Top Leaderboard, Site wide
October 1, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Help us grow by sharing
and liking Truthdig:
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Newsletter

sign up to get updates






The Underground Girls of Kabul


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 6, 2008 at 1:45 am Link to this comment

“...It wouldn’t be a stretch to say you’re fucked up….”

Nope…no stretch at all.

Might even be an understatement…

I do like it a lot though! wink

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 6, 2008 at 1:31 am Link to this comment

Re: Cyrena

If Chalmers “insists” I be a lunatic too…is it OK if I be a “lunatic” of your “variety”?  God knows, I would never want to find my self a lunatic of “her” variety..

Report this

By cyrena, April 6, 2008 at 1:04 am Link to this comment

“...The howling screaming cyrenas and their lunatic mentality will be suddenly empowered and their actions permitted as never before…And how many more like her?...”

blah blah blah…

Keep me out of your dark and demonic fantasies Chalmers.

I don’t know you, and I don’t wanna know you, and I have none of these ‘powers’ that you would like to pretend exist in your twisted and sick mind.

There is absolutely NO proof of any black lynch mob that has ever existed in the US, at least to my knowledge, and I’ve studied the recorded occasions of mob lynchings, at least in the history of the US.

It’s also about time that you start making it clear in each and every post you make on US politics, policies, or OUR elections, that YOU do not reside in the US, and that YOU cannot be involved in the selection of our elected officials.

Consequently, any ‘input’ from you on ANY of our political issues has the exact same significance as if it were coming from Osama bin Laden, or the previous authentic and now phony audios occasionally released and attributed to him.

So, we can all categorize anything you write here, as being the same or of less importance than anything that would be released under the bin Laden brand, and we all know that HE is DEAD.

So, he wouldn’t be able to hear any ‘howling screams’ from me, EVEN if I were making them, which I’m not.

I don’t wanna live in ANY white or black house either. I prefer one with color. Terra Cota is among my favorites. I like turquoise and shades of purple as well.

The BLENDED colors of Nature.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 6, 2008 at 12:59 am Link to this comment

Actually Chalmers, your “base of human existence” only exists in debased people.  Most people rise above your idiotic analogy.  You can believe this crap in you want, since many of your prior posts consistently allude to your enamoring of what YOU consider the “base of human existence”.

I gotta tell ya Chalmers, the majority of people aren’t really all that enlightened with YOUR philosophy of who they are.  It wouldn’t be a stretch to say you’re fucked up.

Chalmers, there isn’t an EVIL race, there are only evil persons.  So your debased, “supposed” intuitiveness of the matter is a ruse.

As for Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Somalia, you are full of shit.  Don’t make up lies to suit your own agenda, it makes you look foolish.

Oh..and the “jaded soul” rhetoric you “claim” exists, you’re grasping at straws and it shows.  Truth is what it is.  Do you think you are “the all-seeing eye”?

Try stopping the psychotropic drugs and thinking with a clear mind.

Report this

By cyrena, April 6, 2008 at 12:40 am Link to this comment

Counselor1 – in response
I wanted to add to what omop posted here, about your suggestion:

•  “…It eventually may bring a positive denoument of both political parties which might provide the impetus of sprouting “newer and of different political party hues” more representative of what the voter/party member can passionately vote for…”

In short, I agree with omop on this. I would like to hope that this is exactly what may come of it. Sometimes this is the ONLY way that positive change can occur. Not always, and I don’t want this to be read or otherwise interpreted as a ‘standard’ practice to believe or assume that something must be totally destroyed in order to make it useable or workable for the whole.

For instance, the US Constitution. In reality, it is a good document, but it has from the beginning, had some ingrained flaws to it. Those can be managed and corrected without destroying the whole thing.
On the question of our socio-political structure however, the issue at hand now, (and it’s been coming for a long time) is that we MUST have a new structure to the whole, that is in fact more representative of, (and in keeping with) the general theme at least, of the original founding principles of representation.

Neither political party (nor the majority of the representatives within) really represents the majority of our total constituency, at least before now. It’s more than ‘just a slogan’ for Barack Obama to build a platform on NEW POLITICS. NEW POLITICS are what is so sorely needed, for the betterment of the whole. The old politics of the Democrats as well as the Republicans simply do not serve the needs of a 21st Century constituency, which is..IN PART, why I believe that we all recognize what can be seen as civil strife and ideological division among us.
I say IN PART, because another reason for the polarization (which again, is NOT so new if we are willing to examine the results of the past several general elections) is because we’ve been oppressed by a top-down system of politics for so long, even BEFORE The Coup of 2000, which brought the totalitarian brand of fascism to a full and destructive head. Even after nearly 8 years of that, far too many Americans are still unaware of the effects of that over-throw of our society, and the move into the totalitarian existence. (if one can even call it an existence). So, you’ve got a society of 300+ million people, who have been terrorized and traumatized for nearly 8 years, and for so many of us, it doesn’t even REGISTER that we ARE, or more importantly…WHY or how it’s happened.

So, you see divisions splitting into more divisions, and further split into others, and all of the unguided and often misdirected passion of the many, clashing with each other. I see it more as a clashing between an old system that no longer works for any of us, and the new system that is attempting to form. One that could, if allowed to form, better serve us all.

For far too long now, we’ve been controlled by a minority rather than the majority; which is the antithesis of a democratic structure. BUT, we’re all (for the most part) still ostensibly committed to what we at least conceive of as a ‘democracy’, if only because that’s how we’ve been socialized. Still, that’s not what we have any longer, and this clash those realities. 

Meantime, I don’t honestly believe, AT THIS POINT, that putting a part of the old, (Hillary Clinton) in with the new (Barack Obama) is the answer. The only way to keep ‘oil and water’ ‘mixed’ is by constantly shaking, and that’s the same chaos that we’ve been living with for too long. We need a little bit of stability after such an extended period of the opposite. (instability intentionally created by a divide and conquer strategy).

The wounds will heal if we allow them, but some stability is necessary for that. A calming…or a reprieve from the sustained stress, and a chance to regroup.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 6, 2008 at 12:20 am Link to this comment

Now who’s having the “crocodile tears”, Outraged. Your B+W movie of the past still portrays what exists in the minds of people as repulsive as it is.

Fear and aggression are at the base of human existence and you don’t complain when the USA is bombing Iraq or Afghanistan - or the poor people of rural Pakistan or Somalia, uhh.

Actually, I put more faith in black peoples’ rections than those of whites who are most probably the most evil race on the planet. Still, what they are in America, they have learned mostly from whites…...

I hope you enjoy Nabarlek Band at http://www.skinnyfishmusic.com.au/ for a change or try http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxzDk7wTFwg and related clips for some diversity to sooth your jaded soul this weekend.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 5, 2008 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

Re: Douglas Chalmers

Your quote:  “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….... “

** LOL… Are you “coming out of the closet” so to speak and admitting that you are racist?

Look at your fear mongering… ANOTHER typical racist tactic.  Trust me Chalmers, I’ve seen them all, each and every last one.  Do you have anything new in your worn out bag of tricks?  This certainly isn’t new.  I’ve heard this WAY BACK WHEN, it’s like watching a really bad old movie over and over again, they suck.  And that’s mainly how I view this tactic.  It doesn’t work, it’s there but it does nothing to enhance the old worn out lie.  You’re a joke and the rest of America isn’t falling for it.  Not this time.

Nope, I’m not scared.  Try the next “trick”.  (Hint: I know what it is, I just what to see if you’ll actually try it)

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 5, 2008 at 11:02 pm Link to this comment

Its coming,  Outraged, but it won’t be our ancestors. America is splitting at the seams and a lot of nastiness will come guishing out amongst other things over the financial chaos as well as the oppressive past.

The howling screaming cyrenas and their lunatic mentality will be suddenly empowered and their actions permitted as never before. We have already found out what she is like just blogging and raving viciously here on TruthDig.

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. Does Obama have a recipe for that kind of ‘change’? Does he even care? Or would it be to his advantage, Outraged?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 5, 2008 at 10:28 pm Link to this comment

Re: Chalmers

You can whine all you want but crocodile tears for Clinton are just that…crocodile tears. 

Interesting Chalmers that you would accuse me of being politically correct when you lied about your appreciation for, what was it..oh yes…“gods love”.  LOL…. gee, I hope your friends aren’t watching.

Your quote: “you run the risk of being accused of not being “politically correct” by saying anything adverse about a black candidate.”

Do you really think this “disguises” your racism?  It’s an old tactic and one EVERY racist uses to justify their depravity.  Poor, poor slighted Chalmers can’t endorse hate without being called on it.  Poor thing!

Provide the data concerning your heritage which validates the lynching of your “white” ancestors by black mobs who planned a social for the event.  I’ll be watching for it.

Report this

By cyrena, April 5, 2008 at 10:22 pm Link to this comment

•  “…And the funny thing about it is ... none of these supporters have anything to gain! Well unless crashing the democratic party is the aim.”..

This says it all Louise, which I’ve tried to articulate myself. It goes with this part

•  “…Ruthlessness. Never mind who gets hurt, or whether or not it’s in any way constructive, or even true ... just dish out the ruthlessness.”..

Where does the ‘win’ come from for these ‘supporters’? Surely there is JOY for them, in negativity. Your post is followed by a totally off the point tirade from bert, on how much Obama allegedly ‘lies’. By now, nobody even bothers with it, other than gutter dwellers who thrive on the stuff that generally can only be found in gutters and sewers. Is there a gene that dictates that as well I wonder?

I mean, this goes beyond the rather trite and simple distinction between ‘those who view the glass half empty, and those who view it half-full’. These are people who exist only in the hate-driven realm that requires that they actually go in search of either destruction, or the methods/tools by which they can accomplish it.

And it is only THEN, once the destruction has been accomplished, that they can stand back (at least momentarily) and rub their hands together with glee, and with a fire in their eyes and an overwhelming sense of accomplishment that says THERE! Finally! It’s ALL DESTROYED!! GONE! SHATTERED! Nothing left! And I have done it!! I SHOWED THEM. (except of course everything’s destroyed, so who’s there to witness it?) I bet it’s almost orgasmic for them.

Sick, Sick, Sick.

Anyway, thanks for the link. I noticed this when it popped up on my rss feed, and then, it was gone before I could get to it, which meant I would have needed to fumble around from memory to search it out.

Now, I don’t have to. wink

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 5, 2008 at 9:35 pm Link to this comment

Garbage, Omop, the real problem person is Nancy Pelosi, uhh. Hillary is fighting her own battle in spite of her….... That is, not ONE Democrat is helping the other!

Report this

By omop, April 5, 2008 at 8:17 pm Link to this comment

While your prognosis of what eventually might occur might ocur then it becomes a question of finger pointing as to which individual bears the prime responsability for the demise of the democratic party.

It eventually may bring a positive denoument of both political parties which might provide the impetus of sprouting “newer and of different political party hues” more representative of what the voter/party member can passionately vote for.

Hillary Rodham Clinton will, by any objective measure be the one charged with destroying the Democratic parrty. She more than her opponent demonstrates the damning vendetta syndrom of “if I cannot have it then no one in the democratic party can have it.”

It might be the fitting end to a vainglorious quest. Like “the man” said live by the sword die by the sword>

Report this

By bert, April 5, 2008 at 7:34 pm Link to this comment

And ignatzh, don’t forget Donna Brazile who gives interviews galore campaigning for Obama. I mean this is ludicrous since she was Al Gore’s campaign manager. She is one big LOSER.

And speaking of losers look at all the loser endorsee’s Obambi has received:

Kerry     LOSER
Carter     LOSER
Hart     LOSER
Kennedy   HAS ISSUES AND IS AS TOXIC AS WRIGHT
Richardson LOSER
Jane Fonda TOXIC LIKE KENNEDY

History has a habit of repeating itself.

Report this

By Counselor1, April 5, 2008 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

I believe the passion and anger seen in this discussion is evidence of what is likely to happen at election time, if there isn’t something like a superdelegate compromise. That is, there will be so much animosity between Clinton and Obama supporters that significant numbers who have supported the “loser” will simply stay home on election day. I can’t imagine how Clinton or Obama themselves could repair a breach as large as the one I see emerging unless they take the other as vice president. But why waste so much money and alienate so many democratic voters in the meantime? The two are certainly not building unified constituencies for coattails to bring along senators and representatives to pass their proposals into law.

Report this

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

A FEW OF OBAMA’S LIES

***Obama Claims he does not take money from oil companies   LIE

According to the nonpartisan Fact Check Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. Two of Obama’s bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful.


***Obama claims he passed nuclear legislation   LIE

Obama bragged in the Iowa debate about the “nuclear legislation I’ve passed.” When he encountered resistance from the nuclear industry… including Illinois-based Excelon, the country’s largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama’s largest sources of campaign money, he edited his bill several times, making it weaker each time. The bill, however, never passed. It died. In October 2007, Obama resubmitted the bill in its watered-down version.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?_r=2&hp;&oref;=slogin&oref=slogin

***Obama claimed multiple times there was no conversation with Canadians on NAFTA   LIE

Canadian TV reported that a senior member of Obama’s campaign, Austan Goolsbee, spoke directly with the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago to assure them that if Obama publicly spoke about opting out of NAFTA, they should not take it seriously.

Obama flatly denied the report, at least 5 different times. I have posted those quotes on a different thread at Truth Dig previously.

On March 4, the New York Times, among other sources, revealed that the conversation had indeed taken place, and published the memo.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080227/dems_nafta_080227/20080227?hub=CTVNewsAt11

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/politics/04nafta.html?st=cse&sq=obama+nafta&scp=9

New York Times published the memo:  http://www.nytimes.com/images/promos/politics/blog/20070303canmemo.pdf

***Obama claimed his ony relationship with Rezko was 5 hours of legal work.  LIE

For months Senator Obama insisted that Tony Rezko was simply one of “thousands of donors” turned into an admission that this indicted political fixer was someone Senator Obama spoke to on the phone everyday when fundraising.

The Obama campaign’s regularly claimed that. Rezko only raised $150,000 turned into an admission reported that he in fact had raised at least $100,000 more than had previously been disclosed, bringing the donation to $250,000.

Obama for months insisted that Rezko simply loaned him some money to help purchase his house. Now he admits they toured the property together.

***Obama claimed he would complete his U.S. Senate Term   LIE

RUSSERT “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?”

Obama answered, “It’s not something I anticipate doing.”

RUSSERT: Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?”

Obama “Absolutely. I will serve out my full six-year term.” 

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice-president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

Link to Meet The Press Transcript January 22, 2006:  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10909406/

***Obama claimed not to know about Rev. Wright’s inflammatory statements.  LIE

In his Race speech and several news interviews he admitted he had.

Flip-Flip Video

***Obama claimed his father and mother fell in love during tumult in Selma   LIE

Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma. Obama was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: “I meant the whole civil rights movement.”

And just because he seems to get away with it every day, I hope Obama doesn’t think we like it.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 5, 2008 at 5:59 pm Link to this comment

I came to the unitary executive conclusion by my own synthesis of her combined statements at various times on various issues.

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

Felicity addresses the rest of your spin.  I may, indeed, be misinformed.  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.

Whatever Maani.  You’re sad.  You wouldn’t know peace if it hit you over the back of your head with a 2x4.  You’re arguments are circular.  And you’re a partisan hack.

Report this

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

“Dictatorial behavior may be partly genetic, study suggests.”

http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080404/full/news.2008.738.html

“Selfish dictators may owe their behavior partly to their genes, according to a study that claims to have found a genetic link to ruthlessness. The study might help to explain the money-grabbing tendencies of those with a Machiavellian streak — from national dictators down to ‘little Hitler’s found in workplaces the world over.”

***

Well this could help explain the never-ending yada-yada that goes on during a political contest. Particularly in that small group labeled “supporters.”

Ruthlessness. Never mind who gets hurt, or whether or not it’s in any way constructive, or even true ... just dish out the ruthlessness.

Down to the wire, the candidates press on. In spite of their respective supporters ruthlessness. And the funny thing about it is ... none of these supporters have anything to gain! Well unless crashing the democratic party is the aim.

So maybe they don’t have this gene. Maybe there’s a gene that causes self-destructive behavior.

Now, can anyone come up with a genetic explanation for fibbing then kidding about it?

I particularly like the Hillary and Rocky comparison. Two fantasy creations who duke it out to the end.

Almost as funny as ducking under fire. But then every candidate has to do that. There are folks out there who really do want to get answers from the candidates, to honest questions. Sometimes they can be very pushy.

And there’s always that small group of border-line psychos who just need to get close. Scariest of all ... no reason, “just touch me.”

So Hillary will strap on her gloves, and go into the ring again. Hopefully she’ll remember, when Rocky finally won, it wasn’t because of a sucker punch! And when Rocky spoke, it was sincere and with meaning. No fibs.

But then that was a movie script.

Maybe that’s Hillary’s real problem. Life as a movie script. Problem is, she didn’t get copies out to the general population. We don’t know our lines, because we don’t understand the cue lines.

Ahhh ... to have a president who can speak extemporaneously. And actually make it sound good without having to fib!

I think we all agree, it’s not the least little bit charming when Bush does it ... fib I mean. wink

And just because he seems to get away with it every day, I hope Hillary doesn’t think we like it.

Report this

By bert, April 5, 2008 at 5:17 pm Link to this comment

<<<<  “I’ve long since agreed with Barack Obama, (even before he said it himself)  >>>>>

Now that statement conjures up a really funny picture in my head, cyrena. How the hell can you agree with a statement or position of someone before they say it. Would this be an example of when you are beside yourself?  Another interseting image in my head.

Or maybe you divined his statement in your dreams. Or do you have ESP?  Maybe it is just gas.

Report this

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

Good luck, Joe in Maine. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Outraged to provide you proof.

It is impossible for Outraged to prove his statements. Any high school or college level Logic course would have taught Outraged that trying to prove your case with the following fallacies is impossible:

1. Argumentum ad nauseam

This is the incorrect belief that an assertion is more likely to be true, or is more likely to be accepted as true, the more often it is heard. So an Argumentum ad Nauseam is one that employs constant repetition in asserting something; saying the same thing over and over again until you’re sick of hearing it.

2. Argumentum ad numerum

Argumentum ad numerum consists of asserting that the more people who support or believe a proposition, the more likely it is that that proposition is correct. For example: “The vast majority of people in this country believe that capital punishment has a noticeable deterrent effect. To suggest that it doesn’t in the face of so much evidence is ridiculous.”  Or, “All I’m saying is that thousands of people believe in pyramid power, so there must be something to it.”

3. Argumentum ad hominem literally means “argument directed at the man”

Report this

By bert, April 5, 2008 at 4:55 pm Link to this comment

<<<<<”[Maine] the whitest state in America >>>>>

Isn’t that a racist statement? What does that have to do with anything? Are you implying that white people are racist simply by the color of their skin? If none of the above, why did you even bring this up? It is not germaine to the discussion.

<<<<<<  What does it tell you that Obama won the state with 59% >>>>>>

What does 59% represent? The state of Maine has not released popular vote totals for this caucus. Real Clear Politics has estinated Maine’s totals with IA, NV, and WA. Source Watch gives me total delegates won. And that is around 59%.

Rhe only thing we can logically conclude from this date is that Obama won 59% of the PRIMARY DELEGATES.

Even though Maine did not release popular vote numbers, based on the history of caucus (versus primary elections i.e. WY cast slightly less than 9,000 TOTAL votes in this year’s D primary)) I would assume that there were some where in the neighborhood of 5,000 to 10,000 votes cast in Maine. And that is high given Maine’s population, especially Democrat population.

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.

Report this

By caucusdebacle, April 5, 2008 at 3:02 pm Link to this comment

When the superdelegates grok (deeply understand)that 15% of Hillary’s voters’ rightful so-called earned delegates & popular vote was cheated from them by the deplorable Caucus Skew which does not allow an Absentee Ballot, they will see that in a fair & democratic contest Hillary would be clearly ahead—then the blithe chatter about the sanctity of The Will of The People will get serious. The will of which people? Only the will of (healthy) people?

There is an epidemic of older women in our nation with a deep dread of falling. “Oh no, dear, I don’t dare go to caucus, I’m off-balance.” ‘How come you don’t vote by mail Absentee?’ “It’s a caucus state. No Absentee Ballot. If I can’t be there in my body, I don’t count.” “Just because I’m sick doesn’t mean I can’t think!” A ride can’t help these keen Hillary supporters. Only the forbidden Absentee Ballot.

In Texas Hillary was +4 in the primary & -12 in the caucus the same day. A 16% swing. Suppose we had *only* seen the caucus result as in Iowa etc? This is the kind of gross injustice that non-lemming superdelegates are supposed to account for.

Of the thousands of volunteer phone calls I made into caucus states, every 8th phone call got me a someone like 87 yr-old Vera, “Oh no, honey, I can’t caucus, I’m a cripple.” It broke her heart. And mine. 

Ask yourself honestly if all these older voters going uncounted & unaccounted for fits in your understanding of democracy where each vote is supposed to count?

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 5, 2008 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment

Wrong, Boyarsky.

I pledge to you all, right now, that if Hillary, Obama and McCain QUIT, I WILL vote for all three of them!

That is my promise to you.  And, unlike the three of them, I’ll keep my promise.

Mark, I think Nader is a hero, too.

Report this

By omop, April 5, 2008 at 11:40 am Link to this comment

well said…..

Report this

By Mark A. Goldman, April 5, 2008 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

http://www.gpln.com/nooneisleading.htm

Report this

By Mark A. Goldman, April 5, 2008 at 11:14 am Link to this comment

An addendum to my comment if it gets published…

If you want to know who the spoilers are… the people who are spoiling our country… look at our elected officials…the Democrats… the Republicans.

Report this

By Mark A. Goldman, April 5, 2008 at 11:11 am Link to this comment

I agree that nobody votes for a quitter… and rightly so.  If you believe in yourself and in your cause, you shouldn’t give up.  I find it interesting that Democrats can understand this sometimes… when it’s convenient… even though it has always been true. 

That’s why Ralph Nader is a hero. That’s why if you want to live in a country that believes in honest government you should support and vote for him, or someone like him… someone who has demonstrated the same strength of character. 

Just review his life, his statements, his platform and compare it to the Democratic candidates and you will see who is willing to tell it like it is and who is just playing politics with our children’s and grandchildren’s future.

Report this

By Paracelsus, April 5, 2008 at 10:47 am Link to this comment

“In addition, NEITHER candidate has addressed the “unitary executive theory,” or what they would or would not do to “roll back” Bush’s numerous signing statements and other end-runs around the Constitution.”

Which just shows that voting and democracy is just for show. All is going according to an old and moldering business plan. Witness the business plan that Treasury Secretary Paulson “just came up with” to regulate the economy. I wonder how long that has been on the shelf.

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 5, 2008 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

Once again the whitest state in America - 2007

What does it tell you that Obama won the state with 59% ?.

Report this

By felicity, April 5, 2008 at 9:22 am Link to this comment

Hillary may have voted against the amendment but she supported another senator in making the ‘desecration’ of the flag a criminal offense.

Report this

By Maani, April 5, 2008 at 8:54 am Link to this comment

JS:

“I, for one, fear that an Obama administration will be as big a failure as the Clinton administration…for the same reasons.  But at least we know that he doesn’t support a flag burning amendment and the unitary executive theory.”

Excuse me?  Hillary voted AGAINST the June 2006 flag-burning amendment, as did Obama.  In addition, NEITHER candidate has addressed the “unitary executive theory,” or what they would or would not do to “roll back” Bush’s numerous signing statements and other end-runs around the Constitution.

Apparently, you are sadly misinformed, or (to use your girlfriend Cyrena’s second favorite word) you are a liar.

Peace.

Report this

By tyler, April 5, 2008 at 8:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

oh joe.  you’re so silly.  everyone says they have a plan to fix the economy, create jobs, end dependance on oil.  what are those plans?  to invest in alternatives in a space program kind if way.  kind of way?  what does that mean?  look around you hot shot, there is no magical answer to fixing the problems the US has right now.  in fact, you haven’t even hit rock bottom yet.  i don’t care who wins the next election, its going to take decades to fix what the last 30-40 years of idiots in office have done.

you don’t have to study in great detail anything joe.  i don’t know if you finished elementary school, but there’s a great activity called connect the dots, you might have heard of it.  it works great in politics too, you should try it sometime.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 5, 2008 at 7:17 am Link to this comment

By jackpine savage, April 5: “Keep in mind that generations X and the millennial generation roughly equal the boomers in size (75 million)...

Yes, keep in mind that Gen X are around to stay, jackpine savage. They are hard to get rid of and will be the longest-lived geriatrics in history. That is an age demographic which a shrinking birth-rate has failed to dent.

Thus, voting for an older presidential contender is increasingly popular. The young ones who are flocking to Obama may be knocked off their perch by all the oldies crawling out of the woodwork as the non-voters finally bother themselves to vote in this election.

Pity that you three whackeroos think that the only difference between the sexes is physical “genitalia”. Dumb, dumber, dumbest….. well, that’s all you be on polling day, uhh. Do you even have mothers???

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 5, 2008 at 6:58 am Link to this comment

I probably have a reputation for being captious.  But, until all the candidates can explain to taxpayers:

  When you voted funding for the Iraq War, who were you thinking was going to pay for it, how and when?

None of them deserves our consideration.

Obama, Hillary, McCain, QUIT, GET OUT, WE’VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOU!!! 

Diogenes for president!

Report this
PatrickHenry's avatar

By PatrickHenry, April 5, 2008 at 6:35 am Link to this comment

Hillary had her day in the sun, she attempts to please too many, especially those who would use America such as Israel.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 5, 2008 at 6:15 am Link to this comment

In the past I learned this is called deadly compliance.  Yes, I do see the similarities.  It is a sick way of getting even, very perverse used in the Hillary and Bush sense.

Reminds me of misanthropic mass murderer,  after the mayhem’s no longer allowed shoots him or herself in the foot.

Yes, if Hillary dost not make it, we will not have Hillary to kick around any more, but we have her mess to clean up.

I like to say no scruples.

Report this

By omop, April 5, 2008 at 6:08 am Link to this comment

Sound a lot like the ditty in “Tea for Two” you say tomato I say tomatoe. Referencing the word “woman” was positited by Ms. Cook as a prime and needed jsutification.

Things that make you go, Hmmmmmmmmm. do not necessariy make everyone else go Hummmmm. If you believe that its OK for you to say what you want to say.  Just say it.

i have read comments to the effect that McCain will win the election because of one reason only and thats because he is buddy buddy with Joe Lieberman and wore a yarmulka thingy on his head. Would such a statement make one go Hummmmmm?

Report this

By cyrena, April 5, 2008 at 6:05 am Link to this comment

Kendall,

I’m inclined to agree with you on this, (and Dick Morris as well).

BUT, what makes it actually worse, is that Joe in Maine, (who’s never objective about anything) does have a point in that the Clintons have more money than they can ever spend. NOT that that has ever stopped a whole bunch of others, but it says something to why she can’t quite.

It’s the mania..the ego-driven frenetic lust for the power. It’s worth more than absolutely anything else in the world to these people.

This was THE PLAN even before she hooked up with Billy boy, and once that hook-up was made, that was just it. THEY were going to rule America, and they worked it out. He would go first, and then it would be her turn.

And, too many folks just don’t understand the kind of psychology behind that, because it IS so debased.
The part of it that simply sort of amazes me though, (and what I suggested made it so extra bad) was the fact that they DO have more money than god, (though maybe not as much as the Bushes or the Saudis, or Dick Cheney) but still…a whole flippin’ bunch of money. And yet, she STILL OWES these vendors. I don’t understand that.

And then there’s all the china and crystal she stole from the White House when they moved out nearly 8 years ago, and eventually had to give back.

What the hell is UP with that? It’s like these psychologically whacked entertainment industry mongols that make a habit of shoplifting. WTF? If ya got the money, why not pay for your shit?

Isn’t that especially true when it isn’t the money that drives the mania anyway, but rather that all consuming lust for POWER?

So no, I don’t get why she doesn’t pay her bills. And the 5 mill she’s already loaned herself is like pocket change for them. The only real issue there, is that little ethics problem. One isn’t really supposed to be able to buy the keys to the White House.

But hey…

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 5, 2008 at 6:03 am Link to this comment

In our county we have two KKK chapters, racism is alive and well in the sadness that is U.S. 

Great and enlightened posts. 

Not understanding the true and the real meaning of racism is feigned by those who use it on a regular basis, for to argue and support bigoted points of racism, is not a worthy option for those that hate. 

Abounding here so, even on TD.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 5, 2008 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

Doug your continued attempt to inject into the presidential race a sexist agrument, is blinded by your arcane support of Hillary, you may have some points, but I believe they are all on top of your head.  Insulting us and our mothers is in bad taste, but you seem to excel in bad taste.

My wife who may be sexist according to you, only because she does not like Hillary, has little respect for your Hillary, simply because of how Hillary, handled or did not handle her spouses indiscretions and belittled the women fouled by Bills running the fence.

Report this

By cyrena, April 5, 2008 at 5:34 am Link to this comment

Jackpine…

On this…

“...You still think this has to do with Clinton’s genitalia? (btw, i haven’t heard any cries of ageism lately)”..

Just give it a minute. The ageism template is next up. It generally comes in-between the lecture about what we did or didn’t do for our mother’s, or how we didn’t behave, or whatever, and the fact that we’re all racists that just hate white people, but white women specifically.

Just give it time. I’m not sure why you’re in a hurry, but you will not be disappointed.

Report this

By cyrena, April 5, 2008 at 5:17 am Link to this comment

Outraged..

I’ve just read some (not all) of this same information on the re-emergence of hate groups (888 now) on Alternet, included in a well organized report from the SPLC. I used to maintain a limited association until The Coup of 2000 created my own life-altering events a bit earlier than the rest of us have continued to experience them.

Needless to say, I was dismayed. Overwhelmingly dismayed. And yes, I’m definitely behind the times now, in keeping up with them. On the other hand, experience (and study) tells me that this is par for the course in the process of a totalitarian/fascist coup of a formerly open society. It’s one of the by-products, and it’s not like the fuel wasn’t always already there, just waiting for the spark.

Anyway, here’s just the short info from that, which is somewhat of a repeat of what you’ve already posted. There is also a website for information for any folks that honestly do recognize the severity of this 2 Century problem, that has NOT self-corrected, for oh so many reasons.

*Racism is a serious problem in America. We’ve identified 888 organized hate groups — a staggering 48% increase since 2000.

This increase in the number of hate groups — white supremacists, neo-Nazis, anti-immigrant extremists, anti-gay groups and others — is an alarming trend.

As the ranks of hate swell, people of goodwill must stand up and be counted.

Add yourself to our map as a voice for tolerance. Join people across the nation who are standing strong against the hate, racism, and intolerance infecting our communities, schools and political debate.*

http://www.StandStrongAgainstHate.org

Meantime,
In an –objective- answer to Joe in Maine’s very menstrual and naïve demand for ‘proof’ in the political machinations of candidates, here is ONE columnist’s answer on the Hillary racist agenda, which HE doesn’t think has come out in full force yet, but has of course created (as Outraged has already indicated) the dastardly effects. Unless she’s stupid, she knew it would. I never said she was stupid, and neither has anyone else here.

*Are the Clinton camp’s attacks against Obama racist?*

“Not really. What they are is opportunistic. The Clintonian campaign philosophy is basically an inverse of the Nixonian Southern Strategy: It accepts as gospel the notion that the old coalition of white labor and blacks that kept the South Democratic for generations has been severed forever by the rise of evangelical Christianity and social conservatism. Therefore the Clintons don’t try to win back those white workers in the lost Southern states through, say, a more staunch advocacy of unions; instead, they try to pry away Nixon’s old “silent majority” voters by courting the same fears about safety and national security that Tricky Dick used to take the South away from Democrats in the first place.”

“It’s no accident that Hillary ran her “3 a.m.” commercial in Texas but not Ohio; this was a cunning ploy to win back those scared white voters whom the Clinton strategy insists are needed to win. And it worked: After the ad, her support among white Texans jumped from forty-four to fifty-six percent. Does it help that her opponent is a black dude with a Muslim middle name? Sure. But the fearmongering by the Clintons is more about winning blue-collar votes without alienating their big-business buddies than it is about exploiting fears of a black planet. With the Clintons, ideology is always whatever gets them through the night. They haven’t been reduced to balls-out, Willie Horton racism yet. That’s not to say that they won’t get there —they’re just not there yet.”

http://www.alternet.org/election08/81140/?page=2

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 5, 2008 at 5:00 am Link to this comment

Suggesting, you know, that the Clintons don’t believe that Obama can win because he is black is, you know, WRONG.

The reason they don’t think he can win is because their internal polling shows the same thing as the national poll that came out this week. Obama’s weakness, his inexperience, is a fatal flaw.

John McCain will make him look like the overly ambitious upstart that he his. Funny you can say that about a white guy running for the Presidency but not about Obama cause he is, you know (wink, wink) a black guy. I’m sure Donna Brazil or someone will read “overly-ambitious” and see racism when none was intended or read “upstart” and think I meant “uppity nigger” and all hell will break loose and people will be rioting in the streets at the injustice.

There is racism (wink, wink)
In this campaign (wink, wink)
And the best part is we can blame it all on the Clintons! (wink, wink)

Obamabots. Real class acts.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 5, 2008 at 4:43 am Link to this comment

You obviously think you know what Hillary would do as President…

“Hillary Clinton would keep america on the path it is currently going, which if you haven’t noticed, is to the dumps.  The ruling elite have become so blinded by their arrogance and greed, that they have no capacity to feel compassion for the common serf, us.”

So when she says she has a plan to fix the economy, end the war, create millions of green-collar jobs, reduce our dependancy on foreign oil by investing in alternatives in a space program kind of way, this is your idea of keeping America on the right path?

I’m sure you’ll reply by saying something only a real liberal elitist would say…

“I’ve studied this in great detail and because of the Clinton greed and the lack of compassion… Ahhh Ahhh Ahhh”

Please.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 5, 2008 at 4:34 am Link to this comment

Yeah. Two problems with your theories sir.

1. The Clintons have more money than they will ever need. They paid 31% income tax and donated a boatload too. Staying in the race is not about money.

2. Dick Morris is an asshole with a big agenda.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 5, 2008 at 4:28 am Link to this comment

Prove this lie of yours please.

“...she has purposefully and with forethought awakened one the most vile segments in America, the racists.  Clinton, along with republicans, called them out and out they came, with her and her supporters’ blessing.  In essence qualifying the most depraved individuals to ever inhabit this country.”

I want you to give me one specific example of the Clintons asking the racisits to ‘help’ the campaign.

I can tell you getting all racially ‘offended’ early in the race whenever the Clinton campaign mentioned ANYTHING like Obama’s admitted recreational drug use. Or when his stance on the Iraq was questioned or his experience, BOOM! You’re a RACIST!!!

You can’t have it both ways. You can’t play the race card then get upset when it’s used against you.

Obama used the race card to attack Clinton first.

Prove that she called on the racists to help. That’s a lie not even your indignant tone can hide.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 5, 2008 at 4:01 am Link to this comment

You still think this has to do with Clinton’s genitalia? (btw, i haven’t heard any cries of ageism lately)

There is no doubt that Barack Obama is not a saint.  But this is far deeper than individual candidates, Doug.  This is about her representing the DLC, the traingulating, the corporate wing of the Democratic Party, and the realization by people (i knew it all along) that the 90’s were not halcyon.  A few of us recognize that Obama is rerunning Clinton’s 92 campaign (but better).  I, for one, fear that an Obama administration will be as big a failure as the Clinton administration…for the same reasons.  But at least we know that he doesn’t support a flag burning amendment and the unitary executive theory.

But it does have something to do with ageism…or more precisely, generationalism.  Keep in mind that generations X and the millennial generation roughly equal the boomers in size (75 million).  Much of this is a realization that the boomers’ me, me, me (and other generational character traits) have been very bad for America.

A lot of this is backlash against a generation that used to say “never trust anyone over 30”, and now expects to be trusted.  It is a generation who sang along to “I hope i die before i get old”, and now expects to be cared for during an ever expanding old age.  It is the first generation in America whose children will live shorter, poorer lives than their parents.

You may not think that it’s fair, but whoever told you that life was fair?

*Not all boomers are bad, and chances are good that the younger generations will make many of the same mistakes.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 5, 2008 at 1:51 am Link to this comment

Like some other rather sad souls on TruthDig, Outraged, you are a failed “dissident” with nothing left but to attack anyone you can find an excuse to object to.

Not having the bravery to live up to your own dissident ethics, you all take it to a woman to dump it on….... just as you once did with your own mothers. Only you are not children now (one would hope).

You know that there is a ”...lack of ethics and a deliberate attempt to lend credence to perversion of thought and disregard for morality…” in society generally as well as in all US politics.

Failing to deal with GWB and having to wait for him to depart at his leisure (just like Putin, he might not!!!), you haven’t the guts to do anything and you haven’t the guts to sort out a male candidate, especially if you run the risk of being accused of not being “politically correct” by saying anything adverse about a black candidate.

Report this

By Kendall, April 5, 2008 at 1:50 am Link to this comment

Hillary Clinton’s campaign currently owes vendors $8 million, exclusive of the $5 million she owes herself. She cannot use general election money to pay for this debt. If she begins to be anything less than certain that she will stay in up to the convention, she won’t raise any money and will be stuck with the debt. She also realizes that it is only by projecting an almost manic air of certainty that she has any chance at all of hanging onto super delegates. The first whiff they get of a withdrawal, they will all run screaming to Obama to get on the late train. Don’t think that Hillary is delusional. She knows she’s lost but she has no choice but to play the rest of the game. To fold now would leave her in an untenable situation.

(In this circumstance I think he’s right…http://www.dickmorris.com/blog/2008/04/02/why-hillary-wont-quit/)

Report this
Outraged's avatar

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

What Clinton and her campaign have affectionately dubbed the “kitchen sink strategy” is in reality code for a larger lack of ethics and a deliberate attempt to lend credence to perversion of thought and disregard for morality.

Not only has Clinton lied outright, even needlessly, she has purposefully and with forethought awakened one the most vile segments in America, the racists.  Clinton, along with republicans, called them out and out they came, with her and her supporters’ blessing.  In essence qualifying the most depraved individuals to ever inhabit this country.

Racists have maimed and tortured thousands of Americans.  They candidly inflict their debased logic upon society and endorse an acceptance of rape, lying, cheating, and death upon honest, innocent Americans.

The facts are that racists kill children, mothers, fathers, friends and loved ones, many times for the mere sport of it.  They are despicable people defunct of humanity.

Some claim Clinton to be tough, smart and savvy.  Clinton called upon the racists in full knowledge of their depravity to be used as a political tactic, claiming it as her supposed “resolve” to “stay in the race” and “the kitchen sink strategy” never addressing the devastating outcome her antics along with those of her campaign, might create.

She acts like a republican, she talks like a republican, she employs the same political tactics as republicans.  In my mind she is a republican, and not the nice kind either.

Walter C. Uhler at Dissident Voice:

“But, beyond this racial double standard, symbolic racists do their country a double disservice. Not only do they belittle the existence of present-day racism, thereby turning a deaf ear to potential remedies, they also provide fertile soil for the reemergence of overt racism.
****
As with Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “God Damn America” (a sentiment that was shared by Thomas Jefferson, see part one), Sean Hannity and FOX News also has heaped scorn upon Rev. Wright’s reference to the “US of KKK A.” Again, Hannity’s racial hypocrisy was astounding!

Simply consider that on November 14, 2007, Hannity’s former co-conspirator to fill WABC’s airwaves with hate, Hal Turner, went on the Warren Ballentine radio show and asserted: “We are going to begin lynching blacks in this country again next year!” He followed that assertion with a suggestion that we must return to what worked in the past, a rope. [”Hate Groups: Mainstreaming the Far Right,” The Center for Democratic Renewal, February 2008]”
*****
“Mr. Turner’s prediction of more lynchings came just last year, when the number of hate groups operating in America rose to 888. That number represents an increase of 48% increase since 2000. [”The Year in Hate,” Southern Poverty Law Center, Spring 2008] And it came just a year after law enforcement agencies reported that 4,737 single-bias hate crime offenses were racially motivated. Of these offenses 66.2 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.

Thus, although it might be a bit of a stretch today (but certainly not during the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century) to refer to the United States of America as the “US of KKK A,” Rev. Wright’s assertion did not merit the outrage it received across white America, especially in light of the “noose incidents” that have increased since 2000 and spiked in 2007. Are we a nation of amnesiacs?”

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/04/symbolic-racism-and-the-us-of-kkk-a/

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 5, 2008 at 1:24 am Link to this comment

On another blog,  Maani, cyrena blithely refers to ”...the PRIVACY of every ballot that is cast…” as her latest justification….. only it obviously has further ramifications, in her mind, that is, uhh…....

Now wonder cyrena/truthdweller/Carla screams at anyone who even obliquely refers to her posts unless they are deliriously agreeing with her. They are PRIVATE, duh.

Howling ad hominum rhetoric about stalking (she does it ceaselessly) or obsession with her (nothing obsesses cyrena more than a man she can’t have), cyrena then energetically goes on the ATTACK.

So much for harassment and trolling…... (“oh, no, not me”, says cyrena) but now we have an admission that she is actually doing both, Maani ....I had no idea I was ‘baiting’ you though. Glad to know it worked…”

Report this

By cyrena, April 5, 2008 at 12:08 am Link to this comment

Do I know you Don Vito? I didn’t think so.

I guess that means you don’t know me either.

I haven’t made any ‘threats’ to ‘bring up any charges’ against anybody. I only do that when someone is paying me to act on their behalf, or if I’ve agreed to do pro bono work.

I don’t EVER represent myself, and I never make ‘threats’.

I just do what I have to do.

Now go wipe that poor womans eyes…the one who’s just been through oh so much pain and misery.

Report this

By ignatzh, April 4, 2008 at 11:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Why should we care what Shrum, that useless sack of turd who’s at least partially responsible for the last several Democratic disasters and missteps in recent presidential elections?

Report this

By cyrena, April 4, 2008 at 9:55 pm Link to this comment

You’re a funny guy Maani. Not funny ‘ha ha’ but funny nonetheless.

I had no idea I was ‘baiting’ you though. Glad to know it worked.

Are you any closer to a neighbor’s call for the padded wagon yet? They should remind the ambulance folks to have a well working straight jacket.

Report this

By Maani, April 4, 2008 at 9:25 pm Link to this comment

Cyrena:

Considering that you just recently angrily told someone else to stop answering posts that are not meant for them, you now stand as a hypocrite: my post was in response to Outraged, who clearly does NOT “agree with” me.  Yes, my post was for all to read, but was obviously (since it SAID so) addressed primarily to Outraged.

But, of course, you cannot leave well enough alone - much less resist the temptation to bait me at every turn - so you found it necessary to respond.

Peace.

Report this

By Don Vito, April 4, 2008 at 9:17 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

OMG, what self-righteous crap.  Like you’ve even endured a fraction of the stress, anxiety and ridicule that this woman has been put thru.

You start whining and crying when Dougie throws a couple insults your way, screaming racism and that you’re going to bring charges.  You’d fold like a cheap lawn chair sat in by Anna Nicole Smith if you where put in HRC’s place.

Your posts are only good for the pathetic humor element, nothing else.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 4, 2008 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment

Well for once I agree with Hillary, I can guarantee you with accurate conclusiveness,  that if Hillary quite the race I would not vote for her. So her profoundness, is on the money when she says, ‘nobody votes for a quitter’. by golly, quite right.

Report this

By cyrena, April 4, 2008 at 8:10 pm Link to this comment

Maani,

I didn’t read the article, but I’ve long since agreed with Barack Obama, (even before he said it himself), that Hillary Clinton should STAY IN THE RACE FOR AS LONG AS SHE WANTS TO.

It’s that simple.

So, why are you presenting an argument that has already been addressed? Do you have troubles when somebody agrees with you?

Report this

By cyrena, April 4, 2008 at 8:07 pm Link to this comment

Sue writes:

“...Could any of you stand up to the hell she has had to and keep moving forward with the passion and tenacity she has shown?”


Yes so. I already have. (stood up to the hell and more that she’s been through) and dug myself up to keep moving forward with passion and tenacity.

But Sue, as I’ve consistently reminded you before, that is/was about ME, not the rest of my fellow Americans, and that alone would NOT qualify me for the job of president.

It continues to amaze me that you equate the fact that Hillar WANTS THIS SO BADLY, with ‘qualifications’ or experience, or the right temperment and intuitive intelligence to make decisions based on the well being of ALL of us.

It’s not ABOUT what Hillary Clinton WANTS, it’s about what SHE CAN GIVE THE REST OF US!!

She comes up short.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 4, 2008 at 7:18 pm Link to this comment

Just how long HAVE you been drinking the Obama Kool Aid? Jesus.

“...agenda is one of transparent calculation”

Yeah. Like a one-third of one term freshman senator who has now been running for president longer than he served as US Senator prior to his run doesn’t have an agenda.

Who you tryin’ to kid, man?

Right this very second Obama is doing something behind closed doors you only thought Hillary did.

Grow up.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 4, 2008 at 7:09 pm Link to this comment

Obama is a liar, and his trying to minimise it with a race speech was an insult to the nation of thinking peoples.  That the media still want to make this liar viable for the President of the United States exposes the last vestiges that this media that we have is anything but a voice of the neo cons and the corporations.

I couldn’t agree more.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 4, 2008 at 7:07 pm Link to this comment

Why is it OK to say…(as you did)

“Again its not that because she is a woman she MUST become President. Holding that belief sells all Americans short.”

...and it’s not OK for me to say…

Again its not that because he is a black man he MUST become President. Holding that belief sells all Americans short.

Things that make you go, Hummmmmmmmm.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 4, 2008 at 7:03 pm Link to this comment

I think it’s 2025.

Texbiker - You and I are reading the same book, on the same chapter and the same page.

Great post.

Report this

By Joe Sixpack, April 4, 2008 at 7:01 pm Link to this comment

Where have I heard this idea before? Is this a proposal on the table right now? I think I heard this the other day on NPR, but I don’t recall.

Remember the old addage: “What doesn’t kill us…”

Whoever wins the nomination will have the other to thank for making them tougher to beat.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 4, 2008 at 6:52 pm Link to this comment

Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts! unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe, top-full
Of direst cruelty; make thick my blood,
Stop up the access and passage to remorse,
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman’s breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances
You wait on nature’s mischief!  ~Act I scene v

http://www.sparknotes.com/shakespeare/macbeth/terms/charanal_2.html

Report this

By Counselor1, April 4, 2008 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment

Clinton and Obama both voted on 888 issues and only voted in opposition 52 times and never on very large issues like the war in Iraq (National Journal, 2.23.08, pg. 30) So it is party weakening, wasteful and frankly disgusting to see each claiming to want to serve our country but carrying on a Punch and Judy show whose plot is which of us personally is best for the country.

Could a group of superdelegates get together and issue a declaration to Clinton and Obama that they intend to all vote to nominate for president the one who has the most total votes in the primaries by a certain date, X, but only on the conditions that 1) that candidate accept the other as the vice presidential nominee and 2) if their ticket is successful in winning the election and has a successful term, the party next time nominates the Vice President for President and vice versa? That would follow the democratic principle of the popular vote and also embody the principle that the Vice Presidential nomination belongs to the party, not the candidate.

As to date X, the sooner, the less wasteful and damaging the continued contest would be. And choice of a date does not preclude give democratic voters in these later primary states an opportunity to express their preferences, since the candidates can still trial run in these later primaries, at lower cost, pulling their punches at one another, catching McCain in a cross fire and only testing their strengths against him in those states for the general election.

Report this

By tyler, April 4, 2008 at 4:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sue, you are so blind i feel sorry for you.  you talk about the ‘hell’ she has gone through, i don’t think making $109 million dollars in the last 7 years really qualifies as hell.  All of the shady business dealings while being the governors wife, making her loads of money, followed by who knows what during her 8 years in the whitehouse.  she is a part of the ruling elite that call the shots in this country, and that is what most people who bother to study her history already know. 
Yet you maintain your blind allegiance to her because why, she has a vagina?
Hillary Clinton would keep america on the path it is currently going, which if you haven’t noticed, is to the dumps.  The ruling elite have become so blinded by their arrogance and greed, that they have no capacity to feel compassion for the common serf, us.
Did you notice that many of america’s ruling elite are begining to take their money out of the US exonomy and invest it in the euro?  Even cheney has invested 25 million of his own money in to a euro bond fund.  And don’t be mistaken, when you aquire their kind of wealth, there is no more left and right, it is the rich against all of us.
I pray hillary drops out so people like you will shut up about how great she is.  passion and tenacity?  please.  wake up and pull your pants up sue, because you are getting screwed and you don’t even know it.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 4, 2008 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment

Obama’s the most shameless politician you’ve seen your lifetime?  Really?  You’re under 16 years of age?

If you have shame, then you’re not a politician.

Seems that Obama roughly doubles Clinton’s fund raising every month…he might not need their money.  Besides, they still have to pay the poor schmuck who cleaned the offices in Iowa yet.

Report this

By texbiker, April 4, 2008 at 12:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

is get 2100 delegates.  then she’ll quit.  you’ll probably get there, but until you do you have no right to tell her to drop out.  I voted for McGovern, Carter (twice), Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (twice), Gore and Kerry.  Where were you?  I’ll support Obama if you work hard and get him the nomination.  Until you do I’ll go with the hardest working and most deserving Democrat I can.

Report this

By tdbach, April 4, 2008 at 12:01 pm Link to this comment

You’re metaphor-impaired, my dear. And I’m not asking you to vote for her. Just understand that there are a lot of very hard-working people who have a lot vested in her candidacy. If she quit because she was tired of the race or because she though she might get some cherry post in an Obama administration, then she really might be the bitch you so love to hate.

Report this

By omop, April 4, 2008 at 10:58 am Link to this comment

Fighter all her life.
sounds like that Roman gladiator joke.

When she became Mrs. Governor in Arkansas she carried the name Hillary Rodham Clinton. When her husband was defeated and ran again she automatically acquired the name Hillary Clinton and became with child.

That may have been hellish for her. But she stayed in the Governor’s Mansion for 12 years all the while magically turning $1000 investments into $100,000 on a somewhat regular basis. Besides working late as an attorney with the money boys in the utilities.

While slick Will as he is known in Little Rock was trying to catch up with the same number of women he told his girlfriend she slept with, with the likes of Paula Jones, Gennifer Flowers et, al.

The White House episodes with Ms Lewisnky and her standing by her man while reflective of determination is lessened by her tenacity to become Senator [how many individuals move from 8 years in the WH to 6 years in the Senate as a Senator from NY].

Unless of course they are married to the right dude.

if the shoe was on the other foot so to speak and a male candidate had the “easy time” as well as the baggage that Hillary has one would like to think regardless of passion, tenacity or the desire to wanting the job that that person does not fit the mold of a President faced with salvaging and redirecting the energies and potential America needs in the 21st. Century.

On a personal basis the issue of being a fighter or a quitter are not all that matters in a leadership position. The best example is well represented in the positions and decision of the present administration.

Again its not that because she is a woman she MUST become President. Holding that belief sells all Americans short

cheers.

Report this

By Sue Cook, April 4, 2008 at 10:23 am Link to this comment

She’s fighting hard for this because she truly wants the job.  She truly believes that she will make a difference being the 1st woman president.

What’s wrong with having ambitions such as these?

Nothing!  She’s been a fighter her whole political career, why stop now?  There’s no reason to.

She’s not that far behind where she can’t make up ground.

Even if it don’t happen for her, she’ll still be a winner.

Could any of you stand up to the hell she has had to
and keep moving forward with the passion and tenacity she has shown?

She is strong, smart and very determined.  That’s why she’ll make one hell of a president!

Report this

By susan, April 4, 2008 at 10:22 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary is a liar, and her trying to minimise it on Leno was an insult to the nation of thinking peoples.  That the media still want to make this liar viable for the President of the United States exposes the last vestiges that this media that we have is anything but a voice of the neo cons and the corporations.

Report this

By Maani, April 4, 2008 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

An alternative to Outraged’s post from the Seattle paper:

STAY IN IT TO WIN IT
By ROBERT SHRUM

SheE has very little chance of winning, but Hillary Clinton has no reason to get out of the race for the Democratic presidential nomination — for now. A long shot isn’t the same as no chance at all. And an extended campaign doesn’t have to wound the nominee, assuming a measure of self-restraint on both sides.

Remainder of the opinion:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/opinion/04shrum.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print

Peace.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 4, 2008 at 9:00 am Link to this comment

Great op-ed in the Seattle Post Intelligencer

Clintons—a last stand that lacks class
By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST

AS HER ham-handed handlers insult entire states, and her self-absorbed husband indulges in red-faced, finger-wagging outbursts, Sen. Hillary Clinton soldiers on.

It is a joyless campaign, with stump speeches that carry tales of woe and get delivered in a booming voice that could open a wall safe.

A full three months after the Iowa caucuses, nearly two months after Washington’s caucuses, the Clintons seem bent on turning the Democrats’ fertile ground into scorched earth.

The campaign has come back to the Northwest.

Clinton’s candidacy is hardly the same one touted by national pundits as “inevitable” when she held three $2,300-a- head fundraisers here in October.

And we’ve witnessed a former front-runner’s ability to step in it—and stay there.

Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, holder of two Cabinet-level posts in the Clinton administration, bounded into a Portland rally two weeks ago to endorse Sen. Barack Obama.

The retaliation was swift, furious and self-defeating.

Clinton backer James Carville, noting that Richardson made up his mind during Holy Week, opined: “Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic.”

If Richardson is Judas, which Clinton is Jesus?

Act 2 came last weekend in California, when Bill Clinton met privately with California’s convention superdelegates.

Rachel Binah, a supporter of Richardson’s presidential candidacy earlier this year who now backs Clinton, told the ex-president she was “sorry” to hear Carville’s remarks. (Carville has gone to every media outlet that would have him to repeat the insult.)

Bill Clinton erupted. “Five times to my face (Richardson) said that he would never do that,” said a beet-faced Bubba.

“The former president then went on a tirade that ran from the media’s unfair treatment of Hillary to questions about the fairness of votes in state caucuses that voted for Obama,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported.”

Remainder of Article : http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/connelly/357708_joel04.html

Report this

By DIANE PODLOGAR, April 4, 2008 at 8:46 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

HILLARY SHOULD NEVER GIVE UP. THE MEDIA IS CHOOSING THE CANDIDATE WHO WILL BE BEATEN BY INSANE MACCAIN. THERE IS PLENTY OF DIRT ON OBAMA THAT WILL BE BROUGHT OUT IF HE GETS THE NOMINATION.
IF HILLARY IS THE NOMINATION, SHE WILL SURELY BEAT MACCAIN. BUT BEFORE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION LETS THAT HAPPEN THEY WILL PRODUCE ANOTHER HORROR LIKE 911 AND DECLARE MARSHAL LAW. THE END OF AMERICA. LAND OF THE FREE.

Report this

By RdV, April 4, 2008 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

Problem with your analysis:
The Clintons were already standing on the top rung—either they keep others off the ladder or they got no where to go but down.
  Honestly, don’t you believe the Clinton DLC brand has dominated the party long enough? How about we all put a new foot forward?

Report this

By omop, April 4, 2008 at 8:02 am Link to this comment

Reminds one of a New Yorker cartoon of some bygone years. The gladiator looks up to the crowd after downing his opponent for an up or down thumb [to finish-off or let the man live] and the response attests to almost the entire colesseum giving the thumbs up exept for one.

Its not the act per se that is important its how its done. In the case of Hillary it maybe that her ego is such where like the one person in the cartoon implies “f*ck you all” or as the French aptly put it “apres moi le deluge” attibuted to a king who in time lost more than his head.

Still a lot of people will vote for some one who will be made to quit due to his/her opponet winning the contest. C’est la vie.

Report this

By bert, April 4, 2008 at 7:50 am Link to this comment

<<<<<<<<<  Of course I’ve been wondering for the longest, why such an ‘economic’ emergency (or any other for that matter) would only happen at
3:00am. >>>>>>>>>>>


That’s “two-fer” ad. It hit’s McCain by name… and Obarry by association (”It’s 3 am…”).

Nicely done.

Report this

By bert, April 4, 2008 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

Best response/post to this article, Douglas. Thanks for speaking the truth regarding the MSM, and mostly regardless of the verbal onslaught you will receive from the ususa; suspects on TD. The MSM have become clowns, haven’t they? Mathews??? How can he even call himself a journalist?

BTW - The sentence you quote was particularly galling to me too. What about what Obama is doing to the Clintons? His campaign called them racist, liars, and more. Those two have raised more money for the Democratic Party in the last 10 years than anyone. I bet he will have the gall to want them to raise money for him for the race in Novemebr. They are no good but he loves their money. He is the most shameless politician I have seen in my lifetime.

Report this

By Expat, April 4, 2008 at 7:20 am Link to this comment

JPS, buahahahahahahahahahaha.  Sorry, I’ll be okay, just give me a minute.  God, you’ve nailed it and I can’t stop laughing.  Thanks so much.

Report this

By tdbach, April 4, 2008 at 6:26 am Link to this comment

(Hi, RdV. Still at it, I see. smile

I admire Mr Boyarsky’s experience and his tone. In a rare moment, I join Cyrena in expressing gratitude that sites like this bring voices like Boyarsky’s to this forum.

I come at this as a sentient guy, not a seasoned reporter with years of observing politicians from “inside the ropes.” But to me, the reason true politicians stick it out, no matter the conditions, if there is even the faintest sliver of hope, isn’t because they possess some weird gene that the rest of us lack (though, assuredly, they must be very, very competitive types). And I don’t think you’ll find the answer in studied examination of their behaviors, as though you’re Jane Goodall observing the patriarch of chimpanzee clan.

Look at the process.  A politician climbs the ladder of power as she or he builds it, one rung at a time. (It’s a neat trick!) Each rung represents new campaign workers, new believers – a growing following of people who vest their time, energy, and hope in her. It’s a process that feeds the candidates ego but also demands loyalty in return. If they gracefully withdraw while victory remains a possibility – however remote – they betray all that time, energy, and hope that got them to this point in the first place. I imagine many of the same shrill voices that are calling for Hillary to step aside come from the same people who screamed in protest at Al Gore, when he graciously – if unwisely – withdrew his protest of the 2000 election “for the good of the country.” 

The most compelling quid pro quo a politician faces isn’t the big check from a corporate donor. It’s the commitment from their campaign foot soldiers. “We’ll work ourselves to the bone for you. Just – please! - don’t give up the fight.” And they don’t.

Report this

By cyrena, April 4, 2008 at 5:17 am Link to this comment

I love the part about her still wearing a pantsuit at 3:00am.

Of course I’ve been wondering for the longest, why such an ‘economic’ emergency (or any other for that matter) would only happen at 3:00am. presumably Eastern Standard (or Daylight) Time.

I mean, who could be calling about ‘the economy’ at such an hour of the day/night? AH…the folks in India.

Or, maybe even the folks in Australia, where Douglas Chalmers resides. (at least 4 different time zones to choose from there). So, ya know…I guess it just all depends on where the ‘economic’ crisis is happening.

So, what Hill is saying is that no matter where, (but especially anywhere OUTSIDE of the USA) she’s ready to handle the economic crisis.

I wonder if she’d take a call from ME, about my economic crisis, even during regular business hours.

I guess she sleeps in her glasses as well as her pantsuit. Of course this is the only time I’ve ever seen her in glasses…these two commercials.

RdV is right…very corny…

Report this

By bozhidar bob balkas, April 4, 2008 at 4:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

while overdwelling on personal traits, mistakes, mental lapses of the politicos. first let’s ask selves some questions? ok?
aren’t politicians mere hired guns/mouths of the ruling class?
who is this ruling class? is there a ruling class in US? r all amers equally participating in governing their land? how ab. a housewife? listening to CNN? or reading globe/star? what’s her influence? ab. zilch? 1% of what it should b? compared to a bilionaire’s of 90% or 100%?
or h. amers always been ruled by an invisible hand? a hand at least inferred if unseeable? 
how much professional politicians know ab. the hand that feeds them? i assume a lot more than i do.
do politicos espy that they r vastly unknowledgable ab. much what goes on? do they not almost exclusively dwell on how to get (re)elected; how to act; how to keep in their brains embedded scripts and not stray beyond parameters of allowable discourse to us? ok! i better desist for now.

Report this

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

Real politicians don’t quit because they owe lots of people lots of money that they spent unwisely…so they have to keep campaigning to pay themselves back out of other people’s pockets.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 4, 2008 at 4:18 am Link to this comment

Yes, those months of “inevitable” certainly were unfair.  The not checking her NAFTA story certainly was unfair to her.  Still reporting that she “won” Texas is beyond unfair to her.  Calling the race “neck and neck” is unfair to an almost unimaginable degree.

The world is so cruel to Hillary Clinton, and after all these years of thinking about the little people all the time.  She’s so dedicated that she’s still wearing a pantsuit at 3am to answer phone calls about economic crisis.

Why, oh why, world, must you be so unfair to Hillary Clinton?!

It might be time for sackcloth and ashes, Doug.

Report this

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

Sexism, right.
Howza about racism, pal?

You know, like the suggestion that Obama *can’t* win—wink-wink, because he is black, wink-wink
Real class acts.

Report this

By RdV, April 4, 2008 at 4:04 am Link to this comment

The Clintonistas of Hillaryland bubble either haven’t got a clue about perceptions or don’t care. Bill is out their shredding the final tatters of his credibility with his red-faced bluster and blundering, and the Ms…her loyal following gushes over her appearance on Leno last night, but I could barely get through the first few minutes on YouTube—She is just bad, bad, bad and more than bad by any measure. Her personality is stiff, the “humor” is forced, her lines are rehearsed and her agenda is one of transparent calculation. She comes across as insincere, phony and….corny. She is a stepford wife, so the comparison with Roosevelt is false—-“People waited under umbrellas and soggy newspapers to catch a glimpse of the big smile” isn’t a reflection of Hillary’s operation. Hers is closer to the mean, dirty, underhanded style of tricky dick.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 4, 2008 at 3:22 am Link to this comment

“The Clinton campaign needs to examine not what this fight has done to Obama but what it is doing to her.” Naturally, Clinton is ignoring all this…

You sicko journalists need to examine what you have done for Obama as well as what it is you are doing to Hillary with your preferential reporting and dubious discussions throughout the campaign to date, duh.

Being politically-correct is neither an excuse for sexism or for laziness and unprofessional bias. Now you are all desperately trying to cover your failings, lies and distortions…....

Report this

By cyrena, April 3, 2008 at 11:56 pm Link to this comment

Well Mr. Boyarsky, I can say this and mean it with heartfelt sincerity; I’m really glad that you write for two websites, and that the editors of both appreciate your thoughtfulness, including the ones here at Truthdig.

Yep, I appreciate them, because they appreciate you, which brings you to the rest of..US!

So…now everybody can be grateful for some of these things that still mean so much, even if all of us don’t recognize them. (like that ‘character’ that you mentioned).

Actually, I have to admit to a bit of nostalgia for ‘old media’. I mean the content of course. I love the new technology, but the content has no doubt become lacking in the form that I knew and loved. Just not that many great publications around anymore, but then…that’s another story, deserving of its own series.

Still, you’re an example that something WAS salvaged from it all, as are the editors of Truthdig.

Meantime, I have to agree that Hillary Clinton IS for sure, a REAL politician, and she’s got ‘character’ too. Good or bad, it’s still character.

(somehow, I don’t feel comfortable comparing her to Roosevelt, but that could be a result of my own ideology).

Still, I get your point.

Report this

Page 3 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