Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


The Blue-Collar Imperative
Edward Snowden and the Golden Age of Spying
Climate Renews Famine Risk to Africa’s Sahel




Mad Pilgrimage of the Flesh


Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Nobody Votes for a Quitter

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

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

By Bill Boyarsky

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.

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.”

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
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.


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By cyrena, April 7, 2008 at 6:43 pm Link to this comment

What a typical Hillary campaign response..like a template.

“Obama has, is, and was expected to win in that that”

Just substitute NC for any 30 or so others, and there you have it.

Too funny.

Does ‘has’ mean that he already won? I remember bert mentioned a few days ago that Obama was gonna lose, in NOVEMBER!

Is that ‘new’?

Report this

By cyrena, April 7, 2008 at 6:34 pm Link to this comment

Outraged,

If I really WAS a teacher, you’d get a triple A+ on this. The collection of remarks is as efficient as it gets, and you didn’t really even have to go back that far!!

And yes, I was thinking this very same thing,and more than once in the past several weeks now. Louise mentioned it as well, without referencing specific names, along with a few others.

It is what you say here:

“If anyone is truly interested, follow the archives of any given category back to before Maani and his compadres “graced us” with their presence and it will be clear who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.”

If anyone IS truly interested, they can and should follow that back to before Maani and his compadres ‘cursed us’ with their presence. (or have at least attempted to).

Actually, Maani stated his intentions way back when, and he’s done it more than once. In short, he and his ‘collection’ have INFILTRATED what was at one time an excellent site, and none of us were martyrs prior to The Coup of Maani, so I’m not sure why he or any of his ‘followers’ expect us to be now.

Talk about a lynch mob. Maani, et al.

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 6:16 pm Link to this comment

No ad hominem attacks or responses allowed.

That’s a lazy person’s only card.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument’s proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 7, 2008 at 5:58 pm Link to this comment

While not as a solid source as U-tube, here is one of the parsed press articles.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/politics/5681903.html

It is exactly Hillary’s putting forth half truths which makes her unattractive to me as a candidate. 

I dread a gullible president with a finger on the nuclear trigger, someone who caters to AIPAC and the militarists.

Entrenched politicians are the problem with this country and like diapers need to be changed often and for the same reason.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 7, 2008 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment

Cry me a river, the simplistic belief that Hillary is the chosen one by her lemmings and entitled to be the one selected for the Democratic representative is hogwash, especially since she has the personality of a Cockroach.  Divisive, hateful and spiteful.  Every state that supported Obama did not mean shit, every state that voted for Hillary was the important state or a big state. 

No more Mr. nice guy with you imbeciles,  your divisive tactics have worked on me, yes you made me swing over to your side, because not one Hillary supporter on TD has earned respect, nor have they said any truths. I am swinging, your arguments have been bash, bash Obama, one positive way to win over someone is to trash them.  Hillary logic.  Where do I sign up.  Respect the ends to suit the means. Give it to Hillary, she has got clash! 

From the racist comments, to the outright twisting of the truth, to constant whining about how Hillary is being abused.  Where can I sign up, I want to join Bigots our us, the Black Church needs to be fumigated. Wright the American Hater. Anyone who says what he said has to be a hater of the (wave the flag). 

The fact that Hillary is a clone for special interests, paid for and owned by them is a given.  Not according to the bigots are us program.  No, Obama has received big bucks from oil and the Ruzco whatever,  the guy gave him a house next to his American Hater Pastor Wright, and get this, in a white neighborhood. 

Most of the comments and attacks on Obama the might be moslem, have been bigoted and racist, so much so it pains me to have to listen to the KKK members who love to make their special feelings apparent with the subtle triteness that just offends, but really is not racist in their empty minds, such enlightenment.  Black is Black, oh yes we learned so much from you. 

If you hate blacks so much, please just say so, give to your KKK membership the bigot support needed to keep Hillary alive and in the race.  You clowns know who you are.

Well, that was one bumpy ride on the Hillary low road, not sure I want to be on your side after all.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 7, 2008 at 5:40 pm Link to this comment

Thank god that was cleared up…i knew that it had to be someone else’s fault.  I’ve never known a Clinton to be at fault for anything, and i’d be surprised if they started being at fault for something now.

Why should they check into a story and not believe the word of others…we all know that an officer of the law would never, ever lie. (Oh wait, what about those Arkansas State Troopers that were lying on behalf of the VRWC…do they count?)

The press lies about the story by parsing and you defend the story by parsing…swell.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 7, 2008 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment

I’ll assume that i’m of the “others” persuasion in Maani’s little pep-talk.

Nothing has affected my normal mental clarity and coherence regarding Ms. Clinton…or her husband.  I’ve been clear and coherent concerning them since 1993.  They are what’s wrong with America (and the flip side of the coin are the Bushes…heads i lose, tails i lose).

What do you and your compadres have to go on besides a return to the 1990’s?  And what made the 1990’s (that decade of blown opportunities) so great anyhow?

Every metric that makes the 90’s, and by association, Clinton, look so halcyon is a mile wide and an inch deep.  Shall i list them? (not all of them, of course, just a sample)

Banking de-regulation; media conglomeration; welfare “reform”; the demise of unions…

Why yes, some people made a great deal of money because the big corporations were made massive.  The stock market soared so high that we began to believe it would never come down.  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.

Consumption, conspicuous and wanton, were the hallmarks of the 90’s.  Consume 30% of the world’s resources and produce 30% of the world’s waste; that would be zero sum…or total waste.

Do be sure, the Clintons didn’t start that process, but they did their best to abet it.  I would expect Reagan/Bush to fuck the country up; i expected more from the Clintons…and they didn’t even care.

Was there any push in all that glory and cash to develop renewable resources?  No.  All the problems were simply put off for later generations to deal with.

And then there’s foreign policy.  If i hear one more Clinton supporter talk about the “peace” of the 90’s, i’m going to start buying plane tickets and dragging them to all the places that were ignored…where death and disease and misery ran rampant.  Bill Clinton was very clear: he didn’t care about foreign policy and he didn’t want to be bothered with it.

It showed…it still does.  The man was handed the most amazing opportunity to change the world and history.  He was granted a non-Soviet Russia.  The Cold War was over.  At best he ignored that opportunity.  At worst, he overtly supported a corrupt leader and was complicit in the rape of a nation…that nation is not, now, very friendly with us because they know that we raped them.

The man was granted opportunities that will never come again; he blew them all.

So tell me, Maani, why should i want to go through that all again…only this time knowing what’s coming?  Bill didn’t clean up after Bush I; he continued most of Bush’s policies (the worst ones, anyhow).  Why should i believe that Clinton II will clean up after Bush II.  From where i sit, it looks more like a tag-team.

I don’t like Obama all that much (sometimes i imagine that he really is a left-libertarian, but i doubt it).  And the reason i don’t like him all that much is that he reminds me too much of Bill Clinton…minus the congenital lewdness.

When i hear Hillary talk about creating “green” jobs, i have only one question…“Where was that idea back then, when it would have actually averted problems?”  Everything she’s campaigning on could have and should have been done the first time around.  They don’t get a second chance with me.  We don’t have time to waste another decade with those two fools.

And it isn’t a good fight if what you’re fighting for is bad…it’s just a fight.  But if you want one, then bring it on.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 7, 2008 at 5:21 pm Link to this comment

We’re voting for a president here not a parrot.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 7, 2008 at 5:15 pm Link to this comment

Now I feel better, finding out I was called a dumb shit, a jerk off, a nazi who loves to polish his jack boots, since I try to miss most of your inane racist comments.  Interesting the Hillary crowd throws the kitchen sink and says it is us? 

We need to make sure we do not call the Hillary crowd any nasty names, Maani keeps asking us to stop it.

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 5:13 pm Link to this comment

What this campaign made cystal clear to me is that liberals are just ethically challenged as the right.


WOW !!!! Kevin99999, you hit the nail square on the head with that statement.

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 5:11 pm Link to this comment

Educating cyrena…....if only someone could !!!!!

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

THE REST OF THE STORY

You claim that Hillary lied or “stretched” the truth about a woman in Ohio who dies because of the mess in health care in this country. WELL AS USUAL YOU ARE WRONG AND I HAVE THE FACTS TO PROVE IT.

Here’s the video of Bryan Holman telling the story unedited. (Note: in the middle he states she was denied treatment then went to another hospital, the O’Bleness hospital.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wqpEt_CdBk&eurl=http://noquarterusa.net/blog/

1. CLAIM: Hillary clearly states “I was told a story”

FACT: Bryan Holman tells hospital story to Hillary
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wqpEt_CdBk

2. CLAIM: Hillary was told that Trina Bachtel did not have insurance.

FACTS: Bryan Holman did tell Hillary she didn’t have insurance. The hospital at which her baby was still-born has broken patient confidentiality and said she had insurance. We know nothing about her insurance, or if she was charged a co-payment, but the Washington Post reported that Bachtel previously had thousands of dollars in hospital debt, which was paid off by 2005. Today, Deputy Holman was clear that the $100 wasn’t a co-payment. If she went to a hospital other than O’Bleness, as he reports, we don’t know what that hospital would have said about insurance. How it is possible that she would have had “thousands of dollars in hospital debt” before 2005, and suddenly have insurance?

3. CLAIM: She went to the hospital, and the hospital told her she needed $100 up front.

FACTS: This claim still is not refuted because Deputy Holman says she went to another hospital, which was O’Bleness. What this means is that we don’t know if she went to Holzer Medical or Pleasant Valley Hospital. Holman states she “she didn’t have of course didn’t make a lot of money.” And today, the deputy, and family friend, confirms that this wasn’t a co-payment.

4. CLAIM: Before she got back, within those two days her baby died.

FACTS: Her baby died August 1, 2007 at O’Bleness hospital.

5. CLAIM: “So they life-flighted her to C…to a hospital in Columbus and within 15 days she died.”
FACTS: Trina Bachtel died two weeks later “August 15, 2007, at OSU Medical Center in Columbus” according to her obituary in the Daily Sentinel (local paper).

6. CLAIM: Hillary told a false story.

FACT: NO !!! Hillary told the story she was told. And why would they need have fact-checked it beyond the word of the local sheriff who is a friend of the family without going to the family itself and saying “did she have insurance”? This is anachronistic hindsight. But we know that the friend of the family, a DEPUTY SHERIFF said, “Her family and them think that if she had had good insurance and stuff and she was taken care of at the first hospital of course that had the medical means to take care of her that her and her baby of course would still be here” . So are we now going to ignore the word of a deputy who is close to the family? The last time I checked, a deputy is considered a reliable source with whom to confirm a story.

It is nice to have hindsight, but take a look at the clip that was shot by a friend on the evening of February 25, 2008 of what Hillary actually says:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_DpvBRa4DQ

Hillary told the story dead on according what she was told, and there is still no refutation of these claims. O’Bleness can say she wasn’t denied, but that isn’t what Holman said, as he said O’Bleness took her in. O’Bleness is where the child died, consistent with story.

The whole story is still quite intact and it is unfortunate that the Clinton campaign has backed off the story out, perhaps being gun-shy at this point, and that Bryan Holman’s credibility has been impugned for no reason. He didn’t mention which hospitals or her name, but now we have hindsight to get this info. But here’s the info, you tell me: What is false about this story.

THE PRESS LIES ABOUT THE STORY BY PARSING

Patrick Henry, you owe Senator Clinton an apology.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 7, 2008 at 4:58 pm Link to this comment

I see no comments here that you and cyerna,(I’ll leave it at that for now) made that were derogatory to those of us you quoted and believe me I’m not going to make this a business and store all the shit you and cyrena post.  I guess now you two think you are detectives.  I for one agree with what I said and take nothing back.  SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT!!!!
I’m sure my COMPADRES agree but they are perfectly able to speak for themselves.  I DO NOT CLAIM TO BE A VICTIM as a matter of fact I sometimes get a huge laugh at you bunch of nuts!!!

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

No, I doubt that most of the posters read the entire article. They kind of sort of skim and take from it only the stuff they agree with and that supports Obambi. Recant???? No I don’t think so. Even when proven wrong over and over they go on in a fog of hope and wishes.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2008 at 4:39 pm Link to this comment

The only three words of the post which I wrote: “This out today:”

(So it is not me you are calling a liar.)

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 4:36 pm Link to this comment

No surprise in NC.  Obama has, is, and was expected to win in that state. Give me something new.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2008 at 4:33 pm Link to this comment

Re Maani:

Your quote:  “They give it lip service, but their attitudes, approaches and methods tell a different story.”  (Just more BS, Maani, from you and your “compadres”)

Doug’s quote: April 5: “How many more like her will be “setting the standard” for a new black America with a black man wielding black power in the Black House on Pennsylvania Avenue? Hardly a fine example of what will happen next…....

Call it racism if you will but, if divisivenes continues to be the way, what will rise up will not necessarily be pretty.”

(No racism or crazy talk there from Doug…no, not a bit..sure Maani)
*****

Maani’s quote directed at Jackpine Savage, April 5:  “Apparently, you are sadly misinformed, or (to use your girlfriend Cyrena’s second favorite word) you are a liar.

Maani’s quote directed at Jackpine Savage, April 6:  “Not quite.  I called you a (possible) liar.”
*****

bert’s quote April 6 directed at Louise: “Idiots for Obama uncovered yet again!!!!!

lib in Texas April 6 directed at Louise:  “Since your above post was a bunch of drivel, just go back to sleep seems you don’t have a clue.”

bert’s quote directed at Louise April 6 (although Louise hadn’t attacked bert at all, just the issue):  “And your constant insults of me and others just shows a lack of good manners, and either reflects poorly on your upbringing and reflect badly on you not me.
*****

lib in Texas, April 7 directed at Leefeller and Cyrena:  “You two are a pair.  Cyrena CLAIMS she researches but doesn’t (if she did she wouldn’t come up with the crap she does)and you are just a dumb shit.”
*****

Douglas Chalmers April 7, “Maani, you need to know that cyrena (er, I mean “Mrs.  Blow”) is actually merely a student in Law + Society, not a teacher, despite her erroneous assertations in the past - and she’s been struggling at that for years now, uhh.

(then, in the same comment says:)
People who attack others shouldn’t leave a trail to their front door on the internet…....
*****

bert’s comment April 7 direct at Outraged: “How in the hell can you write this post based on the article from that link?”

Maani, April 8 directed at his “compadres”:

“In that regard, I take it as a badge of honor - and so should you - that each of us has been called a liar and a racist, and that all of us have been subject to ongoing ad hominem attacks, name-calling, ridiculous accusations, bullying, and a general hatefulness

*** It is clear that you and your “compadres” would like a license to spew any type of ridicule and venom, and then to CLAIM to be the victim.  If anyone is truly interested, follow the archives of any given category back to before Maani and his compadres “graced us” with their presence and it will be clear who is the victim and who is the perpetrator.  We do not have to be martyrs simply because you and your “compadres” feel like kicking someone in the teeth.

They say… if you lie down like a rug, people will walk all over you.—-

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 4:32 pm Link to this comment

You are cherry picking polling data, Outraged. Plus your percentages are wrong, at least by this chart, which shows results of 7 different polls. According to Real Clear Politics (link below) Clinton leads in 6 out of 7 polls. And funny thing about this. The PPP poll is the 1 out of 7 polls that Obama leads in. 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. 

Pennsylvania Democratic Primary
Tuesday, April 22 | Delegates at Stake: 188

Polling Data
Poll   Date   Sample   Clinton   Obama   Spread
RCP Average   03/24 - 04/02   -  48.0   41.4   Clinton +6.6
Insider Advantage
04/02 - 04/02   659 LV   45   42   Clinton +3.0
Morning Call
03/27 - 04/02   406 LV   49   38   Clinton +11.0
PPP (D)
03/31 - 04/01   1224 LV   43   45   Obama +2.0
Rasmussen
03/31 - 03/31   730 LV   47   42   Clinton +5.0
SurveyUSA
03/29 - 03/31   588 LV   53   41   Clinton +12.0
Strategic Vision (R)
03/28 - 03/31   504 LV   49   41   Clinton +8.0
Quinnipiac
03/24 - 03/31   1549 LV   50   41   Clinton +9.0
See All Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Polling Data

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/pa/pennsylvania_democratic_primary-240.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2008 at 2:54 pm Link to this comment

This out today:

Public Policy Polling April 5-6  
Poll Confirms Obama’s Lead in N.C.
Posted: Today at 12:36 p.m.

Raleigh, N.C. — Results released by Public Policy Polling Monday confirm Sen. Barack Obama’s lead in North Carolina’s Democratic presidential primary.

In a survey of 928 likely Democratic primary voters conducted April 5 and 6, 54 percent were planning to vote for Obama, 33 percent for Sen. Hillary Clinton, and 13 percent remained undecided.

“Even with both candidates now running TV ads in the state, Obama is maintaining his lead in that solid 20 point range, Public Policy Polling President Dean Debnam said. Public Policy Polling is known for representing many Democratic clients.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/politics/story/2695759/

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm Link to this comment

Wow….

“April 5, 2008 – 2:44 p.m.
Voter Doubts About Her Honesty Costing Clinton
By CQ Staff

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is being hobbled in her race to overtake Illinois Sen. Barack Obama by persistent questions among voters about her honesty, according to polls.

A new poll in North Carolina – which after the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, is the next big prize on the campaign trail - says a key element in Obama’s success is that the state’s voters value trust over experience. The survey for the Charlotte Observer/WCNC-TV reported that only 25 percent of voters gave high marks to Clinton for trustworthiness compared to 48 percent for Obama and 54 percent for Arizona Sen. John McCain . Nearly 9 in 10 voters said trust would be a major factor in deciding how they would vote.

Surveys in North Carolina have consistently shown Obama with a big lead over Clinton, and that was underscored again today in a new Rasmussen Reports poll. The poll, conducted April 3, says Obama’s lead over Clinton has now soared to 56 percent to 33 percent.”

*****

“The Charlotte Observer poll also found:

• Two-thirds of voters give Obama high marks for his ability to connect with voters compared to a third who give McCain and Clinton high marks.

• Three-quarters give high marks to Obama for intelligence compared to the more than the two-thirds who gave his rivals high marks.”

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 7, 2008 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

Hear about the latest faux pax from Hillary’s mouth regarding the woman who died because she didn’t have $100 for the doctor.  The truth of the story proved to be s t r e t c h e d.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2008 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

New News.

The Caucus
In Superdelegate Count, Tough Math for Clinton

By JOHN HARWOOD
Published: April 7, 2008

The hill that Hillary Rodham Clinton must climb to beat Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination will grow a little steeper on Monday, as it has most days lately.

Margaret Campbell, a Montana state legislator, plans to declare her support for Senator Obama, of Illinois. She becomes the 69th superdelegate he has picked up since the Feb. 5 coast-to-coast string of primary elections and caucus votes.

In the same period, Senator Clinton, of New York, has seen a net loss of two superdelegates, according to figures from the Obama campaign that Clinton aides do not dispute. That erosion may dim Mrs. Clinton’s remaining hopes even more than internal campaign turmoil, which led to the ouster on Sunday of the campaign’s chief strategist, Mark Penn.

Trailing by more than 160 pledged delegates — those chosen in state primaries or caucuses — Mrs. Clinton has counted on superdelegates to help her overtake Mr. Obama with a late surge before the party’s convention in August. The party’s rules for proportional allocation make it highly difficult for her to erase Mr. Obama’s pledged delegate lead, even if she sweeps the final 10 contests.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/us/politics/07caucus.html?ref=politics

Report this

By Louise, April 7, 2008 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment

Thanks folks, you know who you are, for seconding my “motion”. smile

To the notion that there is a difference between being associated by circumstance with someone who proves later to be a criminal, and knowing later he is a criminal and not remembering with crystal ball clarity every second you spent with that man, somehow makes you criminal, I can only say:

Had someone asked me at any point in time, before, during and after, that I knew the man was a crook when I was sharing a burger lunch with him, or he paid me for contractual services, I would have said and still will say NO.

Can I give you exactly how many times in what circumstances, and where I had occasion to be with him, work with him accept whatever he was saying or doing at face value? Or, accept his check without fear of being labeled? No.

Does that make me a liar? No.

That of course wouldn’t help me one bit if some nasty person who didn’t have anything better to do decided to hire a detective and go back and dig.

Challenged with, “How come you never mentioned that?” I would have to say ... uhh I don’t remember, which of course would be cause for burning me at the stake!

Now back to that “motion”. I notice there hasn’t been a whole lot of Hillary elevating, has there? Maybe I missed it. I do remember reading someone said they posted something in another thread and it was criticized. Sorry, I guess I didn’t see it. So please post it again.

I apologize for not naming you all individually, but I have to get back to work. Yes, even in the glorious world of repub vision and conservative ideals, little old ladies have to work to pay the bills! And let me tell you, it aint easy finding work at my age. And if there were a family man out there unemployed who could do what I do for as cheap as I do it, I’d give him the job, because I’m tired.

Sorry, didn’t mean to complain. Actually I am grateful beyond words I still can work! wink

Things could be worse. Bush could be president for life! Now what could be worse than that?
McCain as president?
Well, close second.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2008 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

From the “print” format option of the site, scroll to bottom of page.

“As most of you know, the finished video will show up on this page, when it is done. I’m pretty sure that Part 2 of Obama in Eugene will be up first, though, on Monday evening. Check Wednesday, April 13 for the HRC video. All fotos on this page taken with my iPhone.”

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=opedne_nezua_080406_hillary_clinton_in_e.htm

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 11:34 am Link to this comment

<<<<<<  wishin and hopin….thinkin… prayin…plannin .....and dreamin…..

“wid dat kinda talking/writin…”  >>>>>>


Mary Isabel Catherine Bernadette O’Brien professionally known as Dusty Springfield, was an English singer and part of the British Invasion in American music in the 60s.

Dusty Springfield is an inductee of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and the UK Music Hall of Fame. Readers of the Mojo, editors of the Q, and the panel of artists by VH1 placed her among the 25 top female artists of all time.

One of her biggest hits was “Wishin and Hopin,” which I quoted in my post. Because that is what I always think of when reading or talking about Obama’s campaign.

Any time you need a history lesson omop I will be gald to oblige. (Just don’t ask for spelling or typing lessons. As you all know here at TD, that is not my forte.)  LOL

Report this

By omop, April 7, 2008 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

wishin and hopin….thinkin… prayin…plannin .....and dreamin…..


“wid dat kinda talking/writin…” one is almost temped to ‘showboating or is it snowboarding wid porgy and bert.

Since you obviously seem to be a prognosticator of long standing…’.He will lose in the November election”. That implicitly implies your logic and hey who is gonna argue with that kind of logic?

Report this

By Peter S, Los Angeles, April 7, 2008 at 10:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Did you not READ the article???
You may want to recant your statement afterwards.

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

<<<<<<  “Where is the logic , the rationale the principle for making the case for Hillary by blaspheming Obama?”  >>>>>>

She hasn’t lost yet. That is not blaspheming Obama. That is stating a fact. And logic, sir, is based on fact and not based on nonsense. All the “Wishin’ and Hopin’, And thinkin’ and prayin,‘Plannin’ and dreamin’” won’t get Obama elected in November.

He may be able to win the primary with a power grab, worthy of the Chicago machine that birthed his political career. But he will lose the Novemeber election. Republicans have too much on him now that you and others refuse to acknowledge. Now where’s the logic in that?

Report this

By omop, April 7, 2008 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

Where is the logic , the rationale the principle for making the case for Hillary by blaspheming Obama?

A trait that has stood the test of time and to a certain extent civilizational advances is ; never under-estimate or over-estimate the average person’s intelect under any circumstances.

Or in my simple pre-zarathusra world; Hillary is losing not so much due to what Obama has said or someclaimed he said or his pastor or her pastor. Hillary’s loss can only be blamed or adjucated on Hillary herself, her demeanour and her actions.

Dats, dats all ..

Report this

By WR Curley, April 7, 2008 at 9:57 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mr Boyarsky’s self-congratulatory and utterly simplistic analysis suggests that “character” is a priori defined by an unwillingness to concede defeat. And, by tacit assumption, that this quality of “character” is a positive trait.

Well.

We’ve all been privy to the anguished reflections of Robert Macnamara in his memoirs…his admission that the White House policy team running the Viet Nam adventure knew to a certainty - and for years before the fall of Saigon - that American defeat was inevitable. But he had the “character” not to concede and tens of thousands suffered pointless death and mutilation.

By Mr Boyarsky’s criteria, no one in recent history had quite so credible a claim to “character” as Adolph Hitler, who was still barking orders from his bunker as Russians and Americans thundered in above him to claim possession of a devastated Berlin.

And now we have Bush/Cheney and Condi and 100-Years Fighting John McCain, people of unyielding “character”, and their wardogs hand-picked like pitbulls for their “character”, for their unwillingness to concede defeat, even with their throats (and ours) clamped in the jaws of historical inevitability.

Stubborn truculence augers a kind of “character”, I suppose. But, please, spare us this trait in our leaders. Robert Macnamara, sleek and prosperous, in his eighties full-crammed with the ripe fruits of empire, flies first class over new growth forests fed with the blood of his dead.

WR Curley
Elizabeth, Colorado

Report this

By Maani, April 7, 2008 at 8:52 am Link to this comment

Doug, bert, lib, Joe, mensa member and all my other compadres:

By now I think it is clear that no matter what we say, no matter how many FACTS we put forth, the Obama supporters here are so rabid that NOTHING will penetrate.  And I’m sure they think the same about us.

In that regard, I take it as a badge of honor - and so should you - that each of us has been called a liar and a racist, and that all of us have been subject to ongoing ad hominem attacks, name-calling, ridiculous accusations, bullying, and a general hatefulness that I can only hope is not part of Obama’s strategy - though many of his supporters seem to have a penchant for engaging in it.

At this point, it almost doesn’t matter whether Hillary or Obama becomes the Dem nominee.  What is far more important is seeing what Obama’s campaign has brought out in some (I dare say “many”) people - a mindset and approach that would seem 180 degrees from what Obama actually “preaches”: tolerance, unity, peace, inclusion, non-demonization.

Even were it true (which it is not) that all of US were engaging in opposite practices (intolerance, exclusion, demonization, etc.), this would not excuse the Obama supporters here from engaging in those practices, IF they truly believe in their candidate’s platform.

But, clearly, they do not.  They give it lip service, but their attitudes, approaches and methods tell a different story.  One definition of “irrational” comes to mind: “lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence.”  The operative word here being “usual,” as I am certain that Cyrena, Outraged, Leefeller, Louise and others (whether Obama supporters or not) are USUALLY rational and coherent people.  But something about Obama (and, I suppose, by correlation, Hillary) has “affected” their “normal mental clarity and coherence.”

In any case, keep “fighting the good fight,” making your cases (whether pro-Hillary or critical of Obama), and attempting to enlighten.  But at the risk of seeming “defeatist,” don’t expect anything you say to penetrate the Ob-armor of your opponents.

Peace.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 7, 2008 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

Kendall, YOU QUOTE DICK MORRIS THE PERVERT??  I KEPT READING YOUR POST THINKING HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THIS STUFF AND IT IS DICK MORRIS’ THE “CLINTON HATER”
REGURGITATION.
You are either a repug or to young to remember Morris got busted sucking a prostitutes toes !!!

Report this

By lib in texas, April 7, 2008 at 8:03 am Link to this comment

Thats cause she always has her hoof (foot) in her mouth!!!!

Report this

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

<<<<<<<  Bert, your information on Obama and the Clinton campaign created NAFTA-Gate is wrong, and from tabloids.”  >>>>>>>

The facts in this matter have been posted on this site numerous times. You can continue your ad hominem attacks all you want. It does not change the facts.

However, you continue to willfully ignore it and/or you prefer to wear blinders. That way, when Obama loses in November you can continue to make your ad hominem attacks and call Americans who did not vote for Obama racist.

You seem to prefer to maintain your belief system that America is still stuck in a racist society than to accept that most Americans are making a good faith effort to move beyond that and to live up to our highest ideals. Most Americans I know embrace this new America and accept with open arms and great joy the wide range of ethnic cultures that is America today.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 7, 2008 at 7:45 am Link to this comment

It amazes me that Cyrena, Leefeller, Outrageous, Purple girl,Louise and all of the rest of the Obamaholics don’t seem to get their heads around the fact that he flat out LIED and LIES!!!  Why is that??
Rev Wright is no threat, when in fact he believes in James Cone philosophy which is to kill all whites by whatever means available.  That info is easily found with out digging, digging, digging, digging.  It will pop up right in front of your face.

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 7:40 am Link to this comment

No ad hominem attacks or responses allowed. That’s a lazy person’s only card.

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument’s proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Report this

By bert, April 7, 2008 at 7:36 am Link to this comment

Great Post!

Report this

By lib in texas, April 7, 2008 at 7:33 am Link to this comment

You two are a pair.  Cyrena CLAIMS she researches but doesn’t (if she did she wouldn’t come up with the crap she does)and you are just a dumb shit.

Report this

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

How in the hell can you write this post based on the article from that link? If there was VIDEO there I NEVER found it. Those were still photographs with commentary (OPINION not fact.) Who is this person who wrote this? Obviusly an Obama fan. Plus the name of the website was OPED News. So it is an Opinion site mot a FACT based site.

You cannot tell from this linked article what the folks were doing in Eugene, OR or who was in the audience. And of course there was that slur against old people again.

I have posted VIDEO with campaign stops for Hillary that prove she energizes the crowds. She is still neck and ewith Obama in both popular and delegate numbers. Your and the Obama’s campaign PROPOGANDA efforts to get her to quit will have no effect. LET DEMOCRACY TAKE ITS COURSE.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 7, 2008 at 7:23 am Link to this comment

Well, Mrs Joe Blow the explosive one, I am glad Penn has been fired.  I wished for this a long time ago.
Terry McAuliffe should be the one running Hillary’s campaign. I think some big opportunities have been lost with Penn at the helm.

Report this

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

You cannot believe everything you read. .

You could change every “Hillary” to “Obama” and every “she” to “he” and your post would be just as true.

Your last paragraph, the quote, is OPINION not fact, and you do not even give us the name of the author of this opinion. What galls is that you think I am so stupid I don’t know fact from opinion. I am beginning to wonder if you do.

This post is pure fantasy and unmitigated BS.

The Obama campaign has done some pretty unsavory things too. Such as sponsoring (he had a article up on his website encouraging people to go) a fundraiser in San Francisco last week where former Air American radio personality called Hillary a hoar over and over using the most vile adjectives along with the insult. And Obama’s fans were cheering and and encouraging her for more. For this Rhandi was rightly indefinately suspended from Air America. Obama and his supporters will do and say anything to win, win, win.

The NEW Black Panthers have a link to their site on Obama’s as well.During the Wright controversy the link magically disappeared. Now it is back up. Strategy to win, win, win.

Obama continues to lie about the money he takes from lobbyists. It is in the millions of dollars. Yet he lies in ads and to his followers. And he does this to win, win, win at any cost.

Obama disenfranchises MI and FL voters so that he can win, win, win, win. It is his version of the kitchen sink strategy. Win, win, win, win even if it means disenfranchising voters. win win, win.

What the U.S. Flag looks like to Obama and supporters:

http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm110/bcc_028/48-star-flag.gif

And don’t start telling me about rules, rules, rules. Obama is HIDING behind the rules like a little boy hiding behind is mommie’s apron strings when he feels scared. And geez, he is scared of being beat by a girl!!!!!!

It is Obama who has taken the low road in this canpaign not Hillary.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 7, 2008 at 5:46 am Link to this comment

Clinton’s divisiveness, is apparent to me and many other people.  Listening to the backers for Hillary, they would follow her over a cliff, they constantly reverse everything on Obama, but when you really step back and look, the kitchen sink comes from the anything goes mentality to win. 


Hillary folks, listen to yourselves, you seem deluded beyond reason. but that is what delusion is. Win any way possible, but win.  Yes a game for the unhealthy to maintain their control over Washington. Status quo, why Clinton and her supporters could not even try to take a high road, because they have nothing to support footing on a high road.

Taken from “Newsweek” Hillary concept stated below seems to be apparent to others then just the few of us on TD.


“Clinton’s best-case scenario for victory requires sundering her own party. It is an inherently divisive strategy, but she doesn’t appear to care. For Clinton, all’s fair in pursuit of victory—even destroying her party from within. Her campaign has adopted a bizarre “insult-40-states strategy,” which has belittled states small, liberal and Red. Apparently, the only states that matter are the ones she coincidentally happens to win.”

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 7, 2008 at 5:28 am Link to this comment

Really sick in my book, criminal mentality personified and accepted by some as a game, even worse.

Great OP ED Outraged, thanks.

Report this

By cyrena, April 7, 2008 at 5:08 am Link to this comment

No DON, It doesn’t ring a ‘fucking’ bell, because I didn’t know that bells did.

I do remember the Reginald incident however, as well as what led up to it.

I remember the Watts riots as well. No ‘lynch’ mobs involved there though.

Would you like an ‘education’ on what created those riots, as well as the Reginald incident a few decades later?

No, I don’t have time. Sorry.

You talk ‘real tuff’ there ‘big don’ but that’s pretty much all it seems to be, eh?

No, I’m not planning to stop posting on this site, so maybe you should just stop pretending that you know how to read.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 7, 2008 at 4:00 am Link to this comment

That’s for sure, a Clinton would never ever…ever, never…lie.  It’s just not in their makeup.  They feel the pain of the little people; they know our travails; and they understand how important honesty is.  (Depending, of course, on the meaning of “is”.)

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 7, 2008 at 3:23 am Link to this comment

By cyrena, April 7:“PS…the infamous Douglas Chalmers…..  “Lies——- all lies. The author is a liar and a hypocrite!!” - General Pinochet, May 1992…”

So now I am supposed to be “Augusto Pinochet”, ha ha!!!

By the way, this quote (not from Augusto Pinochet) is from another thread that I recommend :-

no cure for hyperbole: “If Coco-Boutte is only 51, she is not a senior, so there is no relevance to the U.S. seniors line, other than to pull the heart strings of the reader…...

She states she is on a limited income, which I am sure puts a strain on her, since in addition to her medications she is also paying to attend college and helping to charter the train to Canada…....

I am not trying to knock people on fixed incomes, people on Medicare, senior citizens, college students, or anyone else trying to save a dime, especially on prescription drugs.

I just wish when reporters actually made an effort to report on something as important as this that they would take the time to make sure their article explained the facts and left the hyperbole to the politicians.”

Report this

By cyrena, April 7, 2008 at 3:07 am Link to this comment

The following quote came to mind when I read this last portion of what we hope really IS a promise of ‘I will say no more’…from the infamous Douglas Chalmers as quoted first from him…

•  “…..I’ll say no more, although I don’t appreciate being constantly harassed by an obsessed individual who obviously constructs lies and disavowals in the belief that they are valid (legal) argument….”

Now THAT was from Douglas Chalmers, after more than a year of harassing ME… (typical..they always ‘mimick’ when they’ve backed themselves into a corner).

Anyway, read this quote from his ideological name sake:

•  “Lies——- all lies. The author is a liar and a hypocrite!!”

•  ~~General Pinochet, May 1992

And so, there we have it folks. That’s what Augusto Pinochet had to say when he was confronted with his own atrocities, and they were exposed for all the world to see.

All he could say was that ‘they’ were “ALL LIES” and that the person (author) exposing him and his evil deeds was the ‘liar and a hypocrite”.

It’s SOOOO typical. When finally called out and exposed, they claim all the ‘others’ to be the ‘liars’.


By the way, that quote (from Augusto Pinochet) is from the book that I previously recommended on another thread…

“A Miracle, A Universe: Settling Accounts with Torturers” by Lawrence Weschler, University of Chicago Press, 1990, Postscript copywright 1998.

From the back cover:

“During the past fifteen years, one of the most vexing issues facing fledgling democracies around the world—-from South Africa to Eastern Europe, from Cambodia to Bosnia—-has been what to do about the still-toxic security apparatus left over from previous regimes. In this profoundly influential study, the ‘New Yorker’s Lawrence Weschler probes these dilemmas across tow gripping narratives, set in Brazil and Uruguay, true-life thrillers in which torture victims, faced with the paralysis of the fragile new regime, band together to settle accounts with their former tormentors.”

Pinochet of course was the Argentinean dictator- torturer, who did the coup assisted by the US/CIA, (as they have all been, in ALL of these Latin American and Middle Eastern nations- a product of the CIA) and became the torturer of that nation.

And now, we here at home, have suffered the same torment, and will need to go though the same ‘exorcism’ of that old regime and it’s left-over ‘security apparatus’ before we can effectively heal.

The book is an excellent read, as well as “Exorcising Terror’ by Ariel Dorfman. It… “explores how we can purge ourselves of terror and fear” (such as generated by our current regime) “once we have been traumatized, and asks if we can build peace and reconciliation without facing a turbulent and perverse past”.  (from the back cover of “Exorcising Terror”.)

I would suggest that we DO have to ‘face’ this past, if only to the extent of acknowledging it. For that, the truth must be in full view.

And, we need to recognize that ‘left over’ apparatus for who and what they are.

Report this

By cyrena, April 7, 2008 at 1:22 am Link to this comment

People who attack others shouldn’t leave a trail to their front door on the internet….... I’ll say no more, although I don’t appreciate being constantly harassed by an obsessed individual who obviously constructs lies and disavowals in the belief that they are valid (legal) argument.
Chalmers,

I’ve never ‘asserted’ that I was a teacher, though I do teach. As for me being ‘merely’ a student, the ‘student’ part is certainly correct. And, I have a extraordinarily high regard for ALL of the ‘students’ that I associate with, and I hope to be a ‘student’ myself, for the rest of my days.

My ‘status’ as a scholar in the field of Law and Society is hardly a secret, so if Maani reads this very public forum, he already knows that. I mentioned it long ago, and more than once, in response to your obvious ‘picking’ and to REFUTE the assumptions of both you and Maani, that I was (from you) ‘some lecturer in California” or from Maani, “a professor”. I advised you both at the time, that you had ‘guessed wrong’.  (even though I do lecture from time to time, and unlike Slick Willy Clinton, I refuse to accept payment for it).

As for leaving a trail to my doorstep on the internet? I think that would only apply to those whom have DEDICATED their time to trying to FIND a trail to my doorstep, for well over a year now.

So, you never did answer my question. SHOULD I POST THE DETAILED ACCOUNTS OF ALL OF YOUR PRIVATE MESSAGES TO ME, ALONG WITH MY RESPONSES? Or, was THIS your response…

“….I’ll say no more…BUT…”

That’s not good enough Chalmers. You’ll need to let me know, that you would prefer that I NOT expose you for what you are. And, I’ll be happy to keep your dirty little secrets.

I won’t even post your email address there in Australia, because I wouldn’t want to provide anyone (on a public forum) with a ‘trail to your doorstep’.

So, you just need to let me know, and right here on this public forum, since you’ve obviously figured out by now, that you are blocked from sending me any more ‘private messages’.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 7, 2008 at 12:08 am Link to this comment

Great Op-ed.

You will see very plainly from the videotape that many of the people behind Clinton (even though handpicked by the campaign) were definitely not excited, and in fact often looked very bored, didn’t clap when they were supposed to, or made tired, perfunctory “golf claps” on the applause lines. I honestly felt embarrassed for the Senator more than once”

“I now respect Clinton’s 3D supporters much more than her online supporters. Probably because these ones often seemed happy, as well as happy to see me, instead of sneering at me or calling me names. (Then again, I don’t wear any MTV gear online and at the HRC rally, I wasn’t talking to people about Obama. So who knows!)”

****

Finally, Clinton is still telling the “woman-turned’away-and-died” hospital story that she has been told is not true, and has been asked not to by Rick Castrop, chief executive officer of the O’Bleness Health System in Athens, Ohio. Get the facts of the story here.

Ultimately, while I gained some respect for Clinton and her supporters that I did not previously have, what I have confirmed for myself that remains true of Clinton is this type of behavior that anything goes, that she can do or say anything to opponents, that she can tell whatever stories she wants because it is all excused by the chase for power, that its part of the game, and that if you can’t take that, you oughtta not be in politics. That is, she defends old schools biznass as-is. In fact, she excuses too much with the same line (almost verbatim) we’ve been hearing from the current resident of the White House who also subscribes to “Ends justify the means” philosophy. Clinton tells us to “leave it to the history books” to decide right and wrong. But we don’t live in history books. We live here, now. I have to say when I hear Bush and Clinton say “leave it to the history books” it sounds to me a lot like “I can do what I want and maybe one day it will seem honorable, because now it sure doesn’t.” And I’m hard-pressed to think of how this thought ever came to be an acceptable defense for anything.

A sign in the auditorium spelled out “Oregon is Clinton Country” and Hillary looked at it and said “I hope that’s true.” Maybe so, maybe not. Judging by what I’ve personally witnessed at Senators Obama’s and Clinton’s stops in Eugene, I’d say probably not.

But we’ll know for sure in May.”

Full article: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_nezua_080406_hillary_clinton_in_e.htm

Report this

By cyrena, April 6, 2008 at 10:18 pm Link to this comment

Bert, your information on Obama and the Clinton campaign created NAFTA-Gate is wrong, and from tabloids.

That’s all I’ll say on that.

It’s wrong, long ago revealed as the ‘scheme’ that it was.

The only ones still focused on it are those - like yourself, who have to live in the gutter, to keep the original lies in the ‘headlines’ of your own minds.

Meantime, I certainly DID expect you to ‘rationalize’ Hillary’s long term criminal connections to major lobbyists, because anybody that’s been paying even the slightest bit of attention knows that Hillary Clinton was 1000% in favor of the NAFTA deal TO BEGIN WITH, and that she spent an ENORMOUS amount of time working to sell it to Congress while she was getting all of that “First Lady” experience you like to brag about. Matter of fact, without Hillary’s hard work, NAFTA would probably have NEVER BEEN NEGOTIATED or otherwise squeaked through Congress, and ‘squeak through’ is EXACTLY what it did.

So, should we talk about Barack Obama and NAFTA, or should we talk about Hillary Clinton and NAFTA? Should we talk about the violence that has irrupted at World Trade Conferences as a RESULT of NAFTA? Can we do a little bit of checking on the OTHER results of NAFTA that Hillary has long supported? It’s all documented bert. And while I won’t put the entire creation of NAFTA on the Clintons in the 90’s, because they basically just sealed the practices that were begun before them, they are responsible for that much of it. Yes, for the decline of the competitiveness in our own economy as well as our own fall way behind the rest of the world in the sciences and technology that we need to remain competitive.

NAFTA bert, is responsible for the ‘immigration’ problem which is 100% economically based. Now, if somebody really wanted to go through the trouble to do it, we can connect HRC to the overall decline of the entire economy of the us, as it has been allowed by NAFTA. Know anything about Wal-Mart bert? There are some excellent books. I’ll get the titles for you. Hillary Clinton sat on that board…among the first crew of its board members, for 6 years. Are you aware that the evil Wal-Mart would never have become what it is WITHOUT Hillary’s negotiated NAFTA?

So, what else bert? Oh, on her CHIEF CAMPAIGN STRATEGIST here. You say she ‘handled it with aplomb’. Gee, do you think that even though she’s known him for at least a dozen years, that she was somehow ‘unaware’ of this deal that was made nearly a year ago? How could that be? The whole purpose of the $300,000 was to ‘educate CONGRESS and other influential people’ Read – lobby, bribe, via propaganda. And tell us exactly WHEN Hillary all of a sudden became concerned about the treatment of workers in Columbia, when THAT has been a direct result of the NAFTA shit that she put together in the first place?
I think she got ‘concerned’ when he got BUSTED! She didn’t start ‘denouncing’ any of it till she started her presidential campaign.

But yeah, I guess you COULD say that this is very “Presidential”, if you’re using the Dick Bush Model for comparison.

Yes, it’s all very much like what we’ve had in the past 8 years, and the years since Hillary and Bill created NAFTA.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 6, 2008 at 9:59 pm Link to this comment

Maani, you need to know that cyrena (er, I mean “Mrs.  Blow”) is actually merely a student in Law + Society, not a teacher, despite her erroneous assertations in the past - and she’s been struggling at that for years now, uhh.

People who attack others shouldn’t leave a trail to their front door on the internet….... I’ll say no more, although I don’t appreciate being constantly harassed by an obsessed individual who obviously constructs lies and disavowals in the belief that they are valid (legal) argument.

Report this

By cyrena, April 6, 2008 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment

Ok Maani, since you love to obfuscate, and I’m more blunt.

WHATEVER the ‘connection’ is

DOES NOT MATTER. OK?

I does NOT MATTER that I was once married to Joe Blow. He was a nice enough guy at the time, and he probably still is. (I don’t know…it’s been damn near 30 years since I’ve seen or spoken to him.)

THAT is the point Maani. There are JILLIONS of ‘connections’ that you can site, if you look hard enough. You might find that Obama’s dry cleaner once did time for some sort of drug offense, and Obama might even have bailed him out of jailed, and represented him in court.

Here again, let me repeat what I’ve said, that you ALSO repeated, but totally missed..I DON’T GIVE A RAT’S ASS about the guy, and it would APPEAR, that the majority of the POPULACE DOESN’T EITHER!

Now, I TOO, have donated to Barack Obama’s campaign. Should we do a life and/or criminal history on every donor. I mean hey, it’s ‘connected’. You can trace my donations for sure.

Yeah, why don’t you do that Maani. Start tracking down EVERY SINGLE OTHER INDIVIDUAL who has donated to Barack Obama’s campaign.

Let us know what you find out, but NOT before you’ve investigated ALL of them.

And make sure you get everybody’s DNA. Otherwise, we might think you are making shit up. AGAIN.

Report this

By Maani, April 6, 2008 at 9:02 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

“I don’t give a rats ass about Rezko or Renko or whatever the hell his name is. You’ve tried to CREATE a connection that just isn’t there…”

And you talk about BERT being in denial!!

The FACTS about the relationship between Obama and Rezko are so completely and solidly established that I challenge you to find a single word - in any MSM, AM or other media - suggesting otherwise:

-Rezko was one of Obama’s earliest patrons.  He gave Obama money for his very first campaign, and was part of Obama’s “inner circle” during that campaign.

-Rezko remained a close political associate of Obama’s during his first term in the State Senate.

-Rezko and Obama worked closely for five to six months on a real estate deal involving contiguous lots.

-Rezko raised and/or bundled ~$150,000 for Obama during his two terms as a State Senator.

-Rezko raised and/or bundled an additional ~$100,000 for Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign.

These are ESTABLISHED FACTS.  They are NOT open to interpretation, question or debate.  Neither Doug, bert, lib, myself or anyone else is “creating” a connection: the connection is THERE.  SOLIDLY.

In fact, Obama has ADMITTED to ALL of the above - though he first lied and/or attempted to obfuscate, dissemble and/or spin it.  So are you now going to tell us that OBAMA HIMSELF is “creating” a connection that isn’t there?

I never thought I’d say this, but you really are hopeless.

Peace.

Report this

By Don Vito, April 6, 2008 at 8:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Your claim that no black lynch mobs have ever existed is typical left-wing idiocy and PC blindness.

What about the mobs that attacked white people in the Watts riots, the Newark riots, the LA riots?  Reginald Denny ring a fucking bell?

What about the central park jogger?  Wilding?  Gang banging?  Ever hear of the Crips, Bloods?

What about the tens of thousands of rapes and killings perpetrated by black youths each year against non-black citizens?

Obama said he wanted to have a frank discussion about race.  Ok… and you Bama-androids lapped it up.  Turned out the Obama moron society has neither the balls nor the facts to really talk frankly about race… and cyrena is the poster child for this denial.

When you’re ready to talk about it fo’ real - the fact that mixed race/mixed gender crime is about 99.9% black men on white women - let me know.  Until then, git a J-O-B, git off gubmint welfare and stop posting on this site.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2008 at 7:57 pm Link to this comment

Hillary must have said gol-ley you need to go guy, this has just become so uncomfortable and looks real bad for me. But if I just say I found out about it today, that makes it aplomb, yep that is what it is aplomb.

Bert, what does aplomb mean?

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 6, 2008 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

Check your math.

How many people do you say live in Maine?

“There were 121,068,721 total votes cast in the 2004 General election in Maine: R- 62, 040,610; D- 59,028,111. So, to say that Obama won the state by 59% is highly misleading and meaningless when to really WIN a state in the Presidential election he will need to get about 63,000,000 more votes out of Maine to beat McCain”.

The fact that Maine was again the whitest state in America was advertised on the radio and in the newspapers while I was vacationing in Old Orchard Beach last summer, it was a statement of fact.

Report this

By bert, April 6, 2008 at 6:45 pm Link to this comment

At least she did not deny it for seven days issuing 5 diferent statements lying about it like Obama with NAFTA Gate. She met it head on, dealt with it and has moved on.

In the NAFTA gate situation Obama flatly denied (that means LIED) the report, at least 5 different times over the course of a week or more. In this situation Obama looked and behaved like a petulent child with his hand in the cookie jar trying to lie his way around the facts.

In contrast Clinton handled this with the professisonal aplomb of one used to dealing with issues of this nature. In fact she looked down right Presidentail.

Report this

By cyrena, April 6, 2008 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

Actually Bert,

I’m pretty familiar with on line research, having taken full advantage of the technology to assist in my own academic work. Been doing it a while now, even before I resumed that work a half-dozen years ago. (my earlier career required it as well)

And yes, I’d say that petty probably is a relative term, just like one person’s trash is another person’s treasure.

So, you’re welcome to continue your dumpster-diving and sewer dwelling, because I don’t give a rats ass about Rezko or Renko or whatever the hell his name is. You’ve tried to CREATE a connection that just isn’t there, to anyone other than you and the rest of those dwelling in the gutter.

I call it the gutter euphemistically, but Louise has called it plainly what it IS. You all are dwelling in the false realities of your own making.

You live in denial of reality, and so create your own, because you like it better. The problem is that you can’t sell a created reality to other folks, no matter how hard you try.

That doesn’t mean you can’t keep trying, it just means that it’s still only YOUR reality. To the rest of us, it’s PETTY.

I personally have NOT fixated on ANY of Hillary’s major ‘gaffes’ which are actually lies. She made them up, I didn’t. But no, I’m not FIXATED on any of her fantasies, because I’m inclined to REALITY.

So it is YOU bert, who has the EXTREMELY misplaced sense of what is right/wrong/important/not important, and you can (and I’m sure you WILL) continue to maintain that misplaced sense of what is right/wrong/important/not important. (I know others your age that maintain the same ignorant fantasies, but they honestly DO believe that they’ve ‘got it all together’) The point is, (and it’s been said here so many times) Mentally unstable people don’t KNOW that they’re mentally unstable. If they DID, they’d probably choose NOT to be. That’s the cruel paradox of mental instability. As a general rule, the ‘fault’ (if we want to call it that) isn’t even with the person. Sometimes, yes…but in many cases, like with organic stuff like bi-polar or other disorders, the individual certainly hasn’t ASKED or chosen to be so afflicted.

I don’t know WHAT your own problem is bert, but it is YOURS. Since you don’t know that you have it, you won’t seek help for it.

What you’ll ALSO never get or otherwise accept, is that no matter how many times you try to reflect your own personal inadequacies and erroneous judgment onto others, the reality still won’t go away. Yours is a much distorted view of reality, and your exceedingly poor judgment is clearly evident in your posts.

It doesn’t take a genius to decipher that from what you write here bert.  Seriously. I’m not trying to denigrate or anything else. It is what it is. Even the younger members of my own family can read this stuff from you and figure it out. Your own sense of judgment is so totally skewed. It’s scary to think that you were at one time responsible for the education of others, but I know from my own experience that this happens often. (I once had a neighbor in Texas, we called them, ‘the family from hell’) When I discovered the wife was actually a school teacher, (and at a middle school no less) I was MORTIFIED!!

But, it happens. People like you are allowed to blend in with the crowd so to speak, and spread all of your insidious slime. There’s not much protection for those who haven’t already been provided with the intuitiveness and intelligence to sort though all of this shit, and put it in proper perspective. So the best we can hope for is that it can at least provide a learning experience of the reality that exists in the gutter, so that eventually, they CAN separate it out, for the slime that it is.

Finally bert, people who already KNOW EVERYTHING can never LEARN anything. So, you just stay stupid.

The truly educated on the other hand, never graduate. There’s ALWAYS more to learn. Knowledge is infinite.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2008 at 5:46 pm Link to this comment

Bert you have done it again, showing us the light, your dim bulb lighting the way to wisdom.

Yes, your positive assessment of Hillary is enlightening and moving, I must admit you have shown me the light.  Now that we know Hillary speaks the truth and is not a liar.  If you are correct and Hillary is not a chronic liar like Bush, how will she fill his shoes?

Pondering the non issues like you, I suppose.

Report this

By cyrena, April 6, 2008 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment

There can be no doubt that Senator Clinton’s supporters have read this. Not a peep of course.

Yes, Mrs Clinton has expressed her ‘disappointment’ in him and he has ‘asked’ to step aside.

Mrs. Clinton has also PUBLICALY ‘denounced’ this trade deal, though it doesn’t say exactly WHEN she decided to do that.

I guess we are to assume that Sen Clinton had NO IDEA that her top political strategist was involved in this, DESPITE the fact that she and Bill have personal friends and BUSINESS partners with Mr. Penn for at least a dozen years.

Colombia Fires Top Clinton Aide’s Firm
WASHINGTON—The Colombian government said Saturday it has fired Mark Penn’s public relations firm after the chief campaign strategist for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton apologized for meeting with Colombian officials pushing a trade deal with the U.S.
Colombian officials said they terminated their contract with lobbying and public relations giant Burson-Marsteller in response to a statement released Friday by Penn, the firm’s chief executive, calling the meeting an “error in judgment.” Clinton opposes the trade deal.

“The Colombian government considers this a lack of respect to Colombians, and finds this response unacceptable,” government officials said in a news release. The government will continue its push for a free trade agreement with the United States, they added.

The Colombian government is trying to secure congressional passage of the agreement signed in 2006 by Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and the Bush administration.

“According to Justice Department filings, Colombia agreed last year to pay Burson-Marsteller $300,000 to help “educate members of the U.S. Congress and other audiences” about the trade deal and secure continued U.S. funding for the $5 billion anti-narcotics program Plan Colombia.”

read full article

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/clinton_aide_colombia/2008/04/05/85755.html?s=al&promo_code=3C54-1

Chief Strategist of Clinton Campaign Steps Down
By JOHN M. BRODER
ALBUQUERQUE — Mark Penn, the architect of much of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign, has been replaced as the campaign’s chief strategist in the wake of revelations that he lobbied on behalf of a trade treaty with Colombia that Mrs. Clinton opposes.

Mr. Penn, who has been associated with Mrs. Clinton and former President Bill Clinton for a dozen years, has come under withering criticism for continuing to consult with clients as chief executive of Burson-Marsteller, the international lobbying and public relations firm.

In a terse statement, Maggie Williams, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager, said, “After the events of the last few days, Mark Penn has asked to give up his role as chief strategist of the Clinton campaign.”

His polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, will continue to provide polling and advice to the campaign, the statement said…
Mr. Penn, long a divisive figure within the Clinton camp, lost his pre-eminent position after revelations that he met with Colombia’s ambassador to the United States last Monday in his role as head of Burson-Marsteller. The Colombian government hired the lobbying firm last year under a $300,000 one-year contract to help secure passage of a bilateral trade treaty with the United States.

A person within the Clinton campaign said Sunday that Mrs. Clinton was “disappointed” that Mr. Penn had taken on Colombia as a client and had met with Colombian officials to advise them on how to win passage of a pact she has publicly denounced.

read full article

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/us/politics/06cnd-penn.html?_r=1&hp;&oref;=slogin

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2008 at 5:34 pm Link to this comment

Hillary and company almost seem to be screaming, look at my dirty laundry, please! 

My attacks on the Clinton’s have been only because I do not want to see them dragging the Whitehouse down with their games of non issue.  I believe they are bought and sold by special interests and we will see little difference from Bush being in office.  Her vote for the war and all the others that voted for the war should be shown the door and do not let it hit them on the way out.

Obama, is not perfect, but in no way shape or form does he have the huge garbage scow of baggage the Clinton’s accumulated over the years obtaining their so called experience. 

Hillary shrills, tell us something good about Hillary, please.

Report this

By kevin99999, April 6, 2008 at 5:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“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.”

Are these the same political reporters who hammered her day after day regardless of the facts or events while giving free to her opponents after refusing to ask the tough questions. I agree that Clinton is a status quo candidate but I despise political reporters more who have no honesty or priniciples and just guided by their own prejudices whether they are on the left of on the right. What this campaign made cystal clear to me is that liberals are just ethically challenged as the right.

Report this

By bert, April 6, 2008 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

you dig, dig, dig dig, dig, dig for petty non-issues

Doesn’t take digging and digging and digging and digging and digging and digging and digging at all. Less than a minute to type something into browesr, hit a button and in less than 30 seconds I have the info I seek.

And I guess petty is a relative term. I don’t think lying about Wright, Rezko, NAFTA-gate, lying on Tim Russert, lying in a book you wrote (at least Hillary got her Bosnia story straight in HER book) are petty issues. They go straight to the heart of character and credibility. And the issue about lying about taking oil monet, lobbyists money is VERY severe.

If you can’t see that and fixate on Hillary’s gaffe on Bosnia then you have a misplaced sense of what is right and wrong and important and not as important.

Report this

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

Great post….

Did ya get that Maani?

Did ya get the part about Clinton’s vote to CRIMINALIZE the burning of the flag?

Why did you say otherwise? Just confused?

Were you aware, (since you do the petty stuff and all of the red-herring nitpicking and obstrufication) that there is a PROTOCAL for retiring old flags, and that it involves BURNING THEM? Yep. I wonder if Hillary knew that before she voted to criminalize the procedure?

Do you think SHE’S confused as well?

Scary.

Report this

By cyrena, April 6, 2008 at 4:14 pm Link to this comment

Leefeller…On this:

“...Very profound Bert
“Me thinketh thou are full of ca-ca.” Seems we have reached deep into your sub conscience Bert. Thanks for supporting my premise…”

See how easy it is to have your very asute premises supported? wink

All ya gotta do is ask, and there ya go…

Ask and you shall receive. (Not that anybody promised what it would be, but you already knew what to expect).

This brought a chuckle.

Report this

By cyrena, April 6, 2008 at 4:01 pm Link to this comment

Part 1
Dear Louise,
Thank you for this excellent post, even though we have of course been round and round with these basic issues, and I’m now of the mind that they will never ‘assist’ those who could be most assisted by this knowledge or perspective. That doesn’t mean however, that those among us (as well as those who may continue to join us here) cannot benefit from the repetition of hearing this. So, for that purpose, I’m going to repost the portion of your post here (again) that gets to the heart of it:

•  “In the face of fantasy and deception, you dig, dig, dig for petty non-issues and try to make them something of value. Now what’s wrong with that? Nothing if you don’t like living in reality. Everything if your mind-numbing ignorance leads to the deliberate harm of someone else, by creating or perpetuating lies…. I think that’s even targeted in the Bible. “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor…”

It is the digging, digging, digging, for PETTY NON-ISSUES that tells the story. It tells the story because they are the SAME petty issues over, and over, and over again, with details that have been created and twisted and taken out of context and all of the rest of it…

Again, I emphasize the digging, and the digging, and the digging. I have to emphasize it for a few reasons. I have to point it out because for one thing, it speaks to the desperate need to CREATE negativities about Barack Obama. Another poster, (several actually) have come away from this with the assumption that Obama must be squeaky clean, if they have to resort to first digging, digging, digging, and then THIS IS THE BEST THEY CAN COME UP WITH. That was not MY stated opinion either, but it has been stated by others, and it’s been stated by Maani many times as well, as far back as his original campaign. The campaign to smear Obama.

In fact, he’s even used that terminology in the early portions of the campaign. “Obama is NOT squeaky clean” even though no one here had ever said he was. Maani has also consistently harped that his only reason for ‘being here’ was to counter what he saw as ‘Hillary bashing’ when he first began visiting the site. That was months ago now, and there was no ‘Hillary bashing’ going on. There were, rather, the mostly standard comments (and OPINIONS) that prevail on these literally hundreds of blog sites that pepper the Internet, and specifically in reference to politics.

I believe that the majority (not all) of the posters to this site can in fact see this for what it is. It’s a major, yes gargantuan effort on the part of a few—maybe ½ dozen at the most, to conduct a most concerted effort (and it has been a determined one) at smearing/slandering/swiftboating Obama as a man, and as a presidential candidate. Chalmers, Maani, Bert, Joe in Maine, Lib in Texas, Lee, and there are the occasional others.

The ONLY one among the Hillary fans that actually does speak to attempt to elevate her is Sue Cook. Admittedly, I don’t think that her reasons are valid, because they are all very subjective and ‘emotional’. Still, she’s the ONLY one who actually weighs in on a positive side of any Hillary supporter. The others spend ALL (literally 99.9 %) of their time trying to build the flimsiest of connections of negativity to Barack Obama.
The thing that makes this the MOST obvious, and the MOST telling, is that there actually ARE genuine criticisms that they COULD make in respect to the things that matter in these issues facing these candidates, INCLUDING Barack Obama. But, they are so busy chasing and digging for the petty NON-issues, and repeating them over and over again, that they MISS the real significant ones that COULD be problematic for Obama among objectively thinking voters.

I’m NOT going to provide the fodder for them here myself, because on these issues, I’m hoping that Obama himself, as well as his advisors, will address and possibly change there positions on these things as events continue to unfold.

Report this

By cyrena, April 6, 2008 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment

Part 2
Meantime, the superficial/shallow petty peeps of this blog will continue to weave and sew with invisible materials, not unlike the tailors of the Emperors invisible clothes. And some will be fooled, but most simply will not.

Ironically, the only thing that a couple of them have ever used to justify their swiftboating of Barack Obama, in order to elevate their own candidate, (that same backward logic that has been in existence since their initial appearances here) is that they say they WANNA WIN in the general election, and they are sure, (Bert and Joe in Maine are strongly attached to this) that ONLY Hillary can win against McCain. Bert is even sure that there can be all sorts of ‘dirt’ that can be thrown at Obama by the Repugs, and so the only chance the Dems have of winning is Hillary.

This is what we call DENIAL in its strongest form, and totally ludicrous on its face, because the reality is that if after ALL THIS TIME, and expended energy, they’ve YET to come up with anything ‘significantly’ damaging to Barack the ‘other’ repugs aren’t going to be able to do any better. Unfortunately, they DO have a whole lot more to work with in respect to Hillary, that was BEFORE she started her campaign. That was BEFORE she started lying for no reason. (like what was the point in lying about the Bosnia trip?)

In other words, things CANNOT be ‘created’ out of thin air, and expected to pass the muster.

On the OTHER hand, there is TONS of dirt that the Repugs can drag out on Hillary Clinton, some of it true, and some of it non-issue stuff that can be created and turned into the same public relations frenzy that they’ve spent so many months attempting to create for the destruction of Barack Obama.
Still, I don’t expect it to stop. These folks have already proven that this is THEIR MISSION, to destroy Barack Obama. It’s just sad that they presume that other folks don’t see through it, and that at the end of the day, it more likely pushes ‘on the fence’ voters in his direction, rather than hers.

Thanks again, for making the point so succinctly.

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 6, 2008 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

issues need to be raised and studied not foibles of individuals. after all politicos r mere hired guns/ mouths of the invisible but extant hand that guides US and other lands.
is there an invisible ruling class in US? is any housewife or worker part of this ruling class?
who or what is this ruling class?
do media owners, billionares, shareholders, anchorpeople, high echelons of the army, cia, fbi. city police rule all lands and US especially? these r the issues.
isn’t an issue that politicos talk down to us while they’r perched on a stage? why aren’t we sitting in a cyrcle? why do we lis’n to ‘promises’, blame, selfpraise, evocation of great perils, glittering generalities which no one can decypher, demonization, etcetc? thank u.

Report this

By Maani, April 6, 2008 at 1:51 pm Link to this comment

Louise:

You conflate two things: “knowing someone, or having a passing association with someone” and making false statements (usually called “lies”) REGARDING that association.

It is not Obama’s ASSOCIATIONS with Rezko, Wright, et al that makes him a “liar” (NO ONE here accused him of being a “criminal”), it is the statements he has made WITH RESPECT TO those associations (and other things) that makes him a “liar.”

Obama stated - categorically - during the South Carolina debate that his “only” connection with Rezko was “5 hours” as a “junior attorney” on “one case.”  We all heard him say it, and the transcript proves it.  Yet AT THE TIME HE MADE THIS STATEMENT, the TRUTH was that he had known Rezko for 20 years, that Rezko had been among his earliest political sponsors, that he and Rezko had worked closely for five or six months on a real estate deal, and that he had accepted about a quarter of a million dollars from Rezko and his family and friends.

That, my dear lady, makes his statement during the debate a LIE.

When the Canada/NAFTA situation arose, Obama’s initial - categorical - statement (which can easily be found across the media spectrum) was that “neither I nor anyone in my campaign spoke with or met with anyone in the Canadian government.”  Yet the truth at the time was the Austen Goolsbee HAD in fact been in contact with the Canadian government.  Less than 48 hours after making his initial statement, Obama admitted that, yes, Goolsbee HAD contacted the Canadian government.

This, dear lady, makes his initial statement a LIE. (Unless you are suggesting that his top economic advisor undertook this without his knowledge - which would stretch credibility a bit too far.)

When the Wright flap first occurred, Obama stated -  categorically - that he had not been “in the pews” when Wright made “any” of his incendiary statements.  Yet during his now-famous speech (in which he largely deflected the entire Wright issue by focusing the attention on race in general - the latter of which I openly admit is a good thing), he admitted that, yes, he WAS “in the pews” when Wright made “some” of his incendiary comments.

As noble as it was to apologize, this, dear lady, nevertheless makes his initial statement a LIE.

I could go on, but you get my point.  Those of us who accuse Obama of lying are NOT making those accusations based on his ASSOCIATIONS with people or events, but on his STATEMENTS about those associations and events, and the fact that his initial statements all turned out to be LIES.

Peace.

Report this

By felicity, April 6, 2008 at 1:27 pm Link to this comment

Think again, Douglas, about a woman in the WH.  I heard Hillary recently say - lamenting the reign of the present WH occupier - “Things will be different when WE’RE back in the White House.”

I definitely support Obama, and, the lies, prevarications, exaggerations, grand-standing, hyperbola, sycophancy…are merely politics as usual. As to who will do a better job?  Hillary is a real pig-in-a-poke.  Her actual claim to fame echoes the definition of a celebrity, someone who is famous for being well-known; Obama is a master talker, manager, tactician and strategist, and that’s about all. At least he has something going for him.

Report this

By bert, April 6, 2008 at 1:17 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<  Elevate your candidate!  Cant do it can you? >>>>

Already did that in a challenge, I think form you, or maybe cyrena, or the both of you. You either ignored that post, or read it and made no comment. Cyrena said my post on Hillary’s strong points was meaningless or some such dismissive comment.

And your constant insults of me and others just shows a lack of good manners, and either reflects poorly on your upbringing and reflect badly on you not me.

And continually condoning Obama’s lies, no matter what nice veneer you try to put on it does not absolve either you, the enabler, or the liar himself.

You are just like Rhandi Rhoades who got suspended indefinately from Air America this week for her vile, outrageous and hateful statements about Hillary at an Obama sponsored event that even raised money for Obama.

I expect these type of vile attacks from Republicans. I am dismayed by these type of hate attacks from so called progressive liberals. Are you sure you are a progressive liberal? Or are you a radical conservative in disguise here at TD. I wonder??????

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 6, 2008 at 12:56 pm Link to this comment

Sure Chalmers, I caught most of the words, but I still don’t see your premise for directing me to this video.  I’ll ask again.

“Are you saying YOU’RE going to kill all men, or I’m going to kill all men… you’re not making sense.  Or are you saying you think I’m a man and that this is a threat, a “hint” of things to come?  What is your point..?

If you’re trying to get me to understand you’re serious, I already know that.  That’s why I said you’re fucked up. Sometimes I have a hard time speaking “nutcasese” can you explain…?”

Report this

By Louise, April 6, 2008 at 12:42 pm Link to this comment

Uh excuse me, I didn’t call Hillary a Liar. She did!
And there is a huge difference between altered memory, association by name and deliberately falsifying fact.

So I repeat, I think your all repubs under cover ... uncovered.

And you just proved that, because you completely MISSED my challenge!

Elevate your candidate!

Cant do it can you?

Not because there isn’t plenty of great stuff to say about Hillary, but because YOU DON’T KNOW HOW!

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 6, 2008 at 12:39 pm Link to this comment

Great post Louise.  By the way some of these “supposed” Clinton supporters whine, you would think they are republicans.  But then again, Clinton is fairly repubican herself so I guess that’s par for the course.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 6, 2008 at 12:28 pm Link to this comment

Oh, its just because I posted something PRO Hillary, bert +  lib in texas. Thus one of these “Idiots for Obama” have to come along and post something CONTRA just to keep things in ‘balance’, uhh….... yes, yet another aspect of “cyrena”!

Report this

By lib in texas, April 6, 2008 at 11:59 am Link to this comment

Since your above post was a bunch of drivel, just go back to sleep seems you don’t have a clue.  OR are you another personality of cyrena???

Report this

By bert, April 6, 2008 at 11:55 am Link to this comment

This post is just a long, confusing, wordy, rambling way of you saying that what is OK for the gander is not OK for the goose.

Why can’t YOU understand that when you call Hillary a liar and then ignore or worse yet, condone Obama’s lying it makes you a hypocrite.

When you willfully ignore Obama’s raising monet from the same sources as Hillary and then condemn one and ignore the other it makes you apart of the deceitful game Obama is playing.

And once again I find myself thinking you really don’t want Obama to be president. You just want to destroy Hillary.


Undercover repubs, uncovered.  NOT.

Idiots for Obama uncovered yet again!!!!!

Report this

By Louise, April 6, 2008 at 11:38 am Link to this comment

Dear Hillary “supporters”

Years ago I worked on a house for a family who hired a General Contractor. The general, on several occasions met with me. We sat down and went over the designs, and design changes. We walked the lot together, several times. Sometimes with the owner, sometimes not. We met on more than one occasion to select materials and finishes. A couple of times we even stopped on the way and grabbed a burger.

Well, turns out the guy was a crook. The homeowners got the royal shaft, as their home began to slide away beneath them. The general had skimmed off the top and cut corners where it wouldn’t show. The building inspector had looked the other way. [Turns out they were friends.] The homeowner and all the various suppliers in the project didn’t realize what was happening, cause most folks don’t understand construction engineering that well. A good reason for building inspectors.

Long story short. Neither I nor any designer, sub or supplier were held liable, because we weren’t. Few, if any subs have a working knowledge of engineering requirements. Point being ... knowing someone, or having a passing association with someone, even a crooked someone does not a criminal make. I know that’s a really hard concept for some of you guys to grasp. Obviously you have lived a gilded life and have never, ever come into contact with a dishonest person.

Oh, and Obama changed his mind! Mustn’t forget how terribly important THAT is. Especially for people with closed minds, who probably never had occasion to change their minds having never made any decisions in the first place! Maybe that’s why you all think the crap you keep posting proves Obama a liar. All it proves is how little you all know about real life.

Back during the turmoil of the civil rights movement a lot of horrible things happened. If I were required to remember dates and times, I would be hard pressed without looking it up. And I lived through it. A young man, learning of much of that turmoil made a decision to turn his life in a certain way. What’s wrong with that? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

A mature woman makes a trip to a foreign nation and receives flowers from a little girl. Her meeting place is relocated, because many miles away there has been a report of someone coming under sniper fire. Later, that mature woman returns home unscathed, and still later decides to alter her memory. Now it is HER who came under sniper fire. She sees and visualizes and remembers something that simply NEVER HAPPENED. What do you call that? I have no idea. What’s wrong with that? Well either that very mature woman is making stuff up, or can’t accurately remember really serious happenings in her life. Either way, I think it indicates a problem, don’t you?

But since you probably don’t, I guess there’s no point in pointing out you all might have a problem too. In the face of fantasy and deception, you dig, dig, dig for petty non-issues and try to make them something of value. Now what’s wrong with that? Nothing if you don’t like living in reality. Everything if your mind-numbing ignorance leads to the deliberate harm of someone else, by creating or perpetuating lies. I think that’s even targeted in the Bible.

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

One must not bear false witness in a court of law or ANY OTHER proceeding. We all share the same Planet, Country, Nation. We are all neighbors. So once again I implore you. If you honestly want Hillary to win the nomination, get it through your little minds. That kind of love and support comes through ELEVATING your candidate, not throwing mud in her name!

And once again I find myself thinking you all really don’t want Hillary to be president. You just want to destroy Obama now, so you can destroy Hillary later.

Undercover repubs, uncovered.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 6, 2008 at 11:36 am Link to this comment

When Your Playing With Desire, Don’t Come Running To My Place When It Burns Like Fire, Boy….

Sweet About Me, Nothing Sweet About Me, Yeah…

Report this

By Maani, April 6, 2008 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

JS:

“You asked us to “understand” her situation as a New Yorker after 9/11 and the emotions of her constituents in relation to the AUMF vote.”

I deny ever having said this, or used this language.  It may very well be that, just as Cyrena has now done at LEAST twice (at least, twice she was willing to admit to…), you are attributing to ME something that was said by someone else.  Although I have certainly offered “apologias” for Clinton at times, I know for a certainty that I did NOT offer ANY apologias vis-a-vis 9/11 and her vote for the AUMF.

I forgive you in advance for your incorrection in this regard.

Peace.  (to the degree possible in the temporal world…)

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 6, 2008 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

By lib in texas, April 6: “OMG, I just figured this one out too, Outrageous is one of cyrenas alter egos on steroids…!”

Oh, so that’s how she stays balanced, ha ha, lib in texas. Thank goodness I’ve only ever had PM’s from cyrena…....


By lib in texas, April 6: “All the viciousness on these posts and the backing of Wright it seems to be headed in that direction….”

I am trying to postulate what it would be like to have an African American in the “White” House but it seems impossible to get a genuine discussion, even though that is what some people ostensibly want. The ramifications are quite significant and pervasive.

But its rather like the Tibetans - they want independence for better or for worse - and they will fight their own leaders as well as the Chinese to get it. The Ring’s Obama followers are the same with regards to trying to force things onto the Democrats generally.

Nobody has made an intelligent comment yet on what it would be like having a woman as president, either. Its beyond their imagination. That’s why the USA will most probably end up with McCain - a person lacking in imagination if ever there was, uhh.

So, what would it be like with Hillary Rodham, a woman and a mother (sans husband who will be forever sent on ‘errands’) wielding pussy power in the Pink House on Pennsylvania Avenue?

Oh yes I am wise
But it’s wisdom born of pain
Yes, I’ve paid the price
But look how much I gained
If I have to, I can do anything…..
I am woman watch me grow
See me standing toe to toe
As I spread my lovin’ arms across the land…..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D5KMUIqV-4&feature=related

Then again, maybe…...???

I am woman
I am invincible
I am strong
I am woman
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIwQ-wBi458&feature=related

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 6, 2008 at 10:39 am Link to this comment

Maani,

You have too.  You asked us to “understand” her situation as a New Yorker after 9/11 and the emotions of her constituents in relation to the AUMF vote.  (You do this all the time, say one thing and then deny ever having said it…does that make you a liar?  You did it when you talked about electoral votes and the nomination race, and when i said that it doesn’t count as a metric you accused me of conflating the primaries with the general election.  Maybe you’re confusing yourself with someone else.)

I don’t believe in the NWO, Maani…not as any organized principle.  The closest i come is seeing the corporate takeover of everything.  I don’t see the CFR as some nefarious organization bent on world domination.  In my view of the “NWO”, the Clintons are far more wrapped up in it than Obama.  I see it as actions like raising NAFTA from the dead to make the corporate chieftains happy.  So, no, i’ve never written about Obama and the NWO, but have i ever written a post about the NWO?

So i misspoke on calling it an “amendment”, sorry.  Maybe i should have said that she supports the criminalization of flag burning.

Would you care to refute this:
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2005/12/hillary_clinton_pandering_on_flag_burning/
this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html
or this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/07/opinion/07wed2.html

Someone who truly believes in peace as an attainable goal or a way of life would never - could never - support any of these candidates…but especially one who votes in favor of landmines and imperial wars of choice.  Talking is much different than walking.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 6, 2008 at 10:20 am Link to this comment

Re: Chalmers

Your point with this video, I don’t get it.  Are you saying YOU’RE going to kill all men, or I’m going to kill all men… you’re not making sense.  Or are you saying you think I’m a man and that this is a threat, a “hint” of things to come?  What is your point..?

If you’re trying to get me to understand you’re serious, I already know that.  That’s why I said you’re fucked up. Sometimes I have a hard time speaking “nutcasese” can you explain…?

Re: .....lynching by black mobs???
Uhh, there’s nothing “Sweet About Me”, Outraged
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg0Redd5-00

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 6, 2008 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

Indeed.  Our subjective nature makes it very difficult to recognize our own preconceived notions…the good, the bad, or the ugly.

Living abroad - as you know - is an excellent way to be forced into facing those notions in a way that living in your home never could.  This is especially true if you move somewhere populated by a homogeneous ethnic group that you don’t even come close to resembling.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2008 at 10:08 am Link to this comment

“Me thinketh thou are full of ca-ca.” Seems we have reached deep into your sub conscience Bert. Thanks for supporting my premise.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2008 at 9:52 am Link to this comment

Applicate your comment, yes racism is complex, seems to me it is used to bolster self esteem of the ignorant.
Also as a blue collar worker, I would call attention to bigoted statements with a simple “now, now”.

Social ambiguity, from groupies to the good old boys.  Add physical size of our Nation to the problem, by no means does this excuse the problem.

Being aware is a great start.

Report this

By bert, April 6, 2008 at 9:38 am Link to this comment

<<<<<<  Even how a poster says it has some potential for misunderstanding, but after several posts one can grasp the intent or connotation of what is being said, so the how they say it, can become part of the posters persona.  >>>>>>>>

It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approach’d the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
“God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!”

The Second, feeling of the tusk,
Cried, -“Ho! what have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ‘tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!”

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake!”

The Fourth reached out his eager hand,
And felt about the knee.
“What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain,” quoth he,
“‘Tis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!”

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
Said: “E’en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!”

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Then, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope,
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a rope!”

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

MORAL.
So oft in theologic wars,
The disputants, I ween,
Rail on in utter ignorance
Of what each other mean,
And prate about an Elephant
Not one of them has seen!

John Godfery Saxe’s (1816-1887) version of th efamous Indian legend.

***** Me thinketh thou are full of ca-ca.*****

Report this

By Expat, April 6, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment

^ racism is a very complex subject and from my experience, very few really understand it.  Racism is usually used as an accusation, a put down; rather than an opportunity for learning or understanding.  All of us are racist to greater or lesser degrees and as we understand this we can see it as endemic in our and all societies.  Certainly we do not have a monopoly on this reality in our world.  Racism can out as support or condemnation; it’s not always stated in the negative.  As an ex-blue collar worker, I had friends who would rail against ethnic groups of all persuasions when we white guys talked together but were completely cordial when in “mixed” company.  This confused the hell out of me for the longest time.  What I came to realize was; talk is talk (yes, very stupid at times) but what I looked at was the walk.  Yes, there are blatant racists posting here but only a few…..the rest are just ignorant of their lives,  selves and everything else.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2008 at 8:20 am Link to this comment

People, can be judged by their actions,  they can also be judged by what they say and how they say it.  Since we may never see posters actions,  we only get to choose the last two.  Even how a poster says it has some potential for misunderstanding, but after several posts one can grasp the intent or connotation of what is being said, so the how they say it, can become part of the posters persona.

What is very interesting to me,  I have perceived some TD posters comments to be racist, by both what they say and how they say it, even though they would flatly deny such.

Asking a person who seems a racist if they are racist, by how and what they write usually provokes a sleeping serpent into shaking it’s rattle, like a sidewinder, moving sideways, trying to move away while at the same time striking.

Racism is wrong, it is divisive, hateful and fosters division, it is such a useful tool mostly divisive to keep the ignorant in their place and focused on not the real problems of society.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 6, 2008 at 7:57 am Link to this comment

Why don’t you let your wife speak for herself. Or is it because she stands by her man!!!

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 6, 2008 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

Your blunt lack of common sense shows Chompers.  Pigeonholing people to fit a personal mold is none other than bigotry and the way you have done it classifies it as racism.

You may garner support of those who love to hate, but not posters who support enlightenment.

Chompers, you have gone lower than I suspected you capable of. Knowing that we have had many amusing arguments in the past, you have exceeded anything yet.

Sorry Chompers I am disappointed in you, even if you call it a joke.

Report this

By Max, April 6, 2008 at 7:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Real politicians don’t worry about the harm they may inflict on themselves or even others when they are in pursuit of victory

Report this

By lib in texas, April 6, 2008 at 7:41 am Link to this comment

my spouse and I attended a cacus in Texas and first of all NO ONE knew what they were doing, the OBAMA groups were RUDE and PUSHY like they had been told to be!!  There was probably 400 or 500 in a totally DARK parking lot.  People went to close by stores for flashlights.  My spouse fell over a parking hump and we spent the rest of the night in the emergency room!  We are retired people and I guess we shouldn’t have been there cause now we have to find out who is going to pay the hospital and ambulance bill after medicare pays.

Report this

By lib in texas, April 6, 2008 at 7:18 am Link to this comment

Douglas, That is so true.  All the viciousness on these posts and the backing of Wright it seems to be headed in that direction.
That is one of the reasons why we don’t need BAAARACK OBAAAMA!!!!!

Report this

By Maani, April 6, 2008 at 7:13 am Link to this comment

JS:

“And just the other day you were slapping people around for stifling debate and name calling.  But there you are, doing it yourself.”

Not quite.  I called you a (possible) liar.  This was based on your CLEAR inference that Hillary supported the flag-burning amendment, which is easily refutable by looking at her vote.  Such an inference is, as I stated, EITHER being misinformed OR lying.  No two ways about it.  That is not “name-calling,” but a statement of (discernible) fact.

“But at least I don’t cry about the NWO and then support a friggin Clinton.  Or talk about how 9/11 was rotten (PNAC) and then use it to explain Clinton’s AUMF vote.”

Re the first, since all candidates have ties to the NWO, you could say the same about ANY candidate; yet I notice you have NEVER said it about Obama, even if you are not supporting him.

Re the second, although others may have, I never used 9/1 to “explain Clinton’s AUMF vote.”  Maybe you have me confused with someone else.

Peace.  (A way of life, even in disagreement and debate…)

Report this

By lib in texas, April 6, 2008 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

OMG, I just figured this one out too, Outrageous is one of cyrenas alter egos on steroids!!!!  Either that or they are twins cause they sure write the same things.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 6, 2008 at 5:22 am Link to this comment

Uhh, there’s nothing “Sweet About Me”,  Outraged
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hg0Redd5-00

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 6, 2008 at 4:52 am Link to this comment

Well, there you are, Outraged, even you still have ‘choices’. Let me know when you finally get off “the psychotropic drugs”, though and you finally have a clear mind…... if you think you have already found the “base of human existence”, you are only kidding yourself!

Pity that you didn’t like the music selection, cyrena, I quite go for those colors too….. but add some blue, eh. So before I was, “Spengler”, now I’m Osama bin Laden? Really…....

But so you admit going in for ‘howling screams’, cyrena? After midnight? Or just at the full moon, duh? Have to wait another 2 weeks….. just don’t try something fooluish, though (its illegal in CallyforniaBy Counselor1, April 5 at 6:18 pm #
(19 comments total)

I think #Counselor1 got it right though - “I believe the passion and anger seen in this discussion is evidence of what is likely to happen at election time…”. Wow, you have a great basis for a new religion there, brother. Anything that gets American out from in front their TV sets must be good…....

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 6, 2008 at 4:41 am Link to this comment

Good points, bert. Shall i save that post of the next time you do the “Obama lies” screed?

Report this

By weather, April 6, 2008 at 2:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

about the Clinton’s cause its a package deal, was to have asked Vince Foster. Next.

Best to address the solutions, not the problems.
Can Obama build a team to foment change?
Kucinich, Carter, Edwards is a start.

Report this

Page 2 of 3 pages  <  1 2 3 >

 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook