A-4 Skyhawk was shot down over Hanoi. The fractures of 1 leg and both arms were reportedly due to his failure to tuck them in during ejection. According to U.S. News & World Report (May 14, 1973), McCain didn"t wait long before offering military information in return for medical care. While an extraordinary patient at Gi Lam Hospital, he was visited by a number of dignitaries, including, to quote McCain himself, General Vo Nguyen Giap, the national hero of Dienbienphu.”


“Jack McLamb is a highly respected name in law enforcement circles. After 9 years of clandestine operations in Cambodia and unmentionable areas, he returned home to Phoenix where he became one of the most decorated police officers on record. Twice McLamb was named Officer of the Year. He went on to become an FBI hostage negotiator. This man has stated that every one of the many former POWs he has talked with consider McCain a traitor. States “McLamb, “He was never tortured�The Vietnamese Communists called him the Songbird, that"s his code name, Songbird McCain, because he just came into the camp singing and telling them everything they wanted to know.” McLamb further quotes former POWs as saying McCain starred in 32 propaganda videos in which he denounced his country and comrades. “

”The Glavnoje Razvedyvatel"noje Upravlenije is the Soviet"s military intelligence division. Numerous sources confirm that during the Nam Era, the English-speaking Vietnamese who conducted interrogations of American prisoners were always overseen by Russian GRU officers. The ranking GRU officer at the Hanoi Hilton had a multilingual teenage son who was tasked with translating all interrogation reports into Russian. He would become known only as T. ”

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 9, 2008 at 6:06 am Link to this comment

Apologies for not breaking the code correctly above.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 9, 2008 at 6:05 am Link to this comment

In short, Clinton’s policies continued the upward redistribution of income and wealth, and punishment for the poor, that were the hallmarks of the Reagan era. It was not until 1999 that the median real wage reached its pre-1990 level, and it remains anchored today at about where it was 27 years ago. ~Mark Weisbrot, Co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

Finally, the significant, albeit limited and uneven, economic expansion that occurred under Clinton was purchased against the future.  It was fueled primarily by an inherently tenuous, debt-financed stock market bubble that fueled primarily upper class consumption and which inevitably burst, with recessionary consequences passed on to the presidency of Bush II. ~Paul Street

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 9, 2008 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

In short, during the 1990s, the rationales of free trade and capitalist economics were used to disguise America’s hegemonic power and make it seem benign — or, at least, natural and unavoidable. ~Chalmers Johnson

Americans should face up to the fact that in the very boom were planted some of the seeds of destruction, seeds which would not yield their noxious fruit for several years… ~Joseph E. Stiglitz; 2001 Nobel winner in “economic science” and Chairman of Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisors, 93-97.;=&spon;=&pagewanted=1

“We have a great Republican president now.” ~A.B. Krongard, Chairman of the Securities Industry Association.  From the WSJ: 11/7/1996, via:

Report this

By lib in texas, April 9, 2008 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

Bert, Leefeller, Cyrena, Outrageous as you said are just finding stuff to quote and never check whether
it is true.  The soldiers death thing is on snopes as a bogus e-mail. Why now they are trying to put Bill Clinton down is beyond me I guess they think Obama is just the bestest thing EVER so we put down any thing good before him. What a bunch of losers.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 9, 2008 at 6:01 am Link to this comment

“We’re Eisenhower Republicans here.  We stand for lower deficits, free trade, and the bond market. Isn’t that great?” Clinton further conceded during this same time period that with his new policy focus “we help the bond market and we hurt the people who voted us in.”

The US has the highest rate of inequality of any industrialised country, and that inequality increased during Mr Clinton’s years in office.

It was only in the last few years of the boom that economic growth percolated down, as average wages began to rise and unemployment fell among minority communities.

Mr Clinton was unable, or unwilling, to do much to combat that inequality. ~The BBC

The US trade deficit - the gap between the goods the US sells to the rest of the world and the amount it buys - has ballooned to over $400bn, financed by foreign buyers of US stocks, bonds and companies.  ~ibid

Report this

By A. Z. Arrow, April 9, 2008 at 6:00 am Link to this comment

I AGREE that McCain has been far too traumatized to be fully sane. But I DISAGREE with your contention that BECAUSE John “survived a Vietnamese prison camp he should be admired and lauded as a hero.” Not so! His self-acclaimed hero, Rambo, would have never surrendered in the first place. And second, and more important, his military conduct has been called into question by his bibliographer, Mr. Eyear.

According to Roland C. Eyear:



“McCain"s most horrendous loss occurred in 1967 on the USS Forrestal. Well, not horrendous for him. The starter motor switch on the A4E Skyhawk allowed fuel to pool in the engine. When the aircraft was “wet-started,” an impressive flame would shoot from the tail. It was one of the ways young hot-shots got their jollies. Investigators and survivors took the position that McCain deliberately wet-started to harass the F4 pilot directly behind him. The cook off launched an M34 Zuni rocket that tore through the Skyhawk"s fuel tank, released a thousand pound bomb, and ignited a fire that killed the pilot plus 167 men. Before the tally of dead and dying was complete, the son and grandson of admirals had been transferred to the USS Oriskany. ”

Report this

By lib in texas, April 9, 2008 at 5:53 am Link to this comment

This is Bogus Bogus Bogus!!!! We all know you love bogus stuff though.
Leefeller, Outrageous, cyrena this was in a made up e=mail and debunked years ago.  See how dumb you three are,love to put out false stuff.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 9, 2008 at 5:49 am Link to this comment

Outrageous, cyrena, leefeller all breath the same fumes quit making up shi*.  You three are the only ones who believe each other.  you are all proven liars.

Report this

By RdV, April 9, 2008 at 3:56 am Link to this comment

has nothing to do with why folks won’t vote for her. They may respect her more though if she bows out.
  Clinton style “centrism” brought us the extremes of the NeoCons. Considering how we have spiralled downward—why would we want more of the same?

Report this

By cyrena, April 9, 2008 at 1:05 am Link to this comment


The only reason you didn’t know that bert was actually a woman was because you DO have that life and the job, and your family and all of those very important things.

Like, paying the bills and all. Like most of us have needed to do all of our adult lives.

And yeah, there’s a catch there. On the one hand, it’s a crying shame that anyone needs to keep working beyond a certain point in this American Dream and all, UNLESS THEY WANT TO! (and, some people do).

On the other hand, it’s ALSO a blessing that you are of sound mind and body that you CAN. (work). So you’re right, IT COULD BE WORSE, because it can ALWAYS be worse. (At least that’s the philosophy that I’ve pretty much always lived by)

(That was just a response to an earlier from you on another thread, that I didn’t get to).

Anyway, that’s part of the reason why you probably didn’t know that bert was a woman, (well that and the fact that the CHOSEN ‘handle’ doesn’t generally lead us to that standard conclusion).

But, if you read enough of the drivel, you’d have figured it out. I found out several weeks ago, by making the same (and now we know WRONG) assumption.

And, yours aren’t the only words that Maani has taken ownership of. Sometimes all he does is substitute a name in the midst of the EXACT same language/text of someone else. (same with lib).But, there isn’t much one can say or do about it, unless he tries to publish it somewhere else (without citation.) Even then, he’d probably still not be ‘liable’. It’s a blog. Besides, I think everything posted here is technically the ‘property’ of the publisher/editors, though I haven’t read the fine print.

Still, it’s like you said, ‘we know who they are’. It only annoys (at least me) in the respect that there is so DAMN MUCH PROGANDA! Even with the alleged ‘citations’ that bert prides herself on, she’s only citing bullshit propaganda, and tries to attach some legitimacy to it, just because there’s a website attached. I think she even cited “The New Republic” one time, (Or might it have been The Weekly Standard? Same difference.) If we wanted to read that, it’s damn sure easy enough to find elsewhere.

The thing that amazes me more than anything with Maani and bert, is that they are admittedly so passionately committed to getting Hillary elected, that bert has even claimed just recently, that this has to be accomplished ‘like a business’ because that’s how the repugs do it. Humm, we know that. What is more difficult to understand though, is why –after these months of getting mostly negative feedback to all of the opinion/propaganda- from anyone other than each other, they wouldn’t decide to ‘do business’ on any one of many other websites/blogs, that might be more inclined to be “taken in” or otherwise persuaded/fooled by it. (and yes, there ARE so many others).

I remember years ago when my brother-in-law and his partner were looking to set-up their medical practice, (yeah, a business) they did a few demographics studies first, just to find out where there might be fewer of their own fellow sub-specialists, (like how many of one type specialty does a population need in a 10 or so mile radius) and where there was actually a market for their specialty. I guess most businesses do.

Seems like the same would apply here when one is trying to shove propaganda and ideology down the throats of a crowd that, for the most part, isn’t having it. It seems like it would make more sense to grab ‘fence sitter democrats’ or even, in their case…REPUGS, to shove the Hillary brand, since the Clinton brand has always been the closest thing to repugs anyway. THAT’S where the action would be. Repugs that are fed up with the Repugs, but still want the repug brand in the White House, in more subdued colors.

But, they won’t. (or at least they won’t leave here). I think there must be something more to it. (the ‘business’ that is.)

Report this

By cyrena, April 9, 2008 at 12:12 am Link to this comment

Oh please…

Who the hell is the MORON here? The figures show that there were 4,417 military deaths in the FOUR years between 1993 and 1996, and we don’t know what they were for 1996-2000.

How does that have anything to do with the OBVIOUS, which is that there have been far more in the Bush Admin, that aren’t even counted properly, because they don’t include the suicides, or the wounds that are bascially the same as being dead, and would have resulted in death in earlier conflicts.

OF COURSE there have been more military deaths under Bush, but that doesn’t change that there were at LEAST 4,417 in 4 of the 8 years of Clinton’s PEACE Admin.


I think it was YOU he missed incarcerating.

Report this

By cyrena, April 9, 2008 at 12:01 am Link to this comment

“...(WFI EDITOR: Anyone with half a wit would realize that the only way an institution as mammoth as the Federal Government could go from deficits to surpluses, was by employing dubious accounting methods…

OK, I DID figure this out long ago, so at least I’ve got half a wit. wink

Report this

By cyrena, April 8, 2008 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment

Outraged…I had no idea about this. (never claimed any expertise in the CPI, and sure didn’t know that there are analysts who now compute Pre and Post Clinton CPI indexes).

Dang!! You are soooo smart. And, I’m always largely grateful for this info.


Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 8, 2008 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

The CPI and the Clinton Administration manipulation of an already manipulated number.

“During the first Bush Republican Administration, Chief economist Michael Boskin and Federal Reserve chair Alan Greenspan lobbied for a change in this methodology. They believed that when consumers could no longer afford a particular item, they would purchase a cheaper substitute. If steak, for example, became unaffordable, the consumer would switch to hamburger. If cars with V8 engines became too expensive, the consumer could purchase a car with a smaller engine. And so on.

The CPI, they argued, should reflect actual purchase decisions, rather than a fixed basket of goods that would gradually become irrelevant as consumers continued to substitute cheaper products for those on a fixed list of goods. In effect, they wanted the BLS to find ways to decrease the reported rate of inflation by tracking consumer buying habits as they struggled to find cheaper goods and services.

They got their wish. During the Clinton administration the BLS initiated a long and complex process to measure the rate of inflation based on “value” rather than “price”. It works this way. If the BLS believes the value of an item has increased from one period to the next, it decreases the item’s new price point by the value of the improvement. Thus if the car you buy this year has more features than the one you could have purchased last year, the price point is deflated to account for the added value of the new features. If this year’s health care is presumed to be superior to last year’s available health care, the added value is deducted from the CPI health care price point. Since this year’s personal computer has more power and features than last year’s PC, the added “value” is deducted from its new price point. And so on. Product after product. The adjusted cost of an item, as measured by the CPI, may go down even though the actual cash you pay for the item is going up. The technical term for this highly subjective data manipulation is called hedonic regression. It guarantees the actual cash you pay for goods and services is more than the phony price the federal government claims you paid for these goods and services.

Entire article:

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 8, 2008 at 10:20 pm Link to this comment

By David Stanowski, a economist from Galveston.

“Like nearly all government-created economic indicators, the CPI is largely fictional! It was never devised to provide an accurate measurement of inflation. On the contrary, the government manipulates their indicators to make the economy appear to be doing much better than it really is. Distorting the CPI also allows the government to under pay entitlements, like Social Security, whose cost-of-living increases are based on this index.

Studying the formulation for the CPI, reveals a variety of insidious ways that are used to greatly understate inflation. Every administration since WWII has manipulated these economic indicators to their advantage, but the CPI was modified so drastically, by the Clinton administration, that some financial analysts now compute the Pre-Clinton CPI and Post-Clinton CPI. This, and other changes to the government’s economic indicators, allowed the Clinton administration to grossly overstate the performance of the economy, during those years!”

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 8, 2008 at 10:09 pm Link to this comment

That booming economy and surplus:

“Clinton and the Democrats are ready to pounce. The White House estimates, for example, that one spending bill would have to slash many labor, health and education programs as much as 18%. (It’s ironic that the Democrats and the Republicans are willing to “play politics” with the most important issues effecting American nationals, without any sense of moral compunction, after all, the slashes in programs will be the result of an agreement the President entered into with Congress. The self-serving agendas of each party is little more than a source of national shame. WFI Editor) “I do not believe there is a consensus in this Congress or in this country to make the kind of draconian reductions that would be required,” said Rep. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the senior Democrat on the Appropriations Committee.

SOURCE: Excerpted from the 11 July, 1999, issue of the Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition, from an article entitled, “Heaping Surplus Built on Mountain of Assumptions.” Reprinted in the public service of the national interest of the American people.

(WFI EDITOR: Anyone with half a wit would realize that the only way an institution as mammoth as the Federal Government could go from deficits to surpluses, was by employing dubious accounting methods. Along with the statistics that support the PR hype that we are in the middle of a “boom” because some people have made profits from the stock market bubble, it is conventional wisdom that the “wise” men running the country have inflation under control too. The reality that there is no boom, that there is no surplus, is as lost as the truth about Bill Clinton’s honesty. His most recent travesty, the Cross Country Poverty Tour, is another example of his superficial means of addressing significant social issues. The president is a photo-op waiting to happen.)

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 8, 2008 at 10:02 pm Link to this comment

A portion of Ralph Naders statement(1996) on The Freedom of Information Act:

“The only modern President who has actively supported the Public’s right to know was Jimmy Carter, who took steps to reduce official secrecy, and to improve the administration of the FOIA. The Clinton Administration raised expectations about the access under the federal FOIA, talking the talk, but has failed to walk the walk.

There is the problem of failing to “oil the machinery.” The Clinton administration hasn’t come close to the statutory time limits for processing FOIA requests, and has done little to address the serious problems of sealing records with overbroad and unjustified secrecy classifications. And when faced with the new issues presented by electronic communications, the Clinton Administration has been a disaster.

Consider the issue of Scott Armstrong v. Executive Office of the President. This is a case which involves access to the electronic mail messages from While House employees. As this audience will recall, much of what we know about the Iran-Contra scandal we learned from the electronic mail records of Oliver North and others. At the end of the Reagan Administration, Scott Armstrong, the journalist, the National Security Archives, the American Library Association, the American Historical Association, the Center for Strategic Studies, and Eddie Becker, an individual, sought and received an injunction which prevented the White House from destroying its email records. Through a number of subsequent actions, these parties, who are represented by Public Citizen’s litigation group, have sought to have White House email records subject to the Federal Records Act (FRA) and the FOIA. In addition to the injunction over the Reagan records, there is an injunction over the Bush Administration records, and there are efforts to preserve and provide access to the Clinton Administration records. The case is popularly called the White House email case.

Not surprisingly, the Bush administration mounted a huge challenge to the Armstrong case. Perhaps more surprising has been the effort by President Clinton, who has also fought the Armstrong case with a vengeance. In fiscal year 1993, government lawyers spent 8,793 hours opposing this suit. In fiscal year 1994 they spend 8,594 hours opposing the suit. In fiscal year 1995 they spent 5,704 hours opposing the suit, and we don’t have the figures for fiscal year 1996.

One of the disputes concerned the status of the National Security Council (NSC), under the Federal Records Act (FRA) and FOIA. For years the NSC has considered itself subject to FOIA. Indeed, the Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush Administrations did not claim that the NSC was exempt from FOIA. But in March 1994, the Clinton Administration declared that all NSC documents would be exempt from FOIA and the FRA, a claim that the past three Republican presidents did not dare to make.”

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 8, 2008 at 9:45 pm Link to this comment

Another Bill Clinton “legacy”:

“When President Clinton Stole the “Get Tough on Crime” Show

When President Bill Clinton included “the war on crime” as a major tenet in both his 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns, the past ten years had already witnessed the largest incarceration increase in the nation’s history. During his 1992 campaign, to illustrate his resolve, President Clinton actually interrupted his campaigning to return to his home state of Arkansas to oversee the execution of mentally retarded death row inmate Ricky Ray Rector.

Throughout its tenure, the Clinton administration consistently supported increased penalties and additional prison construction. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 provided state and municipal governments with $30 billion to add 100,000 new police officers, to build more prisons, and to employ more prison guards, as well as funding for crime prevention programs.

Incarceration Outstrips Education

President Clinton consistently touted education as a priority for his administration but he enacted laws that increased prison funding and had the consequence of reducing higher education funding.”

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 8, 2008 at 9:38 pm Link to this comment

The “peace” of the Bill Clinton Administration:

Article quote: “Here is a list of how many US soldiers were killed when Bill Clinton was in office. We didn’t get constant death tolls the way we do now, so you probably haven’t seen these numbers before.





That is a total of 4,417 military deaths during the Clinton years.”

Report this

By bert, April 8, 2008 at 9:27 pm Link to this comment

Yes, in at least two places in this post you quote me and each of those is opinion.

I take elcting a President very seriously. And this year is THE most important Presidential election of my lifetime. I do not want another Republican elected. It would be unhealthy for America.

Opinion is fine and dandy if all you want to do is bs. I want too choose a Democratic nominee that can win. Then I want to win in the General. The best way to assure both those outcomes is to run campaigns like a business - that is to win. And exchanging opinions, and insults, and ignornaces back and forth between you and your friends on this post may be juvenile fun for all of you, but it gets in the way of reasoned thinking and discussion and it gets in the way of the business of electing a Democratic nominee that can win.

While you and others are sharing and exchanging opinions, operatives for Republican connected 527’s are already planning their swift boat style attacks on Obama, according to the Boston Globe today. See, they are operating a business. A business to elect McCain. Sharing opinions are great. But actually doing something and doing the work to find facts and craft a good rebuttal is the only thing that will save Obama’s ass should he be the nominee. 

You write:    “People capable of thought will do what they can to keep freedom of expression and their ability to form their own opinions.”

People who use facts to support their opinions will get farther than those that just share opinions. Talk is cheap. Action is what moves this great country forward. No one, least of all me,  is trying to stifle your opinion or freedom of expression. But when your opinions lack factual basis they lack credibility and then you have no credibility either.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 8, 2008 at 8:00 pm Link to this comment

Well, since my posts are my own opinions, I only quote when I find other written pieces which I feel the need to quote.  And there we go again, the word hate.  First of all bert I never really consider the sex of any of the posters relevant, you feel the need to call attention to your being a woman as some sort of important fact, actually the only fact in your whole post. A woman, well congratulations, I had seen a previous post where someone apologized for calling you a man, but I was not sure if they were serious or toying with you. First of all I do not hate you, I just find your posts annoying sort of like Chompers, who occasionally makes sense, but more often does not. 

You say you can cite facts,  actually I prefer opinion than your selected factoids, hand picked and chosen by you,  factoids any of which can be twisted or changed to fit the required mold.  Let’s see Bert,  you say “none of these folks can take one tenth of what they dish out to others”  Bert this is your opinion, not a fact. Then and now as a woman, you have proven yourself to be a sexist women, when you say with real impunity “They actually have the balls to think they can say what they want with impunity and believe that no one should call them on it”.  Your alleged point is again assumed and your opinion. I would love for you to call me on what I have stated, but you seem to have this mono focus which never argues the original point of the post, by jumping a rail you seem to respond with blitzed factoids that have nothing to do with original posts. Let’s say it this way Bert, if you responded to my opinions with your opinions, we would have mutual respect and I suggest a more positive dialog. 

Assimilating facts and ideas to form opinions is what some people do.  You seem to have a problem comprehending this.  Forcing your politics,  religion or any other dogma on thinking people works only in the minds of fanatics.  People capable of thought will do what they can to keep freedom of expression and their ability to form their own opinions.

Report this

By bert, April 8, 2008 at 6:27 pm Link to this comment

BRAVO and three big cheers. You gave me a good belly laugh with this response. smile  When I read Leefeller’s response I decided I was not going to touch that one with a ten foot pole.

And these folks complain about my typing!!!!!! At least I can write. And make sense. You may disagree. But at least you know what to disagrre about.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 8, 2008 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment

redunancy of regardless so now youv’e learned something else.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 8, 2008 at 6:06 pm Link to this comment

All you Obama, Hillary lovers, please be sure to cast your vote for one of them in the Nov. election.

Their performance at today’s SASC hearing was a disgrace!!!

I’ll say it again:  If they both quit, I will “vote for a quitter” in Nov., contrary to the premise of this post.

Believe me, you don’t need to move a senator into the White House to know the result.  Think about it.

Report this

By Louise, April 8, 2008 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

Irregardless, I find the word to be quite appropriate when dealing with people who are other than what they pretend to be.

However and even-so, there are them what’s sure it’s quite appropriase given it appears with frequent regularity in books and articles, put forth by them “professionals” what writes better than I.

Now, since yu’s have impressed us with your grate knowledge of English, how about that elevation thing?

Oh, I forgot yu dont know how. Irregardless, I respect yur write to right. So RIGHT on ... wink

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 8, 2008 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

You don’t talk like that to Big Bird and Elmo.

Report this

By Louise, April 8, 2008 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

Well I learned a few things just now.
Bert is a woman!
That REALLY blew me away!
Not sure why ...

Maani owns/invented several of my favorite words.

I’m not the only one who darn near lost everything in the nineties.

I’m not the only one who likes Bill.

And, Bill isn’t running for president.
[OK, I already knew that! smile ]

I learned a few other things too.

The repubs have perfected their bull-shit, as evidenced in today’s hearings. [Remember I warned you.] And their ad-nauseum speeches on the floor today. [Can’t wait to get in and scrub that floor!]

Tried to warn the dems.
Unfortunately old habits die hard.

No matter what, the dim dems still allow the repulsive repubs to control the debate!

Joe Lieberman is as phony as a, uhh ... ummm ... a repub.

And unfortunately it appears ... none of Hillary’s supporters know how to elevate her!

Now irregardless how I feel about things in general, I think that’s really sad.

I was somewhat impressed by her questions at today’s hearings. It appears she does indeed realize how futile it is for the general to undertake climbing a mountain when he doesn’t know where it is, doesn’t know how to find it, and wouldn’t know how to climb it if he did. But fully intends to report to everyone when he is successful, just so long as we keep throwing money at his clearly undefined mission, and just as soon as he figures out what that mission is, so he’ll know when and if he meets with that success!

And basically that pretty well defines the General and his “Crock"er’s position on their “mission”.

Kudos’ to Hillary for today’s performance. She clearly controlled her part of the debate.

But President Barack Hussein Obama still sounds better. wink

Report this

By Maani, April 8, 2008 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment


“Most of my posts have been bamboozled by Bert’s
convoluted responses, selectively taken way out of context.  My main arguments are mitigated into Bert mono focuses on one sentence, edited into Bert selected sound bites and Bert inane responses, which have nothing to do with the content of my posts. This has to be on purpose, being dense as Bert promotes must nothing but smoke and mirrors, comprehending someone being really that way is hard to digest.”

Excuse me: is this English?  If so, it must be some dialect of which I am completely unaware.  Heck, I can even understand hillbilly-speak.  But THIS is extraordinary!


Re “obfuscate.”  Yes, that is my word.  And I am claiming complete control over it, and will herewith accuse anyone else who uses it of plagiarism.  Same with “dissemble,” “tendentious,” “pedantic” and “ameliorate.”  (I will provide others as we go along…)


Report this

By lib in texas, April 8, 2008 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

Cyrena, This bull shi* coming from you is laughable.
I also lived in the 90’s upper management in the AUTO INDUSTRY and we made tons of money.  I, made ton’s of money but my retirement as of the last 5 years hasn’t kept up with all the price increases of
anything related to Oil.
The Auto industy did suffer in the 80’s.
You can’t even tell the truth about your age!!! Once I remember you saying you were 55 which is older than Condi who is 53 but you claim she is a tad older than you.  Then you said you were on medicare so unless you are disabled makes you at LEAST 62.
So OLE TRUTH SAYER WHY SHOULD ANY ONE BELIEVE ANYTHING YOU SAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! or that of any of your compadres!!!!  I guess your other personalities
can’t keep your stories straight.
When you watched the ENTIRE decade how old were you then 5.

Report this

By bert, April 8, 2008 at 9:48 am Link to this comment

You write:  “Re: Re: To jackpinesavage
I know you are not in Kindergarten but your reading and comprehension is either horrible or as I have suspected all along that the truth just will not enter your hard head.”

I did all this research to answer jps, posted it and then went to the next post, and dog gone if you hadn’t beaten me to the punch.  smile  I should have known you would be right there. Thank you so much. Isn’t it amazing?  The most prosperous years of my life and of most Americans and they turn it all round to serve their agenda.

I will agree with them that NAFTA has not turned out as expected and I think we need to revisit that. I had thought that NAFTA was exporting goods and services - NOT JOBS. But most of that has occured under BUSH and his pro-corporation policies. It was not occuring under Clinton. 

You hit the nail on the head with this:  “Like Gov Rendell said “what about the 90’s didn’t you like ?  The peace or prosperity! ”  This says it all.

Report this

By bert, April 8, 2008 at 9:38 am Link to this comment


Report this

By bert, April 8, 2008 at 9:35 am Link to this comment

You must not be reading the same chart I did. I went to your link and if you just look at the bar graph you could make the mistaken leap of ignorance that you did. You have to actually read the entire article and look at each sector and see it was a fairly balanced job growth.

You can use statistics to lie with too, you know.

Do ALL those service sector jobs pay lousy? In fact the average wage in the service sector is $11.80/hr compared to $13.20/hr (1994, the period we are discussing - they are higher now) in maufacturing. 

However, if you understand that what keeps the services category low is retail jobs, which are often held by part-time and non-primary income earners, then the picture changes a bit. Take out retail, and service wages are 5% higher than manufacturing wages!  So if you compare full-time workers in the two sectors, things look very different.

Here’s some other data to round your data out:  Between February 1994 and February 1996, 68 percent of the net growth in full-time employment occurred in industry/occupation groups paying above-median wages.  Over half the net growth occurred in the top 30% of job categories, mostly in NON_TRADITUONAL [emphasis mine]service sector jobs.  The vast majority of these jobs were full-time.

So you just can’t go with those charts that show over broad categories jps. You need to dig a little further to get the rest of the story and the full story.

I will deal with SS later. Have to go to work.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 8, 2008 at 9:12 am Link to this comment

By Leefeller, April 7: “Hillary short cut the Low road…...  the simplistic belief that Hillary is the chosen one….. especially since she has the personality of a Cockroach….”

This is the typical view of the “Divisive, hateful and spiteful” personality. They actually see themselves as in a mirror when they look at a person better or more successful than themselves, uhh.

Their main disavowal is actually that they are envious….. but can’t make the grade! Thus they rant and rave like selfish and demanding children…... but, in an adult, it is quite insane.

Report this

By bert, April 8, 2008 at 8:43 am Link to this comment

lin in texas

leefeller likes to quote OPINION pieces and call it truth. He hates it because I am a woman and I can cite FACTS that prove his OPIONION has no basis in reality. And you are absolutely right on, none of these folks can take one-tenth of what they dish out to others. They actuaally have the balls to think they can say what they want with impunity and believe that no one should call them on it. Arrogance of the highest order. The reason leefeller complains so loudly is that I can refure him and knock is over inflated statements clear out of the ball park - HOME RUN BOTTOM OF THE NINTH WITH BASES LOADED.

Report this

By cyrena, April 8, 2008 at 8:21 am Link to this comment


Calm yourself and stop calling people blantant liars just because you’re ignorant.

IBM was hit BADLY in the 90’s. The commerical airline industry was hit BADLY in the 90’s. They were not the only ones. The auto industry was hit BADLY in the 90’s!

And I TOLD you that we could (and that I WOULD) take it industry by industry, over that decade.

If only you weren’t so stupid, and unwilling to actually absorb a bit of knowledge when it’s put in front of your face, you wouldn’t embarrass yourself like this.

If only you’d even paid the slightest attention, to the posts, you’d KNOW that while the ‘service sector’ jobs in the private industry may have SEEMED to increase, they were NOT ‘increasing’ but rather there were MASSIVE layoffs with ‘replacements’ by lower paid (and non-unionized) workers.

This is ALSO the time frame when NAFTA was doing it’s most outrageous OUTSOURCING!! Look around MORON. Where are the cars being built? Where does COKE do most of their ‘processing’?

What about MANUFACTURING lib? Do you know what that is? Do you know the difference between working at a steel mill and working at Mickey D’s? Do you know how much the Wal-Marter’s actually EARN? We don’t make that shit they sell in there anymore. They make the stuff in CHINA, and then they pay the workers at WAL-MART peanuts to sell it to you!

Matter of fact, when the new WAL-MART went up just north of me 4 years ago, they had the STATE and FEDERAL WELFARE folks set up right next to the ‘hiring’ building. So, as soon as they ‘hired’ all the folks at less than minimum wage, they sent them to the next building over, to apply for food stamps and medicade. (that’s what they call it in California, and NO, I realize NOBODY gets that in Texas..they just go hungry and without anything).

How about nearly ALL of the technolgy now lib? How about the cotton mills, and all of the other things that we USED to make here, by EMPLOYING people here?

Sorry lib. I watched it happen for that ENTIRE decade, and it really kicked in after Hillary’s NAFTA. (and we’ll leave off that she kick-started Wal-Mart with her 6-year tenure on their Executive Board).

Don’t even start with all of your hysteria lib, because you NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU’RE TALKING ABOUT!

(just like you’re so CERTAIN that Obama was ‘BORN’ a Muslim, even though people aren’t BORN into ANY RELIGION!)

Anyway, now I’m not even going to trouble your thick head with the CORRECT stats.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 8, 2008 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

The posts on this page referring to the 90’s are ludicrous there are to many lies posted here to even answer. Cyrena you said there were massive layoffs in the private sector, that is really a blatant lie!!!
The largest GROWTH at that time was the private sector so how in the hell can there be massive layoffs. All you stated above are like barracuda you FEED off each others lies.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 8, 2008 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

I know you are not in Kindergarten but your reading and comprehension is either horrible or as I have suspected all along that the truth just will not enter your hard head.  I read your employment growth in the 90’s and it didn’t say what YOU are saying. I’m not even going to bother cutting and pasting because you’ll just come back with another of you complete fabrications.  WE are debt by the TRILLIONS because of George W Bush!!!!  Where have you been the last 7 years.  The great medicare drug benefit is an example. (I hope this benefit helps some people for all that is being paid out but it sure doesn’t help me.)  My help comes from the WALMART $4.00 prescriptions. My husbands from the VA!!!
For your info “the private service sector” doesn’t mean flipping hamburgers at Mcdonalds.
Like Gov Rendell said “what about the 90’s didn’t you like ?  The peace or prosperity!






or give you

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 8, 2008 at 6:56 am Link to this comment

Obfuscated, yeah Maani is the only person allowed to use certain words out of the dictionary, guess we need to check out the copyright laws.

You support what I am saying about Bert, by picking just out one thing from my post you substantiate my premise.  Do you think you get it?

It seems to me the motley Hillary crowd has become more desperate. Which millionaire do we want to vote for?

Report this

By lib in texas, April 8, 2008 at 6:26 am Link to this comment

Obfuscated?? Wasn’t that stolen from Maani?  I’m sure the reason Bert wanted the name of author is because you, outrageous, cyrena and others are so good at making things up.
Did you and your Compadres get to gether a profess
victim status.(does this souund like something Outrageous posted?)  Poor ole Leefeller can dish it out pretty damn good but can’t take it.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 8, 2008 at 6:14 am Link to this comment

Hey Bert, right on the money, way to go Bert!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 8, 2008 at 6:09 am Link to this comment

Most of my posts have been bamboozled by Bert’s
convoluted responses, selectively taken way out of context.  My main arguments are mitigated into Bert mono focuses on one sentence, edited into Bert selected sound bites and Bert inane responses, which have nothing to do with the content of my posts. This has to be on purpose, being dense as Bert promotes must nothing but smoke and mirrors, comprehending someone being really that way is hard to digest. But I find the scorched earth policy of Hillary also hard to digest. 

He or she has called one of my posts ca-ca,  more comprehensive then the Bert mind could handle, or is it just denial?

Bert never responds to the message, the whole message, just long misanthropic references to how smart Bert is. 

My reference to a negitive support of Hillary paragraph in quotes which I pointed out was from Newsweek was attacked by Bert, because I did not provide Bert the name of the writer.  It did not matter who the writer was, I agreed with the premise of the paragraph and it voiced what I have been saying all all along about Hillary, verbatim. 

Bert has obfuscated many other peoples posts besides mine, Anyone who does not tow the Bert love Hillary do or die mentality means to be baffled with Bull Shit, cudo’s Bert, you are a master Bull shifter.  Keep shoveling Bert.

Report this

By omop, April 8, 2008 at 5:43 am Link to this comment

Attests to the one/two acts that Hillary and hubby Bill did in order to regain the Governor’s Mansion in Little Rock, Arkansas and may, and thats a very big may, if repeated have the same result.

Back then Hillary began adding Clinton to her name and became with child as the boys down at the diner in Pea Ridge were wont of saying.

One of these two acts is obviously easier said than done. And the less said about the other the better. Cause as Pagliacci so well put it, “La comedia et finita”.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 8, 2008 at 5:13 am Link to this comment

And another thing:

Coming out of the 1990’s, Wal-Mart was the largest employer in the United States.  Many people, rightfully, find it a disturbing that the energy companies which Bush/Cheney are so attached to have done so well during their administration.  But considering that Wal-Mart is based in Clinton’s home state, and that his wife sat on the board…isn’t the connection roughly equally to Bush/oil?  Wal-Mart obviously did better than anyone else under Clinton…Wal-Mart, that scourge of rural America…the company that tells its employees to get their health care through medicade, and pays them so little that the employees actually qualify.  Wal-Mart, the company that destroys wealth building small, family owned business all over America…and then employs former the former store owners as part-time, minimum wage greeters. 

Yes, indeed, all hail the Clinton economic miracle.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 8, 2008 at 4:54 am Link to this comment

Did i say that no jobs were created during the Clinton administration?  No.  I said that the good jobs (high pay, benefits, etc.) were replaced by service sector jobs.  Service sector jobs often lack good pay and benefits. 

The private service producing industries accounted for nearly ninety percent of the job growth in the 90’s…

(to find that, i typed “employment growth 1990’s” in the Yahoo search toolbar on my computer; it was the first result)

Other economic factors had nothing to do with Clinton.  The tech boom/bubble was not a result of anything Clinton did, but rather Reagan/Bush’s deficit defense spending on ghee-whiz technology that went (with the help of Al Gore in the Senate) commercial.

To be sure, there was more money to go around.  I never suggested otherwise.  My point is that a great deal (if not most) of that wasn’t wealth, but liquidity.  In other words, it was short term gain at the expense of long-term stability.  The Economist pointed out recently that the housing bubble actually started in 1996.  And the economy was heading into recession before Clinton left office.  that happens periodically, but if your employment is based on services, then it is much less resilient to recession.

That is, a service/consumer economy is dependent on people spending a lot of money.  In a downturn, people tend to tighten their belts…fewer unnecessary purchases, less restaurant eating, etc.  When those decline, service/retail jobs will be lost.  And there’s no way to work yourself out of a recession when you’re dependent on service/retail except for by borrowing money and injecting it into the economy.  You can manufacture your way out of a recession.

Moreover, Clinton’s economic picture was helped markedly by very low oil prices.  The ex-urban building boom and the rise of SUV’s (very profitable for automakers) couldn’t happen with today’s oil prices.  Any fool could see that those prices wouldn’t stay so low forever, but under Clinton we pretended that they would…and acted accordingly.

Economic cycles, moreover, do not correspond directly with presidential administrations.  Just because the economy did better under Clinton does not mean that it was his doing.  Many things that a government does take a long time for their effects to be felt.  What many people are now feeling is the actual result of Clintonian economic policies.  The hell that W. Bush has created isn’t even being felt yet…but it will be.

Again, i said that his accomplishments were a mile wide and an inch deep.  Which doesn’t mean that there were no accomplishments, just that they aren’t all that impressive when you really look at them.

And let’s talk about Social Security.  By law, surpluses in SS must be loaned to the federal government.  That means that through the booming 90’s, the surplus intake was not put away, but spent and added to the national debt (it looks better than it really is because of fuzzy government accounting).  Al Gore’s “lockbox” was actually proposed by a Republican Senator (Wally Herger) in 1999.  The motion to even vote on the bill was voted for by 100% of the Reps and against by 100% of the Dems.  The question would be, “Why?”

But regardless, a fair portion of the economic greatness of the 90’s was borrowed from SS surplus…it must be paid back, but that doesn’t mean that we’ll be able to.  The latest GAO report (no link handy) says that we are actually $53T in debt because of unfunded entitlements…that situation didn’t arise overnight.

Anything else?  Care to discuss foreign policy? (a subject i know much better than economics)

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 8, 2008 at 3:23 am Link to this comment

Your right about Clinton he created alot of jobs.

Report this

By cyrena, April 8, 2008 at 12:36 am Link to this comment

“...but that is so far from reality it could be called RIDICULOUS from those who “benefited” so “extravagantly” from Bill’s reign…”

RIDICULOUS as in rabbit hole stuff. These statistics..from 1993 to 1998/2000 are supposed to show us what Hillary can do beginning in 2009?

Yeah, right, as if they even had any meaning to begin with. Bert has NOT a clue of the mass layoffs happening through the 1990’s (mostly PRIVATE SECTOR back then)as more, and more, and more, and, more jobs were shipped off due to NAFTA.

We could take it industry by industry, but that will take some time. Because…as Outraged as already noted, it would require REAL research, and not propaganda research.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2008 at 11:09 pm Link to this comment

I realize you haven’t directed your post to me but I’d like to respond anyway.  (And trust me I will work on that proof, but not tonight “I have a headache”)

I don’t know how old you are “bert”, but that is so far from reality it could be called RIDICULOUS from those who “benefited” so “extravagantly” from Bill’s reign.  In short, that’s not the way people REMEMBER it.  The facts are skewed.  Most of this is PROPAGANDA. 

As an example, if you don’t raise the “level of poverty” to commensurate with actual LIVING COSTS then you can claim an ARTIFICIAL lowering of the poverty rate, even at that astronomical wage of $5.15 hr.

Statistics are numbers, people are real.  And to think one couldn’t skew the numbers to show everyone in America “well off” is ludicrous, just ask any qualified corporate accountant.  For God’s sake they don’t make a dime!

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 10:41 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<  “Jobs were created, but what kind of jobs?  For the most part, they were service sector jobs…dependant on people consuming.  The old, good jobs were shipped off without replacing them.”  >>>>>

No citation, no proof, just your opinion.

Now watch jps - this is how it is done. I am going to refute this quote of yours from this thread.

In actuality there were:

“21.2 million new jobs have been created since 1993, the most jobs ever created under a single Administration—and more new jobs than Presidents Reagan and Bush created during their three terms. 92 percent (19.4 million) of the new jobs have been created in the PRIVATE SECTOR [caps mine], the highest percentage in 50 years.”

[NOTE TO jps notice quotation marks and specificty of numbers and types of jobs. That is refuting your general statement with facts and thereby disproving it.]

This is from:

[NOTE TO jps notice that I cite my source.]

You can disagree, but unless you can provide PROOF it is just your own personal opinion.

The next set of statistics or facts are from Read these jps and leefeller. This is what we had when W. Clinton was President. He helped people - all people. He had his faults, to be sure. But he he did some damn good economic work as evudenced by the following.

Clinton forced the minimum wage up from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour and demanded an increase to $6.15.

The poverty rate fell from 15.1 percent in 1993 to 12.7 percent in 1998. That’s the lowest poverty rate since 1979 and the largest five-year drop in poverty in nearly 30 years (1965-1970).

The African-American poverty rate dropped from 33.1 percent in 1993 to 26.1 percent in 1998—the lowest level ever recorded and the largest five-year drop in African-American poverty in more than a quarter century (1967-1972).

The poverty rate for Hispanics fell to the lowest level since 1979, and dropped to 25.6 percent in 1998.

African-American unemployment fell from 14.2 percent in 1992 to 7.3 percent in March 2000—the lowest rate on record.

The unemployment rate for Hispanics fell from 11.6 percent in 1992 to 6.3 percent in March 2000—and in the last year has been at the lowest rate on record.

For women the unemployment rate was 4.3 percent in March 2000, nearly the lowest since 1953 [when few women sought employment outside the home].

Under President Clinton and Vice President Gore, child poverty declined from 22.7 percent in 1993 to 18.9 percent in 1998—the biggest five-year drop in nearly 30 years.

The poverty rate for African-American children fell from 46.1 percent in 1993 to 36.7 percent in 1998—the lowest level in 20 years and the biggest five-year drop on record.

The rate also fell for Hispanic children, from 36.8 percent to 34.4 percent - and is now 6.5 percentage points lower than it was in 1993.

And I know you and your ilk on this site. You will find some way to claim it is not true but never give one fact to support your position. So you know what that makes you all?—empty suits, all talk and no substance. I have real factual substance in this post. I doubt you can or will even try to refute it with facts of your own. You’ll just offer opinion again and try to pass it on as factual.

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 9:54 pm Link to this comment

Have you been reading TD for the last two months? I have posted over 400 times and have put forth fact after fact after fact. Just check this thread. No one has offered any substantive rebuttals to the facts I have offered. All you do is spout your beliefs as if becasue you believe it is true. It is idle gossip. Instead of Descartes’ “I think therefore, I am,” you would argue, “I say it, therefore it is true,” leading to a new low in philosophy.

All you and leefeller and others, tend to do is call me and Maani and others here names. THAT MY DEAR IS AN AD HOMIMEN ATTACK. Attack the messenger and not the substance or merits of what they say. And that is what I was talking about with you and leefeller. There was no substance, no facts you used to argue your points. It was tabloid style generalities you all toss around like it is truth. You gossip and call it truth.

If you have the facts, then refute me with citations point by point.

Pointing out that because AK state troopers lied during Bill Clinton’s Presidency does not make all law officers liars. And that is what you called the sheriff who talked with Sen. Clinton whose conversation was posted on you tube by someine who was there. That is pure AD HOMIMEN ATTACK. You have no proof that what he said was a lie. So you slam him by trying to divert my attention elsewhere.

That slight of hand may work for you and Obama supporters, but it won’t work on me. So save your outrage and anger for someone else. I will hold your feet to the fire until you stop yapping and provide some proof for what you yap about.

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 9:26 pm Link to this comment

And what’s wrong wuth that? NOTHING.

NO, it is not true that Hillary Clinton is dividing the Democratic Party by continuing to campaign for President against Barack Obama when she has no plausible chance of winning herself.

Well, if the Democratic Party is divided, it is because it is dividing itself, not because Hillary Clinton is forcing it to be divided.

And were the Democratic Party not very closely divided, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama would long since have been eliminated from this race.

The Democratic voters, both those who have gone to the polls, and those who have answered the polls, have divided the Democratic Party by refusing to overwhelmingly throw their support behind either one candidate at this stage in the race. The two are still in a statistical tie.

If Barack Obama had already united the Democratic Party behind him he would already have the 2025 delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot. He hasn’t and he doesn’t, and it isn’t his primary opponent’s job to do that for him - until the outcome is certain.

There is a difference between someone being the favorite to win and the actual winner. Holding a three length lead going around the final turn in a horse race, holding a three run lead in the bottom of the eighth inning in a baseball game, these are desirable places to find oneself, but neither guarantees victory.

It doesn’t matter that Hillary Clinton has been a bedrock Democrat for 40 years, nor does it matter how often Hillary Clinton says in public how very important it will be for all Democrats to unite behind our eventual nominee, whoever that ends up being. You just have to slam her anyway.  :(

Report this

By cyrena, April 7, 2008 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment

Ya know what’s so totally incredible about Hillary floating this story?

The fact that there is an exceedingly well documented production by Michael Moore, who has done many of the same impeccably researched documentaries, has put ALL of this ON THE BIG screen, several months ago!!

WHATEVER happened to Bechtel or Castro or whomever else, has been happening to thousands of Americans for the past decade!!

Yes, there are many folks who are uninsured, (47 million was the last general count, give or take a few - million that is) but Moore’s documentary film focuses on those who HAVE it, and this very same thing happens to them!! And HAS been.

So, I’m not real sure what the Hillary point is, in telling this particular story..

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2008 at 9:24 pm Link to this comment

Re: “bert”

As per your comment:  “Why are you citing that poll? Plus I thought you didn’t believe in polls. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool me.”

I have pasted this over from the conversation “bert” speaks of.  This shows “bert’s” comment above is far from the truth.  (They can both be found on pg. 2 near the beginning of the comments)The link:

*****Original Posts******

“By Outraged, April 2 at 7:55 pm
(My comment to “bert”)

Re: bert

That’s an awful wordy comment for someone who said this just ONE DAY AGO.

(bert’s quote from the day before)
“It doesn’t matter what the polls say right NOW. The elction is not right now. THINGS CHANGE. The General is a little over 7 months a way. A lot can and will happen between now and then. And what goes up can also go down.”

** LOL! Here’s the link but you’ll have to scroll down to the comment. _observation/

By bert, April 2 at 10:02 pm

Reply to Outraged
Try to get things straight, Outraged. The quote you cite is about the NOVEMBER election. (Much farther away in time and so meaningless.)

This poll is about the PRIMARY ELECTION.

And as I have said before polls are only a snapshot in time. And any poll is only as good as its design. And things do change. And things can change in the primary, too. So yes. The poll(s) is/are meaningless except as it shows us something of what the electorate is thinking. NOW.

All I was attempting to point out, before Obamabots get all excited is that the poll that Truth Dig posted is not the only one out there.

And remember NH. Polls there said Obama was ahead. But it did not turn out that way.

So I was just trying to head off the smug Obamabot’s boring posts.

Should have known better.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 7, 2008 at 8:59 pm Link to this comment

Must say the low road really sucks, do not know how you Hillary folks can do it?  Your frothy feelings for Hillary, must do something to what is left of your minds.  Everything that has been done by Hillary and her supporters, the anything goes group, the scorched earth plan, really has alienated the new wave of voters, the people who never voted before, the ones who like what Obama has to say and how he says it. 

Simply stated throwing the kitchen sink at people, who maybe could muster some compassion for Hillary, have instead been alienated with the force of a blow to the mid section.  Respecting someone who will use any means and way to win is really a seriously flawed mental condition, even sick.  Borders on criminal.

Using hate to win an election is something that I will never support, simply is not the right thing to do.  Like Bush, Hillary shows a lack of integrity, questionable morales, and even something that does not exist in the fantasy world of politics, fairness.

Yes, support the person who will do anything to win, isn’t winning what it is all about.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 7, 2008 at 8:54 pm Link to this comment

You’re going to tell people not make ad hominem attacks?  You who calls one of the candidates “Obambi” on a regular basis and says things like “Idiots for Obama uncovered again!”?  So you’re either joking or delusional.  That and you seem to like using the loosest definitions of words that you can so that they fit what you want them to mean.

Below, i explained (sketched) exactly why i don’t like the Clintons.  But have you ever seen me type “Shillary” or “Hillbilly”?  No, you haven’t, because i don’t.

So until you learn to stop using ad hominem attacks, i would suggest not giving lectures on them. If you want, i can start launching ad hominem attacks on Clinton…serious ones. 

Can you present clear, reasoned statements on why you don’t like Obama?  Can you present clear, reasoned statements why Clinton is the better candidate? (I mean actual reasons, not campaign slogans and talking points.)

Report this

By cyrena, April 7, 2008 at 8:48 pm Link to this comment

You may not claim it lib, but you are definitely a ‘victim’. Just not of anything from this website.

No, the POINT is that you’ve continued to spew hate and other similar nastiness with every post.

And no, I’m sure none of ever expected you to ‘take any of it back.” You couldn’t even if you wanted to.

That’s what happens with people who speak from and store information in different parts of their anatomy aside from their brains.

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment


The truth you won’t hear on Countdown with Keith Obamamann either -

The You Tube video is a Primary source (remember that term from your elementary civics class? Or didn’t you pass that one PH?) it is the actual footage of the Meigs County sheriff telling Sen. Clinton this story.

The Washington Post on-line blog (link below) has just posted this: Clinton Told True Tale of Woe, Says Kin

Not that it matters to you, since like most Obama supporters you prefer to make up your mind first and then totally and completely ignore the facts.

But following are a few of the highlights of the truth:


Excerpted remarks below:

By Anne E. Kornblut

The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail — following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.

For weeks, Clinton repeated an anecdote she heard in Ohio on Feb. 28 involving a young woman who lost her baby and later died because she lacked health insurance and did not have $100 to gain access to a nearby hospital.

But over the weekend, Clinton came under fire when officials at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital, after reading about her remarks, demanded that she stop recounting it because the patient, Trina Bechtel, was admitted there and did have insurance.

That part, it turns out, is true. But so is Clinton’s claim that Bechtel did not get care at another hospital that wanted a $100 pre-payment before seeing her, according to the young woman’s aunt, Lisa Casto. “It’s a true story,” said Casto, 53.

Casto added some details that were not part — or differed from — the Clinton anecdote: She said her niece had previously been in debt to a local hospital that later sent her a letter informing her that she could only be treated there in the future if she gave them a $100 deposit. At the time she went into debt to that hospital, Casto said, Bechtel was uninsured, though she later obtained health insurance and was insured at the time of her death.

Report this

By cyrena, April 7, 2008 at 7:35 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller quoted Newsweek bert, so I guess you don’t read any better than you spell or type.

And you’re ‘galled’ because people think you’re so stupid.

Please…who believes who is stupid?

That’s where your Election 2008 terrorist/swiftboating cell operations have gone wrong from the git-go. Leefeller told you that before, and I’ve said the same to Maani and disciples, (including you) a dozen times myself.

Simply stated, YOU ASSUME that everyone else is as stupid as you are. You UNDERESTIMATE (as omop stated) the intelligence of the average American, and believe that you can, with enough repetition, brain wash people into accepting your crap.

Then Maani gives you all a pep-talk, and tells you to keep at it, (your ‘cell’ will prevail) and so you do. And in the process, if anybody WAS ‘on the fence’ so to speak, in still trying to make any sort of a decision regarding the remaining 10 contests and the superdelegates, you send them right to the Obama camp, out of pure disgust for the tactics employed by Hillary’s SUPPORTERS and her campaign.

Needless to say, her campaign is in the toilet anyway, once the Columbian government FIRED her chief strategist, (working for the Columbians and Hillary too) and then when the word hits that Mark Penn has been FIRED from his job with the COLUMBIANS, for breaking the ‘contract’ that he made with them with $300,000. of OUR dollars, Hillary says she’s ‘disappointed’ (6 days later) and he (Mark Penn)‘steps aside’ as the campaign chief, but of course his firm will continue to handle the ‘polling strategy’ for the campaign.

BTW, you can reference all of this in the articles that I posted links to, either yesterday or the day before. One was the NYT and the other was at the Newsmax site.

I’m sure you can access it with you ace skills.

Meantime, Leefeller DID post the source of his article. Try to read again. It reads “NEWSWEEK” right in the post.

Report this

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

Um humm..

Whatever you say bert…whatever you say…

I notice this is a really popular word with the Maani disciples…ad hominem.

Does it make you feel important or ‘special’ or something.

Just curious. You always say that “Hillary hasn’t lost yet” but then 2 seconds later, you say that Obama is going to lose in November. That is SOOO confusing for me. Are both of them (Obama and Hillary) going to run in the general election?

I mean, maybe the ‘rules’ or something changed and nobody told the rest of us. Like, maybe you’re the only one who knows this crystal ball stuff.

Meantime bert…Your racism is showing YET AGAIN..
with this comment…

“You seem to prefer to maintain your belief system that America is still stuck in a racist society..”

Bert, don’t tell me what my belief is. Don’t ever try to tell ANYONE what their beliefs are. It is why you (and others like you)are such a menace to the social-psychology of the collective. 

You spewed over 400 posts here on this site bert, and there isn’t a good faith word in any single one of them. So, don’t try to tell me what my beliefs are, and don’t try to speak to the efforts of ‘most Americans’ either, because you are not an example of anything involving good faith efforts.

In short, and yes, I know that I’ve said this before, but it is re-confirmed with every post that you make. You are full of shit bert.

We know it, and I’m thinking you probably do too.
If you don’t, then it doesn’t matter.

Report this

Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >

Right Top, Site wide - Care2
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide

Like Truthdig on Facebook