Bill: Reporters Who Dwell On Racial Dust-Ups Are "Determined To Take Election Away" From The People
Must-see TV: Bill lays into a reporter big time, suggesting that those covering the racial dust-ups, rather than the issues, are proving that they're "determined to take this election away" from the people of South Carolina...
Also note Bill's strongly worded objection to comments by prominent South Carolina Democrat Dick Harpootlian, an Obama supporter, who charged that some of Bill's recent comments "were reminiscent of Lee Atwater," an extraordinarily over-the-top comparison of the former president to one of the most notoriously dirty political operatives of the last generation.
Comments (273)
Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 6:03 PM:Bill is out of control. He was the one who started this with his dishonest attacks and now he blames the media when they start to backfire. I've lost all respect for this man.
Jeff wrote on January 23, 2008 6:05 PM:An email chain from me and a friend, two die hard democrats, posted here that I think exemplifies what a LOT of Dems are feeling in regards to the Clintons (at any cost) tactics and motivation.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/01/23/obama_campaign_decries_clinton.html#more
Obama's 'Reagan Remarks" were actually courageous in that he goes on
record pretty much saying No to tax cuts. Personally she lost me big with this shit and even more so when she started making those 'slum lord' accusations. To a DEMOCRAT. The democrats stood behind her and Bill through all the Whitewater, Lewinsky, et all dirty play. 'moveon.org' was created to 'move on' from the bullshit. FOR them. They should be saying something. Obama needs to louder and more
effectively.
Totally agree with your comments regarding the Clintons. The problem for O is that if he gets down to their level, he's not engaging in a "different type of
politics." If he plays their game, cynicism wins big time. He needs a wider web of surrogates to do it for him: remind people that Clinton shrank the party, drifted right, besmirched the office, wasted everyone's time with his bullshit, etc. Do we really want to spend our energy defending these people again rather than moving forward? I think I've decided that if Hillary gets the nod, I will not vote. I just can't stand to see the party and the country go back to that
shit.
sigh... http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/01/23/bill.clinton.yellin.cnn
I think they'll take the party down. It seems they only get fired up when they're defending themselves. Where was this outrage and risk taking from EITHER of them the past 7 years. Gore went on the line, Kerry, other establishment dems. Not them...
Keeping it the news. Bill Race-Baiter Clinton strikes again.
Irishamerican wrote on January 23, 2008 6:06 PM:What a jerk.
To think I used to defend this guy.
There was a political operative dirtier than Bill? I find that hard to believe based on recent evidence.
hadenough wrote on January 23, 2008 6:09 PM:That is why Bill Clinton is The Big Dog.
The Clintons seem to forget that Obama wasnt running as a black candidate...People seem to forget that just a few weeks ago Obama was behind in all the polls for the black vote...Since then the Clintons and their surrogates have put his race in the forefront because they know they cant beat him if they dont and now that they have beaten the guy down with it, Bill wants to say that people who are focusing on it is trying to take the election away from the People of SC? Why wasnt he thinking like this before he and his wifes surrogates started spouting racial slime 3 weeks ago?
Bill and Hillary are full of crap!
Jane wrote on January 23, 2008 6:14 PM:Ed Schultz says Bill Clinton is "lying" repeatedly on Hardball.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-X9tEOp19o
Jay wrote on January 23, 2008 6:15 PM:"That is why Bill Clinton is The Big Dog."
..who apparently can't stop humping peoples leg..
Irishamerican wrote on January 23, 2008 6:16 PM: Mike wrote on January 23, 2008 6:18 PM:Greg,
The Lee Atwater comparison is not even close to "extraordinarily over-the-top".
Harpootlian was not talking about Bill's comments specifically. He was talking about the Clinton campaign in general and in proper context, the comparison is quite apt.
"The politics of deception that they have been practicing remind me of Lee Atwater's campaigns here," Harpootlian said. "What we're seeing here is a pattern: It began with the so-called accidental statement by Shaheen about drug use, and then we see Robert Johnson up on the stage with her and they don't decry it."gustav wrote on January 23, 2008 6:20 PM:
Ha! I love it!
Seriously, he's absolutely right about the media. Voters actually care about what candidates say about issues, while newsheads just seem to want to write about stupid shit like these attacks.
Oh, I realize that Clinton's campaign has "fed" reporters these kinds of attacks too-probably even more than Obama's--but what else are you going to do?
It infuriates me to read democrats complaining about the campaigns brawling with each other--do they think that the republicans won't do far worse? If the candidates can't deal with it we'd better weed them out now.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:20 PM:maybe billary should stop making racially tinged comments then...
just a thought. if you dont want thereporters to report it, stop saying those things!!!
to wrote on January 23, 2008 6:20 PM:The Clintons are trying to out-lie the Republicans. If anyone could do that, they could.
hello_world wrote on January 23, 2008 6:21 PM:Dick Harpootlian talking to MSNBC, expounding on his respect for the Clintons and his views on the SC primary, all while being baited on race for 3 1/2 minutes.
The media is happy to spin up any controversy, and Bill Clinton is more than happy to throw his voice into the narrative they've pushed since pushed since NH. That would be that speaking about racial issues is taboo, and the one driving this is the Obama. I just had a discussion the other day at work, and he mentioned Lee Atwater's name in describing the campaigning from Hillary Clinton so far.
I'll reserve further comment until Harpootlian's words are reported in their total context, as I no longer unequivocally believe Bill Clinton, and I've learned to be somewhat critical of early inflammatory-looking posts here.
Karen wrote on January 23, 2008 6:23 PM:What have Hillary and Bill done to Obama that is so bad? Talk about his record? Call him out on his praise of Reagan? Oooo that's so mean and evil. What do they think this is? A campaign or something?
What a big baby.
Anyone who says the Clintons (and I do mean both of them) are above using the tactics of Lee Atwater to win elections is whistling Dixie. They are grandmasters of the bald-faced lie, and have been for 20 years. Even in this statement by Clinton, he lies again, falsely claiming there's no meaningful difference between Hillary's record on the war and Obama's. (Except one was for it, and one was against it.) The man is a shameless liar -- and oh yeah, he even lied under oath in federal court, and got his license to practice law yanked for it. Why are we even listening to this liar? No Third Term!
franklyn wrote on January 23, 2008 6:30 PM:I was watching Hardball last night and Chris Matthews had on Jesse Jackson...Jackson made a very interesting comment...He basically said that Obama's problem is that he needs a surrogate with some weight who can do for him what Bill is doing for hillary...
Now i read today where John Kerry came out in defense of Obama but the thing is my tv was glued today on all 3 major cable news outlets and not one of them carried it...
I think some of the senior Dems need to go out publicly and condemn Bill for what he is doing. Also, like Mitt Romeny gave a press conference to deal with the issues of his religion, i think it would be a good idea if Obama does one also to put this race fire that the Clintons started to rest...
What youll think?
hello_world wrote on January 23, 2008 6:31 PM:God, I'm getting really bad. Here's the link that was supposed to be in my privious post.
Scientific wrote on January 23, 2008 6:33 PM:Whatever, Karen. You want to have your head up your ass and claim that "all they're doing" is calling Obama out on his record? Give me a small break. And if you knew how to read, you'd know Obama wasn't praising Reagan. Enough of that b.s. We ALL see through that now.
As for it being "a campaign or something": while you're being a cynic and rooting for Hillary like it's a damned football game, let me clue you in - this kind of "campaign" tactic is exactly what Obama is out to change. Has he been entirely successful within his own? Not exactly. But it doesn't happen overnight, and what the Clintons have been trying to do from the start is to bring him down to their level with blatant lies and distortions that they hope will stick in the minds of an American public they so obviously underestimate.
So save it, Karen. Taunting the guy is not part of political campaigning. It's playground, fifth-grade nonsense.
An Outhouse wrote on January 23, 2008 6:33 PM:those covering the racial dust-ups .. and Hitlery's surrogates trying to use the court system to close polls.
Jeremy wrote on January 23, 2008 6:33 PM:Reporters should focus more on the Clintons stealing the NV caucuses popular vote.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/23/164530/670/481/441908
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:35 PM:And the we see Jesse Jackson, Jr. saying Clinton didn't cry over New Orleans.
And then we see Rev. Joseph Lowery talk about how blacks, no matter how much education they have, they never graduated from the slave mentality if they didn't vote for Obama.
And then we have Donna Brazille say the Big Dog called Obama's candidacy a fairy tale.
And then we have an Obama surrogate claiming that Senator Clinton said it took a white man to get civil rights passed.
Laidbakguy wrote on January 23, 2008 6:36 PM:You know I've been holding my tongue, but this stuff is F'ng crazy, where does it end? What ever happened to winning with honor? Smells very "Rovian" in nature, throw as much slime at your opponent and hope some sticks and keep your opponent on the defensive... I used to respect and defend Bill Clinton, hell I even voted for him TWICE. To all the Obama haters out there, be careful what you wish for.
nizzy wrote on January 23, 2008 6:37 PM:The day Barack and Oprah campaigned together in South Carolina, was the day OBAMA injected race into this race...
Laidbakguy wrote on January 23, 2008 6:41 PM:nizzy wrote on January 23, 2008 6:37 PM:
The day Barack and Oprah campaigned together in South Carolina, was the day OBAMA injected race into this race..
Please explain HOW?!?!?! Oprah is a celebrity who has plenty of fans of ALL COLOR, so because she's black and from Chicago that somehow equates to injecting races? Give me a break!
Anon@6:35
1. Jesse Jackson Jr was a moron for making the comment, so no disagreement here.
2. Reverend Lowery wasn't speaking at an Obama event, or appearing as a surrogate. Frankly as far as I can tell these were his personal observations. So there's nothing here.
3. Donna Brazille is a commentator and part of the DNC. Nothing to do with Obama.
4. I wish Clinton (and her supporters) would acknowledge that whatever her intent, that was an incredibly inartful comment. At the next stop she adopted a better statement, but seems on blaming folks for the natural interpretation of her words. No one is perfect and I think if she just said, I misspoke or something, it would be a dead issue. Unfortunately the Clintons have shown an unwillingness to admit fault.
So, with the exception of #1, I don't think you can direct any of this towards Obama. And I noticed you didn't mention Bob Johnson's comments as he was introducing Senator Clinton. How very unshocking.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:42 PM:I could NEVER vote for Obama after seeing Bill talk. The Obama campaign is the most racist since Strom Thurmond in 1948. The Senator from Punjab. Give me a f**king break. This Chicago slim machine is evil.
2w wrote on January 23, 2008 6:43 PM:Racially tinged comments:
Jesse Jackson, Jr. saying Senator Clinton didn't cry for all the blacks in New Orleans.
Rev. Joseph Lowery saying blacks who don't support Senator Obama still have a slave mentality.
Donna Brazille saying President Clinton called Obama's campaign a fairy tale.
Some other surrogate saying Senator Clinton said it took a white man to achieve civil rights for blacks.
Nope. Nothing racial there.
lorelynn wrote on January 23, 2008 6:52 PM:My god, the Obama people are the biggest bunch of cry babies I've ever seen. They some how or the other have convinced their wee little selves that they are entitled to say anything about Clinton but Clinton is not allowed to respond. Oh, and GOD forbid that Hillary actually point out Obama's historical record in context - that's waaaaaaaaay out of bounds! How dare she insinuate that he votes in lockstep with her!!!!!!
For years, the right tore away at Bill confident that they couldnt' really hurt him - and ultimately, they didn't. Now, it's the Obama supporters wailing away on him like a two year old rough housing with their dad.
Thank god, Obama is losing. I think adults everywhere will be glad when he is finally handed his hat. I wonder how long before he becomes a lobbyist?
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:52 PM:Senator Clinton herself said that she could be the Senator for Punjab at an event, moron.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:53 PM:Anon@6:35
1. Jesse Jackson Jr was a moron for making the comment, so no disagreement here.
2. Reverend Lowery wasn't speaking at an Obama event, or appearing as a surrogate. Frankly as far as I can tell these were his personal observations. So there's nothing here.
3. Donna Brazille is a commentator and part of the DNC. Nothing to do with Obama.
4. I wish Clinton (and her supporters) would acknowledge that whatever her intent, that was an incredibly inartful comment. At the next stop she adopted a better statement, but seems on blaming folks for the natural interpretation of her words. No one is perfect and I think if she just said, I misspoke or something, it would be a dead issue. Unfortunately the Clintons have shown an unwillingness to admit fault.
So, with the exception of #1, I don't think you can direct any of this towards Obama. And I noticed you didn't mention Bob Johnson's comments as he was introducing Senator Clinton. How very unshocking.
You guys are funny. It's starting to look like a freeper board in here.
Bill's attacking the *press*, guys.
Franklyn, the Clintons haven't been putting race front and center. The PRESS has, for months and months.
In fact, the Daily Show made the point about all this very clearly last week:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147886&title=the-race-card
freaktown wrote on January 23, 2008 6:53 PM:
He goes off on a rant about how dirty the OBama campaign is (w/o one shred of proof, btw) then complains thats all the reporters cover.
He SAYS he wants them to stop, but if he did, would he really give the cable channels five minutes of him ripping on Obama and the media?
I mean, he KNOWS they're going to play this over and over and over again. But thats precisely what he wants. Free press of him bashing obama and undermining the media's credibility so that when they call BILLARY on their BS people will think the media is unreliable.
God, I hate the CLintons so much.
I am broadly inclined to agree with Pres Clinton here. I would love to see CNN & al refuse to cover these race-baiting stories and stick to more substantial fare. If a racist says something reprehensible and no one hears it, does it make a difference?
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:55 PM:Bill Clinton should go back to cheating on his wife with bimbos from Arkansas and lying about that. He's an absolute embarrassment on the campaign trail. His comments don't make any sense. I hope that once he loses South Carolina and the entire African-American community for Hillary, her campaign wakes up and puts him out to pasture.
JEM wrote on January 23, 2008 6:57 PM:When in the hell is this going to stop being a top-line story? 'Bill Clinton is red in the face...' 'Bill Clinton goes off on a reporter...' Who. Cares. Stop reporting this nonsense, it's happening in every early state.
elial wrote on January 23, 2008 6:58 PM:I think Bill made a good point. The press is certainly trying to stir up something from very thin gruel.
The Clinton's racist? No.
Another topic...Obama's comments on Reagan and Republicans. He doesn't explicitly say the Republican ideas are good. But the implication is that
1) the democrats had no ideas between 1992-2007.
Is that correct? What about balancing budgets...a fairly radical challenge to the staus quo (conventional wisdom) after the Reagan Bush era.
2) he also implies that at least at the outset...the tax cuts had merit...even though they didn't do anything positive with regard to energy policy (non sequitir?)
Obama was to talking to a conservative paper in a conservative state. The editor probably voted for Reagan. He certainly didn't criticize him, unless you think optimism, dynamism, entrepreneurship are bad things...
Why not? He wanted (and got) the Reno Gazette's endorsement.
Reaching out to Republicans as a major part of his 'different kind of politics' campaign. He is upfront about it but has to walk a tightrope to do it.
Lee Atwater
Bill Clinton
Karl Rove
What have they got in common ?
They tear democrats apart for sport!
how can the media steal the election when the clintons already have?
Jeremy wrote on January 23, 2008 7:02 PM:Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:42 PM:
For the record. Punjab is a region in India, not a racial slur. The Obama memo calling Clinton the "Senator from Punjab" was in reference to a Clinton joke about being able to be elected there.
2w wrote on January 23, 2008 6:43 PM:
Did JJJr say "all the blacks" or is that one of those things that Clinton and supporters add on later to make it sound worse? I've never heard of Lowery or the statement you reference. Obama had to overcome a lot of "I would support him but THEY won't let him win". That might be what he was referring to. That would make sense and it's not saying ALL blacks have such a mentality, only those whose only reason for not supporting Obama is "they" won't let him win. Donna Brazille is not connected to the Obama campaign, but I think that her response is legitimate. "Some other surrogate. . ." mmmmkay. Don't follow you there. Obama said her comment was ill-advised. It was, for a number of reasons, not the least her elitism.
Also, race is not in and of itself a taboo topic any more than gender. Though, if Obama made half as many explicitly racial appeals as Clinton makes gender appeals he wouldn't be where he is in this race. . . with the countries most powerful political machine resorting to the most desperate tactics to stop him.
Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 23, 2008 7:02 PM:Listen to him go on and on. Hillary can do the same thing. Talk non-stop until the whole talking point and parentheticals are out. It's a gift. Like some frat guy who can do a really long, multi-layered belch.
It's kind of sad. I feel like he's an athlete who should have gone out on top, but instead, stayed in too long and now his once loyal fans are booing.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 7:03 PM:Have you ever noticed. When Bill Clinton says "we" it means Hillary and I. When Obama or Edwards says "we" it means "We the People".
WE NEED CHANGE. Enough of the Clintons and the Bushes. They are the same Washington power establishment protecting the corporate-serving status quo.
tym wrote on January 23, 2008 7:03 PM:The Clintons are rapidly destroying themselves and the Democratic party.
I never thought I would see the day that a democratic candidate would use racebaiting, outright lies and even voter surpression to win.
Shame on the Clintons
Never would I vote for that woman
Everything about them is phony especially their so-called marriage.
Bill is and has always been a serial philanderer during their marriage.
Most of Hillary's experience is in covering up for Bill's indiscretions and smearing any woman that accuses him
They are shameless and dispicable.
Why is Obama campaigning as the victim of bullying? Wimps don't win elections... Well, George Bush's father did, but even he never acted like such a wuss. This touchy feely Obama act is so annoying. Go join a knitting circle if you can't take it, Barack!
Facts are Facts ? wrote on January 23, 2008 7:05 PM:Not in Hill Bill y world
Repeat after me
"I did not have sex with that woman"
again, as I wag my finger in your face
"I did not have sex with that woman"
still wagging finger
KiwisCanFly wrote on January 23, 2008 7:10 PM:IN ANSWER TO" Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 6:42 PM:
I could NEVER vote for Obama...slim machine is evil.
YOU ARE A COMPLETE DOLT!
Seen the light!! wrote on January 23, 2008 7:12 PM:destor23
"I did not have sex with that woman"
"I want you to hold on to Hillarys skirt
while I bang away on these bimbos".
"You hold on to her till I get back and then I'll hold your hand and you can stroke my nasty ego".
joejoejoe wrote on January 23, 2008 7:14 PM:Bill Clinton was and is the Injector-in-Chief.
puzzled wrote on January 23, 2008 7:15 PM:destor23 said "Why is Obama campaigning as the victim of bullying? "
Hillary's attack dogs are out, using the Bush-Rove playbook: attack your opponent on your weakness and their strength.
So the perpetual victim Clintons accuse courageous Obama of playing the victim because he challenges Bill Clinton's LIES.
Text headquarters for new talking points destor23, no one will believe this one. The public has caught on to Bush-Rove-Clinton.
Confused wrote on January 23, 2008 7:17 PM:Bill talks with more specificity on the claims of hardball tactics by some unnamed union backing Obama (presumably the Culinary Union, but who knows) alleging that he spoke with 6 women and heard hundreds of accounts. He mentions some woman who worked with Chavez (name escapes me) who talked about it as well. And if I recall, HRC was in pretty tight with Democratic Party establishment in Nevada. In that they want to paint Obama as just any ol' politician (say or do anything to get elected), why didn't the file a complaint? I mean it's Bill Clinton. He said earlier he witnessed voter suppresion in his presence. Took direct reports from others. And what does he do? Apparently nothing.
Either he's lying or he's indifferent to voter suppression/disenfranchisement.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 7:17 PM: Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 7:17 PM:God I can't wait for Hussein to lose the nomination so that all the ObaIdiots will keep their threats, turn back into their true Rethugican selves, and crawl back under their slimy rocks dragging the eviscerated carcass of their Cry Baby Loser with them.
The added benefit of Oba wan Hussein's threats that "his" voters will bolt the party when he loses is that he will then have NO future with the Dems.
But hey, Hussein and Kerry will have lots of time to go windsurfing and Wah Wah Wah about how mean Edwards was to them both.
The First Losers Club.
Let's see ...
1.) Obama has trouble courting white voters in South Carolina.
2.) Bill hits the press hard for making race an issue.
3.) White people HATE it when race directly becomes an issue, especially when they feel like it's being made an issue by the media. (Code words are OK, though)
4.) PROFIT!
It's actually fairly brilliant. In the more progressive Northern and Western states, use surrogates to portray negative racial stereotypes (shuck and jive, cocaine) to put doubt into the white, working class base. In the South, play on white angst regarding race and the beleif that "outsiders" (the media) just make things worse.
Subtle, Rovian and skeevey, but brilliant.
Snarkish wrote on January 23, 2008 7:20 PM:destor23:
Don't recall Obama complaining. I recall him calling them out for lying. But not whining or complaining. The victim stuff is classic Clinton and you know it. Remember Obama's supposed to be playing the race card. Clintons=victim. Obama=race.
Ok, now go back to your spinning.
Adam wrote on January 23, 2008 7:21 PM:This is exactly why most Americans don't pay attention to politics. It seems to be a forum to tear people down instead of building them up. One thing Obama ask is for the public to hold our politicians accountable for their actions. I will never tell someone else how they should vote, but I will tell you why I will vote for Obama for Feb 5th and while if Hilary wins the nomination I will not vote for her.
Obama represents what I believe is good in this country. What I believe and “hope” this country can be through hard work and dedication. Clinton is running a campaign I can’t agree with. I don’t agree with the ad that distorts what a person says for political gain. Now the only way I can hold Clinton accountable for running a campaign I don’t agree with is by not voting for her if she is the Democratic nominee.
stlounick wrote on January 23, 2008 7:21 PM:Bill's right about one thing--it's about the voters and what they are worried about. And I would also agree that what the media is salivating over bears zero resemblance to what those voters are wanting to talk about.
That said....Bill can turn off the media faucet by just (gasp) walking away with a "no comment". That would stifle the media quite nicely, I think.
ScanDroid wrote on January 23, 2008 7:22 PM:RIGHT ON BILL!!
Proving once again that you are, and always will be, The Big Dog.
Jeremy wrote on January 23, 2008 7:22 PM:Shine wrote the truth on January 23, 2008 7:18 PM:
Dave wrote on January 23, 2008 7:29 PM:All the hate over so little substantive differences between Obama and Hillary on policy.
People, focus.
We've had 7 years of Republican rule. Our country is in the freaking toilet. We cannot afford McCAin or any of the other Republicans in office.
How many of these hateful posts have been "about the issues"?
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 23, 2008 7:30 PM:nizzy wrote on January 23, 2008 6:37 PM:
The day Barack and Oprah campaigned together in South Carolina, was the day OBAMA injected race into this race...
So if Oprah had campaigned with HRC, that would have meant gender was being injected into the race?
And while I'm at it, here's a missing piece to the puzzle:
It is HRC who keeps talking about a woman president. No one else is really discussing it, baiting or otherwise. Sure we get the occasional polls about women for HRC, but gender division polls have been around forever.
If HRC has 35 years experience (she claims), how come all she is doing is attacking Obama? She has decided to muddy the entire campaign -- once she was surprisingly in Iowa. I have yet to see her make substantive comments on more pertinent topics. 35 years is a long time, and it takes a lot of sound bites to get through it all. She should start today!
Remember, the campaign is not just to espouse new policy, but also reveal the type of leadership you intend to bring to your administration. The country doesn't need 8 more months of this, let alone a possible 8 years.
Tapper wrote on January 23, 2008 7:34 PM:I for one love it while the "big dog" Clinton humps my leg.
I will always and foreverer love to hide under my woman Hillarys skirt.
But ifin Bill knew he'd a stop a humpin,
so I got ta stay here under her skirt.
Don't (sic) a be tellin no one.
A question for the board:
Why is it if you are against HRC, you are automatically for Obama?
It's hardly logical.
ken melvin wrote on January 23, 2008 7:34 PM:The first law of US politics: The repubs play rough and dirty. They were afraid of LBJ. Since 1980, Clinton is the only one to have beaten them. Whoever the dems nominee, they need be at least as tough as Bill Clinton. Those who don't know this and those who think the repubs are going to vote for Obama are too naive to be playing the game.
CalD wrote on January 23, 2008 7:38 PM:Great video.
Jason wrote on January 23, 2008 7:39 PM:The sitcom continues. Someone needs to buy Obama dinner for providing this entertainment (well really Bill is providing it).
Lee Hylton wrote on January 23, 2008 7:41 PM:President Clinton is right-on with his assessment and he's one of the few people on the campaign trail who will speak candidly. Additionally, Obama's criticism of Senator Clinton for running a "winning campaign" is asinine. Why would she run, if not to win?
John wrote on January 23, 2008 7:41 PM:I can't believe what I'm seeing from the Clintons. We can't reward this kind of behavior. It's bad for the Democrats, and it's bad for the country.
I just started a new forum for liberals, progressive and disenchanted Democrats to talk about this uncomfortable place in which we have found ourselves. I'm looking for like-minded people to help me. Check it out at http://clintonvexation.blogspot.com/
The Man is a political brain.
Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 23, 2008 7:45 PM:You gotta be tough, but you don't lie, you don't trash, you don't build and deploy a corrupt machine in your party's PRIMARY, when you want your opponents supporters to come over to your side. Not just in November, but to work for you, to put your bumper sticker on their cars, to send you money. Even just to say positive things about you. If Clinton wins the primary, it will be a classic Pyrrhic victory, one for the history books.
prometheusSpeaks wrote on January 23, 2008 7:47 PM:Greg, I know you are not a real journalist, but why not just report the news and let the reader decide, instead of pushing HRC's talking points:
"an extraordinarily over-the-top comparison"
He is genius in playing these games. You have to give credit where credit is due. He plays the media like a fiddle as well. I think obama needs some better media advisors. He isn't playing the media as well.
That all being said, just shut-up mr. bill, just shut-up. I am sick of hearing these jerk and his spinning and distortion. I wish the media would start doing their jobs and not let these people get away with this garbage.
hrabal wrote on January 23, 2008 8:03 PM:Newsflash. The folks running for president this year are politicians. Any one of them will say anything to get elected. Some of them, obviously, are better choices for the country than others. Bill and Hillary play to win. No statement is out of bounds in an election until the voters say it is. There are no rules except get voters to vote for you or not vote for the other person. This is how Republicans play. Bill seems to upset people here (some of them may just be pretending to be upset) because he plays to win. He scares Republicans for the same reason. Better to complain about what unfortunate policies he favors and how Obama would do better than to get upset that Bill and Hillary are politicians trying to win an election. Bill and Hillary know you can't win the office of president unless you get nominated first. Somebody should tell Obama that.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 8:12 PM:dave wrote on January 23, 2008 6:07 PM:
There was a political operative dirtier than Bill? I find that hard to believe based on recent evidence.
Yes there is, his name is Barack Obama.
CalD wrote on January 23, 2008 8:15 PM:This video looks to be the top story on ABCNews.com, CBSNews.com, and CNN.com right now. Almost a sweep. (NBC has a thing on arterial stents.) Must have been a slow Brittany Spears day if they're leading with a political story.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 8:15 PM:It's not illegal unless they tell you so
The Clintons' Instructions to NV Caucus Workers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs
hisgirlfriday wrote on January 23, 2008 8:16 PM:Greg, your idea of "must see TV" and my idea of "must see TV" are quite different.
WHO CARES if Bill Clinton is whining about the media? Where's the equal time for Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama if Bill is merely a spouse supporting his wife. Or is the press not interested in the fact that Hillary Clinton is a stalking horse for violating the 22nd amendment.
Poor Poor Art
I think Bill Clinton is smart enough to realize that you can take that strategy just so far. And at some point, you're going to have to come behind and force more of a unity and a more positive message so that people don't forget what we really stand for as Democrats and what his legacy as president was for the American economy.tym wrote on January 23, 2008 8:21 PM:
Art Torres, CA Demo Party,
State Chair, NewsHour 1/22/08
Bill
You forget one simple fact
The American people dislike your wife
and will not vote for her
Probably deep down you dont like her either
Or why be a philanderer for 35 years
Just STFU
and exit from the stage
Go back to your Harlem office and chase then interns around there
You will be happier and live longer
Plain and simple. Mr. Nice Guy politics will not win. From reading blogs online I would think people hate Bill Clinton and Obama will win all fifty states. But Clinton has an 83% approval rating amongst democrats and Hillary has one 3 of 4 primaries, and will most likly win the nomination. I now realize that most of america does not go online and trash Bill Clinton (or Barack Obama). We are a passionate opinionated minority.
I like Obama and will vote for him if he wins but I am in Hillary camp. I can not belive people saying that they will not vote for Hillary if she beats Obama. What is more important the policy coming out of D.C. or the man or woman signing them. Would you rather have republican in there to appoint the next Supreme Court judge. I just can understand the irrational thinking that goes against our interests as a progressive democratic party. Whomever comes out of the primamries should have the vote of all democrats.I don't want a president who can't play hardball with the best of them. Did anybody see what the republicans did to John Kerry. I thought we would have learned our lesson. We can no longer have candidates who will not play on the same field as the Republicans. Because as much as you like to think that all of these republicans and young people will vote for Obama. its not going to happen. Young people ALWAYS dissapoint at the polls, and in the end republicans will not vote for a pro choice , pro civil union, Gov sponsored Health Care, progressive canidate, in a General election. No matter how much they like him.I think the perfect solution is a unity ticket of Hill with Obama as her running mate. She does her 8yrs. He can learn how to play hardball and she can learn how to give inspiring speeches. Then we elect Obama and he does his 8yrs and by that time we should have a progressive majority.
sue wrote on January 23, 2008 8:27 PM:Obama is really going after Hillary. According to ABC News, he’s got a new radio ad out in SC, entitled, 'She'll Say Anything and Change Nothing'. Here’s the copy from ABC News.
***The scathing 60 second ad, entitled "Anything Radio" has an announcer saying that Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected and is making false attacks against Barack Obama. The announcer then goes point by point - addressing the Ronald Reagan comments, Obama's stance on minimum wage, tax cuts, and corporate tax loopholes, Clinton's NAFTA stance, and reminds people that Hillary Clinton voted for "George Bush's war in Iraq." The announcer concludes, "Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything and change nothing."***
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-ad-shell.html?cid=98301726#comment-98301726
Sorry Larry
The Clintons are too slimy and corrupt for me to ever vote for that woman
I hope Obama knows better than to associate himself with the Clintons.
He can run in 2012 after McCain destroys Hillary and finally ends the Bush-Clinton era of dirty politics
Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 23, 2008 8:31 PM:Ooooh....snap!
Wasn't it a question from the audience concerning Bill's "standing in the way of the first black President" which brought this subject up in the first place.
Bill started the whole name calling thing when his wife was rejected in Iowa. It appears Karl Rove has been hired by Bill and Hillary.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 8:34 PM:"I think the perfect solution is a unity ticket of Hill with Obama as her running mate. She does her 8yrs. He can learn how to play hardball and she can learn how to give inspiring speeches."
Alternately, Obama can go back to the senate and watch as Hillary's administration loses congress to the republicans in 2010 and the White House to the republicans in 2012.
tym wrote on January 23, 2008 8:36 PM:Finally an Obama ad that tells the truth about HIllary
Go national with it right away
Woooo! I feel for the WGA but I sure am glad there's nothing better to watch on TV these days because this is really interesting. And the Big Dawg is absolutely right. People care about a recession and the endless war and how they're going to keep their jobs, their healthcare, their houses. And all Tweety wants to do is spin the racial issues? Man-o-man-o-man.
Here I am watching Hardball and even Pat Buchanan thinks Bill has a point. JEEsus, what is the world coming to when I start to think Pat Buchanan makes sense?
Go get'em, Big Dawg! It's time we took these bastards to task. Break the media stranglehold because a Democrat can't win until they're broken.
The essence of the complaint, that HillBilly are running an Atwater-inspired campaign, is exactly on the money. Well, it is off only in that their campaign seems more directly inspired by Rove than Atwater. The Clintons may or may not be the sleazy, machiavellian machines their enemies say they are, but judging from the way they have decided to run their campaign—ruthless, dirty, mean—you sure wouldn't know it.
As an aside, how much longer will the media keep up this pretense that Hillary is running for president? It's the both of them, both Bill and Hillary, that are running. Every single mention of Hillary in the news ought to be plural. They are both running.
Judith wrote on January 23, 2008 8:42 PM:Bill is right. End of story. Camera off.
jhv wrote on January 23, 2008 8:43 PM:he truly is an exceptionally good liar.
DavidL wrote on January 23, 2008 8:47 PM:Greg, I do not understand why you use the phrase "extraordinarily over-the-top" to characterize Harpootlian's comments. No, what Clinton has been saying is certainly not as bad as, say, Lee Atwater's Willy Horton ads, but yes, Clinton's recent attacks are certainly reminiscent of Atwater's methods: distort someone's comments in ways that touch upon deep-seated feelings/fears and then repeat, repeat, repeat.
This is serious stuff. I've voted for the Democratic nominee in every presidential election since 1980. But given what the Clintons have done in the last week, I do not see how I can vote for Hillary in the general election, were she to win the nomination. I never thought Democrats would stoop to the level of Republicans. But the Clintons are dragging us into the slime. I won't go with them.
Larry wrote on January 23, 2008 8:49 PM:Are the Hillary bashers bashing her because she is a politician, and does what politicians do? Do you remember when Dick Cheney wiped the floor with John Edwards in the Vice presidential debate by mentioning the amount of votes that Edwardds had missed. There was a long comlicated explanation for why he missed them but nobody cared. All that mattered is he missed them. Hillary gets hammered by progressives (myself included) on her vote for the war. There is a long complicated reason that she voted that way, but nobody cares. All that matters is she did. Obama better get it together if he wants to beat Hill because she does not lose.
If you do not like her because of substantive isssues then I understand. If you do not agree with her healthcare plan then I understand. But if you do not like her for some personal reason. If you do not like her because her Husband cheated ON HER. If you do not like her because she is ambitious then I don't get it.
Keith wrote on January 23, 2008 8:51 PM:Obama has a new radio ad in South Carolina:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Obama_radio_Shell_say_anything.html
ChrisO wrote on January 23, 2008 8:51 PM:It's amazing how Obama's supporters give him a pass on everything. He mentions MLK in just about every speech, but people still continue to argue that he's not playing the race card. And Rev. Lowery is a high profile Obama supporter. How can people just blithely declare "he wasn't acting as a surrogate." It's funny how the charges that Hillary is a racist continue to be spread, and as a result Obama's stock rises with black voters, but no one can believe his campaign might have something to do with it. Apparently Hillary keeps making racist comments, in order to drive black voters to Obama.
I don't blame Obama for emphasizing race. That's one of the things he's got going for him. But let's cut the crap that the Clintons are supposed to pussyfoot around, and monitor every critical word that comes out lest it be construed as racist. Bill says Obama's claim that he has always been steadfastly against the war is a fairy tale, and we hear that that's somehow racist. He calls Obama a kid, which plays to the theme of Hillary having more experience, and I hear people equating that to calling him "boy". Obama's supporters run blatantly racist ads in Neveada, but we don't hear a word from the Obama campaign about it.
As for Bob Johnson, I doubt you'll find many instances when a politician will dress down a major financial supporter on stage, in front of an audience. I think Johnson's apology a few days later is evidence that the Clinton campaign insisted he apologize.
Obama throws out the mention of Hillary being on the Wal-Mart board, ignoring the fact that she resigned in protest of their business practices, but God forbid she mentions Reczko.
As for those who keep whining about the Reagan remarks, Obama also said in his book that Reagan gets credit for ending the Cold War. So I don't think it's a big stretch to see other comments as complimenting Reagan, as well.
He votes present in the Illinois legislature, and his supporters are quick to claim it's just a "tactic." Right, it's a tactic that a lot of politicians use. It's called not wanting to be on record, so you don't have to defend a vote. That's what it means when they say he did it to provide political cover. It may have been politically wise, but it hardly paints him as a practitioner of some new kind of politics. And I'm not surre how his allies in the Illinois pro-choice movement get to be the last word on this. They have supported him for years, but they can just declare he's not to blame, and they're treated as some kind of impartial observers.
He says he didn't know how he would have voted on Iraq if he was in the Senate, and his supporters are quick to actually cast that as a virtue, because he was just being "loyal" to the party's nominees. Right. There's no possibility that he didn't want to endanger his chance to give the keynote, which was the biggest moment of his political career. Obama wouldn't think that way, because he's the first serious Presidential candidate in history who is devoid of ambition, and only wants to do what's right for the people.
He misses the vote on Iran, even though CNN reported that every Senator was told about the vote the night before, and 98 other Senators managed to show up. So he can accuse Hillary of supporting Bush on Iran, even though Obama had co-sponsored a nearly identical bill, that contained the same language everyone objects to.
I like Obama, and will campaign for him vigorously if he's the nominee. My quarrel is with his supporters, who are so starry-eyed that they have convinced themselves he's not really a politician, and only the Clintons get their hands dirty using political tactics. Please.
Whit wrote on January 23, 2008 8:52 PM:It took a Reagan to win the presidency running against "welfare queens."
It took a Clinton to cut welfare from hundreds of thousands of black women in poverty.
Will someone please remind me of things the Clintons did that weren't entirely consistent with the Reagan legacy? Health care doesn't count - they failed, perhaps purposely, on that one.
roo_P wrote on January 23, 2008 8:55 PM:This is an actual, unchanged quote from Hillary Clinton, 1/22/08:
"I can tell you that [Bill's stature as the leader of the Democratic party and his stature as a statesman] never crossed our minds. That's not how we think," she said. "It has absolutely nothing to do with a unified Democratic Party around a nominee and a full support for whoever our Democratic president will be. That is just the way it works."
I think that is all that needs to be said about the situation.
Whit wrote on January 23, 2008 8:55 PM:Chris0, You need to learn about how the IL legislature works. "Present" isn't passive in that context, it's a third option with quite different results from simply not coming in to vote that day.
Please review how Planned Parenthood specifically asked him to vote "present" - and how that saved abortion rights in IL, where "yes" or "no" would have resulted in a loss to the Republicans.
I won't vote for Hillary, either wrote on January 23, 2008 8:57 PM:I'm disgusted with the Clintons.
If Hillary wins the primary, for the first time in 30 years I will not vote for the Democratic candidate. I may write in Gore, Obama, or Edwards, I may leave it blank, I might even vote for McCain if he'd back away from his "100 years in Iraq" nonsense.
Hillary and Mark Penn? I couldn't take the four years.
JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 8:57 PM:Someone get Bill a diaper.
tym wrote on January 23, 2008 8:58 PM:LarryO
Liar
Show me any evidence that Hillary resigned in protest of Walmart's business practice'
Maybe Pot calling kettle Black
Rezko compared to Whitewater is really nothing. And there is no question that the Clintons were full partners in the Whitewate scam/swindle.
I wish Hillary had voted present on the AUMF and led a fight to stop to that 2 trillion fiasco that is rapidly bankrupting the US
JTinSoCal wrote on January 23, 2008 9:01 PM:Bill Clinton reminds me of Will Ferrell in Kicking and Screaming. Keep picking on him. He's looking more and more like Hillary's daddy.
bo wrote on January 23, 2008 9:03 PM:This from a member of the Cult of Hillary:
I like Obama, and will campaign for him vigorously if he's the nominee. My quarrel is with his supporters, who are so starry-eyed.
Obama supporters starry eyed???? What in hell would you call the supporters of the harridan clinton? Idiots, brainwashed, gullible, any number of descriptions come to mind.
It's unfortunate that the cult of hillary is unable to realize that she is unelectable. I hope that after she loses, in November if she is the nominee, that some of the cultists wake up and realize what asses and fools they've been.
And no, I'm not an Obama supporter. If he were the nominee and the election were to appear close I could possibly vote for him. Same circumstances but hillary the candidate and I vote third party-that will probably mean I vote how I actually feel instead of voting for one of the do-nothing parties.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 9:04 PM:Larry wrote on January 23, 2008 8:24 PM:
Plain and simple. Mr. Nice Guy politics will not win. From reading blogs online I would think people hate Bill Clinton and Obama will win all fifty states. But Clinton has an 83% approval rating amongst democrats and Hillary has one 3 of 4 primaries, and will most likly win the nomination. I now realize that most of america does not go online and trash Bill Clinton (or Barack Obama). We are a passionate opinionated minority.
Larry, here is where you are wrong: the Dem's won't get elected without the large middle. So it doesn't matter if 100% of the Dems like Bill. It's the middle ground that is the issue.
In fact, the reason why the Dem's have lost elections for the last 25-odd years is because they couldn't get the middle. That would be the "Reagan Democrats" that Obama referred to.
And the party faithful who will vote for HRC because she is a Dem, still don't understand it. That's why the Dem party must change. That's why the higher up elected officials in the Dem party aren't immediately flocking to HRC and some, in fact, are endorsing Obama.
Bill: "Obama's People Have Put Out a Hit On Me"
It really doesn't matter WHO whacks Bill. Bill Clinton's antics are the best evidence for change from BushClintonBush that Obama could possibly have. That's why Obama's people have put the hit out on Bill .
This is about mobilizing your voters and in Obama's case esp independent voters and those Democrats who are sick and tired of playing Clintonian games
All Obama has to do, at the end of the day. is appear the victim of HillBilly's attacks...he doesn't have to say much himself..20 seconds and the media will run with it..
It pisses Bill off and makes it appparent that his wife is not a bona fide candidate in her own right
Greg
Who's got the Contract on Bill?
Darkest of night
With the moon shinin' bright
There's a set goin' strong
Lotta things goin' on
The man of the hour
Has an air of great power
The dudes have envied him for so long
Oooh, Superfly
You're gonna make your fortune by and by
But if you lose, don't ask no questions why
The only game you know is "Do or Die"
Ah-ha-ha
Oops! I forgot to sign the previous post discussing how the Dem's need the middle.
Finally Barack
Hitting the lying Clintons hard
60 Obama Radio Script “Anything Radio”
Barack: I’m Barack Obama, running for President and I approve this message.
Anncr: It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.
Now she’s making false attacks on Barack Obama.
The Washington Post says Clinton isn’t telling the truth. Obama “did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans”
In fact, Obama’s led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.
But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote “paid tribute” to Ronald Reagan’s economic and foreign policy.
She championed NAFTA – even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs.
And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush’s war in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing.
It’s time to turn the page.
Paid for by Obama for America.
How much will you bleed for BillHill Democrats?
sarah wrote on January 23, 2008 9:08 PM:"Take elections away from the people" like trying to disenfranchise voters in NV, or not supporting the legal right of students in Iowa to vote? Riigghht.
And how about you quit lying to the people, if you care so much about them. How about you tell them the truth, quit attacking Obama with made up bullshit, and let the voters decide who they want to be their president?
john mccutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 9:12 PM:Anything Radio
James Brown - Papa Don't Take No Mess
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMYnZu9fdVA&feature=related
Dawn wrote on January 23, 2008 9:14 PM:I'll reserve further comment until Harpootlian's words are reported in their total context, as I no longer unequivocally believe Bill Clinton, and I've learned to be somewhat critical of early inflammatory-looking posts here.
Good idea, except that it was not Clinton who repeated Harpootlian's remarks. The reporter told him about them, and brought up the subject. In fairness, if her report was inaccurate, it is not Clinton's fault.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 23, 2008 9:16 PM:ChrisO writes:
Obama throws out the mention of Hillary being on the Wal-Mart board, ignoring the fact that she resigned in protest of their business practices, but God forbid she mentions Reczko.
My dear sir: please get your facts straight. HRC served on Walmart from 1986–1992. Any other reasons you think she might resign in 1992? Federal compliance reasons?
Yes, I knew you could come to the answer, my wayward child.
If anyone didn't already suspect how the Clinton campaign was going to frame Sen. Clinton's imminent defeat in SC, Bill Clinton provided the narrative tonight as reported by the AP:
"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," Clinton said. "But that's understandable because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time."
So, the Big Dog is proactively framing Obama's pending win as a matter of identity politics. Apparently, the people in SC aren't voting for Hillary because she's white and are voting for Obama because he's black.
When will the Clinton's stop playing the race card?
TrueBlue wrote on January 23, 2008 9:18 PM:I’ve come around to seeing Hillary as the candidate of proven change. She almost single handedly changed the direction of the health care debate, setting it back more than 15 years by botching it completely with her inept Cheney-like, secretive process in the early ‘90s. She changed from a certified hawk on the War in Iraq to parroting anti-war rhetoric only when it became politically expedient. She is in the process of setting back the progress of feminism with her hide-behind-her-husband campaign strategy. Oh yeah, she changed her “voice” after New Hampshire, and I can hear the difference.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 9:24 PM:Must see on video regarding REZKO-GATE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dxxgd28koXc
Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 23, 2008 9:26 PM:Whenever I see the headline 935 Lies, I have to remember it's about Bush/Cheney and the Iraq war, not Clinton/Clinton and the primary season.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 9:27 PM:tym wrote on January 23, 2008 9:06 PM:
Finally Barack
Hitting the lying Clintons hard
60 Obama Radio Script “Anything Radio”
Barack: I’m Barack Obama, running for President and I approve this message.
Anncr: It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.
Now she’s making false attacks on Barack Obama.
The Washington Post says Clinton isn’t telling the truth. Obama “did not say that he liked the ideas of Republicans”
In fact, Obama’s led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.
But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote “paid tribute” to Ronald Reagan’s economic and foreign policy.
She championed NAFTA – even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs.
And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush’s war in Iraq.
Hillary Clinton. She’ll say anything, and change nothing.
It’s time to turn the page.
Paid for by Obama for America.
In other words: Hope.
apa don`t take no mess
Papa don`t take no mess
Papa is the man who can understand
How a man has to do
Whatever he can
Papa don`t, Papa don`t, Papa don`t
Papa don`t take no mess, no
He don`t take no mess
Look, dig this
Papa didn`t cuss
He didn`t raise a whole lotta fuss
But when we did wrong
Papa beat the hell out of us
Papa don`t, Papa don`t
Papa don`t, Papa don`t
Papa don`t, Papa don`t
Papa don`t take no mess
Papa don`t take no mess
The Obama shouting brigades who are filling comments sections of all political sites are reminding me of Howard Dean's supporters. They are even prepared to Question Bill Clinton on race! Only because their candidate happens to be black disregarding his lifetime work! Talk about values!
Obama is nothing but air. He has no depth. Only thing he can do is give a nice speech which full of baloney like George Bush. We all know what it would cost us if elect a president who has only words but no real track record of competence - just look at George W Bush.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 9:30 PM:lol, resigned in protest of their business practices. to quote her husband, that's a "fairy tale". their business practices are her business practices. ruthless, out for yourself and your associates interests only and ignoring regulation at will when it suits your needs. hilarious...
ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 9:31 PM:You know, this whole Rezko business is boring. I'm not one of these Obama supporters who thinks he's the second coming of Christ. He's flawed, and the Rezko business demonstrates that. Anyone that's read history surroudning JFK knows that his background was far from perfect, as was FDR's. Moreover there's no evidence of criminal wrong doing here.
If the Hillbots want to persist in making Rezko central in their attacks on Obama, let's bring up the myriad of unseemly fund raising practices of the Clinton's. God knows there are still some unexplored angles that can be dredged up vis-a-vis Norman Hsu, or the Buddhist temple, or pick-a-number.
Tony Rezko wrote on January 23, 2008 9:34 PM:"When will the Clinton's stop playing the race card?"
Shut up, b*nghole. The Clintons have been champions of racial equality their entire public lives. It's Obama's campaign, grasping for straws in their must win state of SC, who have played the race card. Hillary or President Clinton would never, ever do that. Get off your elitist, liberal over-privileged view of the world and realize that Democrats are voting for Hillary because they like her and no smear or accusation from you will change that. Democrats LIKE the Clinton, you vile, filthy goat sodomizing Naderites.
Homefries wrote on January 23, 2008 9:35 PM:Oh my. This is getting ugly.
Do you Clinton supporters honestly believe that the HRC campaign can plow through the nomination with these tactics and hope to win the general election? With what? Disgruntled liberal baby boomers, the latinos, and the angry feminist vote? And 50 per cent negatives?
What are you smoking?
You are are alienating the very people you desperately need to succeed in a general election. You know, those Independents and Democrats who like Obama's message of change and bipartisanship. And it isn't just the Presidential election at risk, it's the toxic coat-tails for every toss-up Congressional election.
Grow up or stfu.
john mccutchen wrote on January 23, 2008 9:38 PM:AP ON DEADLINE: Clinton makes race an issue
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 9:42 PM:john mccutchen--
Did you even read the article????? Clinton was RESPONDING to a question, genius.
rachelrachel wrote on January 23, 2008 9:43 PM:The politics of deception that they have been practicing remind me of Lee Atwater's campaigns here," Harpootlian said. "What we're seeing here is a pattern: It began with the so-called accidental statement by Shaheen about drug use, and then we see Robert Johnson up on the stage with her and they don't decry it.
Shaheen was fired after his unfortunate remarks. I've never heard any claim that they were accidental. I'm not sure what Harpootlian means by "decry," but Hillary had said herself that Johnson went over the line. I suppose she could do a press conference and declare, "I decry Bob Johnson's remarks."
If Harpootlian thinks all this stuff was orchestrated by the Hillary campaign, my response is that when you have an organization of hundreds of people, it's very hard to completely control what everybody has said.
What's wrong with so much of corporate America? Bottom line mentality, ends justify the means, will say or do anything it takes to achieve its goals, regardless of the consequences. Does this remind you of a certain couple currently running for the Democratic presidential nomination whose last name begins with "C"?
Larry wrote on January 23, 2008 9:44 PM:Larry, here is where you are wrong: the Dem's won't get elected without the large middle. So it doesn't matter if 100% of the Dems like Bill. It's the middle ground that is the issue.
In fact, the reason why the Dem's have lost elections for the last 25-odd years is because they couldn't get the middle. That would be the "Reagan Democrats" that Obama referred to.
I disagree. I think democrats have lost over the last 20yrs because our party is so inclusive and has so many intersts that it is hard to make everyone happy. Every year we count on young people and independants and they always disapoint. Republicans are organized and rally around a few core issues... mainly getting rich and everyman for himself. You would almost never hear a republican say if Rommney doesn't win I will not vote for Huckabee. I also do not believe in a large middle. We keep losing because we court the middle when it does not exist and alienate our core members. And to be exact Clinton (both) or much more centrist then Obama.
PVRK:
What has Bill Clinton done for African-American's? What monumental legislation has he been involved with that garners such praise from many in the black community?
Bill Clinton's "welfare reform" hit black single mother's fairly hard as I recall. So, yes, I'm questioning Bill Clinton on race. Other than giving lofty lip service to the black constituency, precisely what is Bill Clinton's legacy in this regard?
It was Bill Clinton who recently, in Nevada, undermined the credibility and influence of the Culinary Worker's Union by decrying voter intimidation, although any sentient person knows that Union's regularly strong-arm members to vote the union line during elections. It's one of the reason's unions are political powerhouses. The result is improved standards of living for those who are union members. Many of whom are African American. Yet Bill sounds just like a republican when he argued that CWU member's should be able to vote for their candidate of choice. I suppose he wouldn't have been advocating union busting if Hillary had been endorsed versus Obama.
The end result of that fracas was a massive loss of esteem for the most powerful union in Nevada. Thanks Bill, you truly have the interests of blacks and unions foremost in your heart.
franklyn wrote on January 23, 2008 9:50 PM:hey john mccutchen:
you think that so called "pastor" was planted? they sure got him out of the room fast.
Irrespective of who you support, who can claim (with a straight face) that Bill is not full of crap?
Saturday he was telling the press that he witnessed voter intimidation and today he said he spoke with 6 black women who wanted to caucus for hillary but weren't allowed to by the media. Come on! I understand that attacks are part of the game here but Bill is supposed to be HELPING his wife, isn't he? As an "elder statesman", he continues to make our country look like a joke!
What Bill said in the clip is exactly correct. I saw bits of Tucker, Matthews, Fineman on Olberman, Blitzer, or FNC and all they are talking about is race and the race "strategy" of losing South Carolina, and Bill and Hillary lying endlessly. All played the exact same 2 minutes of clips from the debate endlessly (which featured Hillary telling the truth, though you would never guess that by the analysis or by reading here). If you find yourself agreeing with Russert, Matthews, Tucker, Howard Fineman, etc., I will respectfully suggest that this alone should tell you that you are full of it and need to look elsewhere for a different take on what is happening.
Read today's Daily Howler (Somerby is not a Hillary or Obama endorser or shill); please step back from the hype and grapple with a few specifics:
http://dailyhowler.com/dh012308.shtml
Most importantly:
Vote Democratic in November!
McCain or Romney = We all suffer.
McCain is ahead in the recent head to head polls against either Hillary or Obama. We will need every(!) one of your votes.
Am so baffled by the ignorance and refusal of the previous bloggers about Sen Obama' 2 comments in his interview. First he praised Reagan for his ability to bring opposing parties to some agreements then he commented on ideas for the last 10-to 15 years- meaning presidencies of Bush 41- 4 years then 8 for Clinton that is already 12 and then current president to serve our 8 years. Hillary was correct, she did not mention Reagan.Are you people so DUMB or BLIND that you refused to validate the distinction and allegations he made.No wonder this country is in a mess.Anti bloggers wanted to see her defeated and then they will annihilate Obama in the general campaign like the one they did to Harold Ford of Tennessee. In all honesty, people wanted to show themselves on TV embracing Obama but I bet my bottom dollar and they will not vote for him in the general election- surely nobody wanted to be accused of racial inference against him but secret balloting? -Get real. The media as owned by republicans will always instigate against the Clintons.This is why probably jobs are being exported overseas for lack of better judgment. Americans can be easily had especially by the media who feeds wrong suppositions
SAD but TRUE
I'm going to preface this by saying I respect Hillary Clinton and will support her if she is the nominee:
People who think it's Obama playing "the race card" should read that AP article above. Bill is very clearly saying (or "suggesting") that Obama is only going to win SC because he is black. How much more insulting and blatant can you get than that? I'm sorry, that kind of statement is not okay. And yet when Obama supporters point out that the Clintons have been trying to inject race into the campaign for months--turn Obama into the "black" candidate--WE are accused of playing the race card. Come on. Hillary supporters I'm sure are good people and loyal democrats, but this IS actually a campaign that is reminscent of Rove and Atwater. If we accept this in our own party we have NO RIGHT to complain when the Republicans do it as well. We need to be better than this or we are seriously tarnishing the democratc brand. If we don't keep our own house clean, others will do it for us.
swarty wrote on January 23, 2008 10:04 PM:Larry wrote:
Hillary gets hammered by progressives (myself included) on her vote for the war. There is a long complicated reason that she voted that way, but nobody cares. All that matters is she did. Obama better get it together if he wants to beat Hill because she does not lose.
From my seat, the main (but not the only) reason she voted yes on the war was because she was looking ahead 5 1/2 years to THIS EXACT MOMENT where she figured it would be good for her tough bonafides. She made the political judgement, knowing she would be running in 2008. We democrats are willing to overlook a lot in our candidates. She was wrong on that vote, has never apologized for it (I don't expect her to) and she's still the odds on favorite for the nomination.
Regarding the comment that she does not lose, she has run only 2 races. The first, in 2000 was against a lousy opponent (remember Rudy dropped out early) and in 2006, I could have run a better race than her token opposition. In fairness, Obama's Senate race was also a cakewalk.
As for Obama's bringing up the tag teaming, I think that his reason for doing so is exactly to tie them together because mentioning that Bill is a liar is not exactly news to the american public and it will remind us of that awful moment where he wagged that finger and... Don't be surprised if you see that on TV in the next few weeks. I think Obama is telling the voters that Hillary is incapable of running on her own, that she has to have Bill to win. It weakens her case that she is transformative.
I'm not saying it will work, but it sure has changed the coverage. It's been all about Bill since the debate ended. As it was intended, IMO.
maritza wrote on January 23, 2008 10:11 PM:Bill needs to STFU! I have talked to MANY African-Americans today (and I am one of them) who are turning AWAY from Bill and Hillary Clinton.
We are TIRED of Bill right now for the election looks like it is all about him.
Again Bill, STFU!
Dennis wrote on January 23, 2008 10:15 PM:Hillary haters unite. I am so sick of your constant whining about the Clintons, it is pathetic. If you don't want to support Hillary as the democratice nominee, take your sorry asses over to the looney right and get in bed with those low-life degenerate republicans. Good-by and good riddance. You were never true democrats to begin with. Why in the hell do you think Obama should get a free ride, this is a contest for the most powerful position in the world, and you expect the other candidates to drop their pants or pants suit,and grab their ankels. Get a life. Go Hillary, Bill is the bomb.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 10:18 PM:Mark:
You are exactly right. When I read the money quote:
"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," Clinton said. "But that's understandable because people are proud when someone who they identify with emerges for the first time."
I was shocked. Seriously, I hadn't jumped on the "Clinton playing race card" bandwagon up til now because I hadn't seen direct evidence suggesting the Clinton's were engaged in such things. Well, we now know the truth. It's despicable. They are now going to frame Obama as the "black candidate", which may not only shoot his chances of election during this campaign, but his chances in the future as well.
Tommy wrote on January 23, 2008 10:20 PM:Bill Clinton is right. He, nor Hillary, ever made anything remotely racial about this contest. And, my personal opinion, i am not surprised by the ignorant reaction from black S.Carolina politician when they act 'all tough' about race. Bill Clinton has done more for black people than any black leader since MLK. I absolutely will not vote for Obama for this simple reason - as a white man I am not interested in giving Blacks political power. Imagine if a nearly all white congress were to vote against Pres. Obama - the whole black leadership will cry Institutional Racism.
Blacks have not cleaned up their own.
Who do white people fear when the sun goes down? Thugs. Who are the thugs?
Not pretty. Looks like Barack has gotten inside Bill's head.
Stephen wrote on January 23, 2008 10:24 PM:It's so sad to read all the garbage in this list of comments. All the effort that the cadre of assassins in the press and the GOP spin machine has put in over the past 20 years attacking the Clintons on mostly made-up things has paid off and now the meme has been created and has a life of its own. And all the purists who voted for Nader in 2000 and put the worst administration in the history of this country into power are rallying behind Obama and playing the same ridiculous "no difference" slogan back as their excuse. And if they keep it up, we're going to wind up with another GOP disaster as president, the loss of the Supreme Court for another couple of generations, and the continued slide of this country into the third-world status that seems to be the destination of where our economy and our perceived standing around the world are heading.
So what does Mr. O have to offer besides some nice generalities and some disturbing statements about Reagan as a change agent, the GOP as the party of ideas for the past 20 years, the supposed bankruptcy of Social Security, and the Lion-and-the-Lamb will sit down to dinner together ideas about health care that he's bruiting about?
Minimal experience in government. No accomplishment that he can point to in his time in the Senate. A pack of amateurs and race-baiters among his advisers.
He would be to the GOP in the upcoming election as the invasion of Iraq was to al-Qaeda recruiting. A godsend. And all the so Pures would stand there and wring their hands if he were the nominee or sit back and frown if Clinton were the nominee and watch as some lunatic like McCain winds up getting elected and setting civil liberties, economic opportunity, and social mobility, back to where they were in the late 19th century.
We're like the Byzantines - constantly destroying our best people and weakening everything that makes our society strong. And it's not even the know-nothings who are doing this, it's the media stars aided by the conspiracy of silence among the progressives.
If not for this sorry situation Al Gore would have been president, Bush would have gone back to the deserved obscurity he came from, and thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of people from other countries killed in foolish, unnecessary, and badly executed adventures would be alive today.
Historians of the future will look back on this time and shake their heads.
Tommy,
What has Bill Clinton done for black people? Please illuminate the room with all the achievements so we may all fall down at the altar of praise.
Hell, give me ONE achievement. Please.
sue wrote on January 23, 2008 10:27 PM:New Radio Ad From Obama - "Hillary Will 'Say Anything and Change Nothing'"
Here’s the link, so you can LISTEN to it.
http://a.media.abcnews.com/podcasts/Tapper.mp3
Oh, it’s on baby. It’s on.
Why aren't white people willing to say 'hey, we don't really care about race that much, but as long as you black folks are going to make mountains out of mole hills, we sure as hell aren't going to give you the presidency." I see our civility taking a step backward if Obama is elected. Imagine, Maxine Walters, Kwame Mfuzi, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, on our networks every night trying to push their regressive dislike of white people into our faces.
I think white people forget - black people won't set the better example. We have treated minorities like shit for a long time....suddenly handing them over the power will create one hell of a backlash on the part of the blacks taking out all their shizzle on the whites.
It is not racism that puts 90% of black males behind bars. It is their attitudes.
Perhaps the opinions and impressions of a neutral, but Democratic, observer will help in this argument: The Clintons are too cozy with corporations and lobbyists, always have been. They are being a little more aggressive and negative in some of their strategies than is wise, but nothing near as over the line as the Atwater/Rove style republicans. Their willingness to mix it up appeals to me for a general election in which whoever gets the nomination will be running through a field of jackals for eight months. Obama is impressive, but he is starting to whine. His Reagan remarks were a mistake. They were offensive to people who understand what he was trying to do with those editors. I still haven't heard him say his words came out wrong and he knows that Reagan, Bush, Gingrich, Delay et. al. did terrible harm to people by pushing a lot of very bad ideas. Obama's supporters need to calm down. They are acting like it's good against evil, but it is really just one ambitious, imperfect, half decent politician against another ambitious, imperfect, half decent politician. Either one of them will be a welcome change if either can get elected. If one would start running against Bush and all of the current crop of ridiculous republican candidates while they are still pandering to the stone age republicans, I think it would pay off.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 10:36 PM:Sue,
OMG! I just listened to the new negative ad! KABOOM! I think this is the most effective one I've heard in a long, long time! Thanks for sharing.
crayz wrote on January 23, 2008 10:36 PM:tommy - Racist much?
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 10:37 PM:What Bill Clinton has done for blacks:
1) improved ratings for Arsenio Hall
2) Ron Brown
3) Welfare reform
4) 100,000 more police
5) balanced budget
6) prosperous decade
7) minority owned business legislation
8) raised minimum wage
9) Maya Angelou at inaguration
10)visited new skills training facilities in black neighborhoods
The question is: What Should Bill Clinton have done for Blacks? What exactly do you recommend they need?
I had decided to vote for Obama, but the way his campaign first mischaracterized the MLK/LBJ and "fairy-tale" soundbites and THEN turned around and threw a fit when the Clintons took his Reagan comments out of context have made me reconsider my decision. Obama shouldn't throw stones at the Clintons and then be a big crybaby when they throw some back at him.
My concern about Obama since the beginning of last year is that he's never been tested in a real political campaign. He threw some elbows to clear the state senate ballot the first time he ran, but that's about it. He's never faced any serious opposition until now and it shows. Obama is going to face 100x worse than this if he gets the nomination. Those of you who characterize what's happened so far as "Rovian" don't know what you're talking about. This stuff is child's play compared to what the GOP is going to do to our nominee. He's not holding up well under fire now... and it's only January.
I will never enthusiastically vote for Hillary Clinton, but Barack Obama has not closed the deal with me.
Tommy wrote on January 23, 2008 10:48 PM:Tommy here:
someone asked if I was racist?
Is it racist to protect one's own interests? Is it racist to draw conclusions from the behavior of a racial class?
Is it racist to know that another race, if given power, would probably worse at withholding contempt for whites, than most whites are towards blacks?
Is it racist to look at all this realistically?
If you are a white reader - how will you feel when your subconscious white history of power and influence goes by the way side?
Do you think Black people, if put through a lie detector, will have wholesome benevolent feelings towards whites?
Come on. There has been NO black leadership addressing the plight of the poverty stricken, welfare families, single mothers, and young male criminals.
Whenever a white person kills a black person..Jesse and Al are on the scene.
Whenever a black person kills a black person....they never ever show up. It's the black community that needs the most help. But I sure as hell don't feel we need a black president to even old scores.
Obama is inexperienced, easily angered, and has not been able to express REAL leadership in practical terms.
Us Democrats must remember one thing - it is not a bad thing that the most intelligent President in recent US history may actually end up back in the White House supporting his wife.
Who is Obama going to have as an advisor? John Kerry and Oprah?
Bob,
I respect your attempt at tolerance and objectivity, but I think there is a vast difference between Obama and Hillary. His Reagan remarks were nuanced, and his only mistake was not couching them at the 6th grade level so they wouldn't have been open to deliberate misinterpretation. I guess being brainy is not a virtue in politics. Hell, we got George W. Bush (rimshot).
Obama is not "whining" when he is setting the record straight. Frankly, this is a damned if you do damned if you don't situation. Obama is accused by Hillary supporters of "whining" when he rebuts Billary's misinformation, but if he remained silent Hillbots would declare that he wouldn't know how to throw a punch against the republicans during the GE.
And don't write off the so-called ridiculous republicans, well, at least not John McCain. You may disagree with him, but he will be extremely formidable in the GE if he gets the nomination. I dare say he could easily win the election against a Hillary Clinton candidacy.
Kathleen in Maine wrote on January 23, 2008 10:52 PM:I agree that there are parallels between the MLK/LBJ and the Reagan remarks, in terms of there both being easy to take out of context. But if you recall, Obama simply characterized Hillary's MLK/LBJ remarks as "ill-advised," because he knew there was a dog whistle embedded there. On the other hands, The Clintons have gone to town with this Reagan/Republican ideas thing, outright lying. Now they've been more careful to quote exactly, and then go to town with it, but still.
I for one think Obama is holding up under fire just fine. If you think he's supposed to just smile when they lie to his face, I've got a pair of wet eyes, a choked up voice, and a some of us are right, some of us are wrong, I just don't want us to fall backwards act I can sell you.
S wrote on January 23, 2008 10:58 PM:if you look at yesterday's post, Obama is telling us that Hillary's supporters and the Hillary haters will eventually support him...he is breaking rule #1 and showing what an amateur he is...he is taking the voters for granted because of his delusional ego and arrogance...
...on top of that...he is way too thin skinned to ever make it through the general election and the onslaught of the republican attack machine...
...if he is whining now about a few things someone in his own party pointed out...let's get real...how in the hell is he going to stand the REZCO ads, and other attacks the republicans are going to dump on him...they will expose him for what he is...a smart, charismatic novice who has no experience on the national level going up against the swiftboaters of the republican attack machine...
...by the time Feb 5 comes to an end...the wind will be out of Obama's sails and this will have been a good rehearsal for him for another time.
Ted in Wichita wrote on January 23, 2008 10:59 PM:Obama reminds me of Kerry in the sense that he is a rather boring guy. Not sure if that matters given McCain is a real bore. Why didn't Obama serve in the military? That will be a question that comes up if he faces McCain.
Why was Obama snorting cocaine while John McCain was in captivity? That will come up. Why has Obama accomplished very little both in his home state and nationally? That will come up.
What does it mean to unite America?
Obama is weak in all areas except giving an impassioned speech. He cannot beat Hillary. She is the complete package. She's been beaten, thrashed, and keeps bouncing back. Obama cannot handle just a little criticism.
None other than Bill Clinton has put paid the lie that his wife is a bona fide presidential candidate in his own right.
Ted in Wichita thinks Obama is BORING?
I thought I had heard every slur in the book but BORING?
Ted, Wichita must be a wild place.
What is the matter with Kansas anyway?
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:02 PM:The MSM has now been made to seem to be siding with Obama and they will do their best to be made to look fair in this matter so they will finally do some serious probing into Obama. He won't like it and neither will his supporters. Clinton knows something about Obama, she told Edwards, He told his money people and they leaked it. This is not gonna be good for Obama. This is what Bob Novak was talking about months ago. It's not the debate landlord deal it's something else, I would suspect but with Reszo. Now tonight Obama gives a vailed threat of not supporting the winner if it's not him. It's now a game of chicken.
sue wrote on January 23, 2008 11:02 PM:ChrisNBama - you're welcome.
I think Obama is being pretty fair though. Unlike Hillary, he's not spouting lies here, and it's carefully delivered in a tone that is in keeping with the more uplifting tone he has set for his campaign.
He's finally responding to her unceasing attacks in an appropriate way. This was too long in coming. I just hope he's responding soon enough.
*****
New Radio Ad From Obama - “Hillary Will Say Anything and Change Nothing”
http://a.media.abcnews.com/podcasts/Tapper.mp3
Kathleen,
I grew up in Maine by the way, Washington County.
I agree completely. I think Obama is coming across quite well in all this. He hasn't lost his temper, or had a "hillary" fer klempt moment. To be fair, I sort of felt bad for Hillary during the crack up. Here was a woman that had been triangulating for the past 16 years for her shot at the Presidency, when this young charismatic upstart upstages her in Iowa. It must have been a very scary moment indeed.
You are also right about the MLK/LBJ blow up. Obama didn't pile on, he merely said her comments were ill-advised. He didn't take out negative ads taking her statements out of context and airing them in a primary state, like we see with Clinton and the Reagan flap. Telling isn't it?
Shine wrote on January 23, 2008 11:04 PM:/threadjack
The LA Times has a new, "kinda sorta" hit job on Obama. This time it's that, by his own admission, Obama hit the wrong vote button a few times. The piece, like the Rezko article, then explains the unique, f'ed up nature of Illinois politics and procedure, so it doesn't exactly say he actually did anything wrong, but it has the exact same insinuating "Just sayin'" tone as the Rezko article.
Which, of course, has been the Clinton mantra since Iowa
With their willful ignoring of the issue Bill's campaigning and the racial undertone -- which is being discussed, ad nauseum, by the NY Times and the Post --, and the almost always positive headlines regarding Hillary, I think even Inspector Clouseau would conclude that the Clinton camp owns the LA Times.
Obama says he bungled some Illinois votes
VLongtime patron may be a problem for Obama
Clinton gets warm welcome from Latinos
markg8 wrote on January 23, 2008 11:05 PM:Shorter Bill Clinton today when speaking to the CNN reporter:
"Voters aren't interested in pushback against or factchecking of our lies and distortions about Obama. At least not any I just talked to. They want to hear you echo our lies and distortions."
liberal historian wrote on January 23, 2008 11:06 PM:
Yep it is official.
It's a freeper board.
If Obama and friends can't take some heat from the Clintons, how are they going to hold up to heat from the massive right wing smear machine?
The more you guys whine, the more certain I am that Obama isn't up to this.
Mark wrote on January 23, 2008 11:07 PM:The hard part for Obama is that when Bill Clinton distorts his record, he can't come back aggressively. A) he's not running against Bill, and B) to tear down the last democratic president in this country is not advisable. For Obama to fight back in an aggressive way would be very damaging to the party longterm. He could go there, but he's wise enough to know the dangers of doing so. He can fight fair with Hillary and that's where this campaign should be fought. But with Bill it's different and that's why Bill should stick to promoting his wife. Barack is NOT running against Bill Clinton and should not have to defend himself against this crap.
All in all, this is not good for Obama. He needs to refute the distortions and then move back to his positive message. That's what has won him so much support and will continue to do so if he can stay on message. I think Hillary supporters often forget that this guy has single-handedly brought in thousands on new potential democratic voters though message of change and idealism. This is a fact. If you think he would like to spend his time rolling around in the gutter with Hil and Bill, you are mistaken.
Shine wrote on January 23, 2008 11:09 PM:I usually refrain from flames, but Ted from Wichita just open one big box of stupid.
Ike Kay wrote on January 23, 2008 11:10 PM:Whoa, the media really must have something against the Clintons. Chris Matthews hates them, CNN bashes them, and talk radio is run by idiots. I find Obama fascinating but will vote for Clinton just to shut up the media. What ever happen to objectivity?
TrueBlue wrote on January 23, 2008 11:16 PM:Doss:
Heat from the Clintons? Listen to yourself. Out and out lying becomes, euphemistically, heat?
Obama isn't up to this? No, it might be more accurate to say he's not interested in wallowing in the mud with you and the shameless Clintons.
Trust me, though, he's a lot tougher than you realize, and you'll find that out over the next couple of weeks.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 11:16 PM:Shine:
Thanks for the link entitled: "Obama says he bungled some Illinois votes".
After reading it, I'm reminded of eating cotton candy. It tastes good, but it isn't filling. I'm wondering what the precise story is, other than it fits into the Clinton meme of Obama's Illinois record.
So, five votes out of 4000, where Obama says he pushed the wrong button. God almighty, release the hounds! I bet Obama, the former civil rights lawyer was desparate to cut funding for the children's welfare office. Please!
I think you are right to question the motives for publishing this crap. Where's the story here other than to attempt to pay homage to Clinton's claim in the date about examining Obama's state records.
Now I want the LA Times to demand the release of the White House records that the Clinton's refuse to release regarding Hillary's advocacy during Bill's presidency. If Obama's record is to be examined, her's should be as well. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Ted in Wichita wrote on January 23, 2008 11:16 PM:Shine -
Nice name, I'm guessing it's a nickname for the grease glow coming off your unwashed face and hair. Nice teeth by the way, are you on the Chairman Mao dental program?
Yes, I'm sure Bill is devastated that the press is making this into a "race" race. As much as it pains me to say it, the racebaiter and his wife will never, EVER, receive my vote, in the primary or in the general. I have my standards, and I am not alone. Trust me.
karen wrote on January 23, 2008 11:19 PM:The clintons are liar and will do anything to get in the white house. I despise them. Bill is acting like a thug. As far as taking votes away from the people of South Carolina, those people do not give a rat's ass about bill or hillary. What makes hillary think she is entitle to the house and entitle to the black vote. Please, GIVE ME A BREAK!
Shine wrote on January 23, 2008 11:21 PM:BTW: Obama is holding up fine. He's taken a former President and his wife, who have almost universal name recognition, he's gone against the Democratic establishment, and he's made this race that may last well past Super Tuesday.
And before 2007 he had very little national name recognition. Anyone who believes that he's "weak" and isn't holding up is a fool.
Best case scenario: Fight the Clintons all the way to the Convention, watch Hillary's already sky-high negatives cement into the minds of the votes, let her lose to McCain in November, pray that she doesn't drag the ticket down and we keep at least the House, then remove the
Howard Wolfsons, the Terry McAulliffes, the Mark Penns and the Clintons from influence and leadership in the Democratic Party.
How can Bill expect us to take anything he says seriously while he is cashing in his Presidency, again . . . at the same time Hillary tries to move them back into the White House. They'll be billionaires from our votes by the time they're done with us!
This is getting disgusting. Okay we know that the Clintons say Bill is just like any old spouse campaigning for their mate. And they are right of course, except that he was the President of the United States!
Now we learn that Clinton is raking in another $20 mil from a multi-billionaire friend for admittedly throwing around his Commander-in-Chief influence to benefit some investment fund. Of course Bill won't disclose the details of his investment, just like he and Hillary won't disclose the details of their $500 million dollar "charity" which employed some of their key campaign staffers and to which their campaign contributors have donated tens of millions of dollars. Just like Hillary won't disclose the official records of her experience as First Lady which she says makes her more qualified than the other candidates. How can they stand for transparency when they obfuscate to mask their greed??
I am sick of this. It's disgusting. The Clintons have cashed out the Presidency to the tune of Dick Cheney money. When is America going to call them on this?? This is not leadership. It's greed. Pure and simple. And it's part of a pattern of smarmy questionable gains - see them in Hillary's bio on Wikipedia, including the amazing $100,000 she made in 10 months on a $1,000 investment, the $1 million blind trust when Bill took office in 1993 that the Clintons rapidly turned into a whopping $23 million.
If they were simply investors, I would have no problem with these gains. It's capitalism baby. But that's not what they ran on. That's not what they told us. Surprise - another lie! Their platform was not to lead our Nation to get the big bucks. They did not run to not lead our Democratic Party - where have you been Bill for anyone but yourself over the past 7 years?? It's to the point where even the Democratic Party elders have gone public to tell Bill to grow up.
It's time to end this. It's time to end the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton cycle. I am a Democrat. A staunch Democrat. But I am for them because I think they are more moral and have better values. If it's Hillary versus McCain I just don't know. I was having doubts before Bill did the pile on Obama and cashed out his Presidency for this additional $20 mil, and now I really don't know . . . This is the kind of stuff that turns my stomach.
Obama is worth just over a million. This Rezko stuff is a tiny droplet in the ocean compared to the massive Clinton greed and scandals. Obama has run a clean campaign. He's been far ahead on POLICY - he was against the Iraq war from the start and he didn't fall for the patently idiotic Bush bill to declare Iran's military to be "terrorists" (Clinton lost my respect when she voted for that one, unbelievably, just last Fall). Clinton is playing catchup to Obama on policy, whether it's her bailout plan or saying we should be more aggressive in going after bin Ladin. Clinton is a bonfire wherever she goes. She will never unify America - she can't even unify her party. She will burn us up. And without unity there can be no real change, only another leg in the Bush-Clinton saga.
"Mr. Clinton's duties and activities as a Yucaipa adviser have never been completely clear to outsiders. He has met at times with people involved in various Yucaipa business deals. And the former president's vast global network of contacts probably has been an asset for Mr. Burkle in dealings with business, labor and political leaders. Over the years, Mr. Burkle has said publicly that Mr. Clinton's prestige and connections have helped Yucaipa get its business proposals in front of top corporate decision makers."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120097424021905843.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Ted in Wichita wrote on January 23, 2008 11:22 PM:Why are we bashing the Clintons? They did not invent the politics they play nor are they stupid about campaigns. Obama seems clean....but Hillary has some scoop on him and I cannot wait until it drops. I bet he has fathered a baby with a white woman.
Anonymous wrote on January 23, 2008 11:23 PM:Ted in Wichita...I agree...Obama is boring...after a while it gets tiring listening to him and he goes on and on and on in that staccato phrasing...it is annoying...his popularity is essentially a media fed and media propped sensation...people will wake up and realize the man is simply not ready to become the most powerful man in the world...at this time...no way...
Anonymous...re: 'the veiled threat' Obama has issused...my belief is that his support is shallow and can't be counted on to stay with the Dems...if you read a lot of these comments all over the net, you hear a lot of Obama supporters are very angry, very immature and hostile..they like to name call and insult on a silly level...you don't hear them talking specifics on why they are supporting Obama...because many of them don't know...they just like him...and if you ask a lot of them why they don't like Hillary...they don't know, they just don't like her...and then repeat Axelrod talking points that he got from Republican talking points
so the Democratic Party has to shore up the democratic base, the Latino vote, the seniors, the women, the AA, "the beer and wine drinkers" etc and count on those people...and then if independents and republicans want to join us...then great...the door is open...
...but the Democratic Party cannot be counting on winning based on independents and republicans that vote with us in the primaries...that is a losing strategy...
Shine wrote on January 23, 2008 11:23 PM:Good one Ted. I am zinged. And you are still stupid.
Larry wrote on January 23, 2008 11:28 PM:Mark,
Obama is in uncharted waters. He is running against the spouse of the highley popular last DEM President, AND he is a black man. Your points are correct about him not running against Bill but he needs to figure something out, because he is losing. Number one he does not have to respond to petty things that he thinks are distortions. The reagan thing could have been solved by saying that "My statements were a little ambiguous at the time, let me clear them up....." If you notice Hillary does not even respond directly to stuff that does not matter. When Brian Williams asked her about Bob Johnsons comments, she said that he can speak for himself and she went straight into one of her policy wonk speeches. That is how a pro handles minor insignificant non sense.
On a completly separate subject. Do you guys think that his cocaine use is off limits? Do you think that in a general election it will not be brought up. Do you think the voters in rural america who are less "open minded" then we are will not consider it. I only bring it up because if he is our nominee he better be prepared to discuss it and rescko. He can not cry timeout or shoot the messenger. this primamry will toughen him up for the GE or another futre run.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 11:28 PM:Duck Soup: Great Post
Ted in Wichita: "I bet he has fathered a baby with a white woman". LOL!
Mark wrote on January 23, 2008 11:33 PM:Clinton supporters: Please watch this. I respect you as people and believe that presented with facts you will make the right decision.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/23/213221/309/346/442059
I've heard from a lot of Clinton people: "if you can't take these tactics now, how will you deal with them in the general?" To that I say to them, if you can't deal with the Clintons honesty being made an issue, and having their integrity be questioned in a fundamental way using facts, then you are the ones who will be unprepared for the general. This is what happens when you are dishonest. People call you on it. It's not "whining". Just wait to the general if you think people will allow you to get away with that response. We are all democrats (well, most of us), but as I said earlier, if we don't keep our own house clean, others will do it for us.
There is a lot of talk now about how the Clinton campaign LIED about Barack's voting record on women's issues in New Hampshire. How can you support these tactics in a Democratic nominee?
This will not go away. Not everyone can be dismissed as part of the Right Wing Conspiracy, or "haters"... or whiners.
Support the Clintons if you want to, but do it with open eyes. Please watch the above video.
Ted in Wichita wrote on January 23, 2008 11:35 PM:Shine, thanks. Go Hillary. Everything I have written, much with poor grammar, are real feelings and questions that I beleve a great many white people have about supporting Obama. Isn't it funny that we conjure up ideas of race....but it is a given that one of the most talked about election attributes is who gets the black vote. It has been this way for years? So, what is necessary to get the black vote? Are special interests required? Are promises required? What do blacks want? What do they need? There is a race card, a social one, unprovoked by any one politician. We talk about who will get the black vote, the latino vote, etc.
How in the hell did illegal latino's get so much empathy that they are able to push a political agenda?
You see, Shine, I want things to stay white for another 35 years...I should be dead by then. I don't want to lose our white grip to a grip that is more unsofisticated than ours. Our sucks, but theirs is sure to suck much worse.
So to speak.
It's about having the power. Whites have it, don't give it away. Simple.
The only people I saw trying to "take the election away from the people" were the Clintons in Nevada with their voter suppression tactics, but whatever.
Obama can win this and win the Presidency.
Clinton can win this and tank the Party's chances at actually making a difference in people's lives for the foreseeable future. And that's whether she wins or loses.
At the risk of quoting Republican ideas: "Had Enough?"
Joe Lisboa wrote on January 23, 2008 11:41 PM:Ted in Wichita: while initially amusing, your performance art piece has run its course.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 23, 2008 11:44 PM:Larry,
I know you are responding to Mark, so I hope you don't mind if I jump in.
Regarding the cocaine issue: I don't think the republicans will make much hay with it due to the fear of being labeled racist. At least it wasn't crack...
That said, there will be people that are turned off by the idea of a potential President that did cocaine in his youth. Unlike another Presidential wannabe who toked but didn't inhale;-) I don't think that this will be a large group however, only those that likely wouldn't have voted democratic even if a gun were aimed at their head.
Drug use has become so endemic in our society, that I don't think this will have much punch come the GE. Other's may disagree, but that's my take. Of course, anyone that reads Obama's book will see that he only admits to it as a lesson of what not to do.
Ted in Wichita wrote on January 23, 2008 11:50 PM:Joe Lesbianoa, thanks.
Mark wrote on January 23, 2008 11:52 PM:Larry,
I think he can't simply brush aside Bill's comments, because as you said, he's a very popular former president of the U.S. Very differnet situation than Bob Johnson's comments. I agree with you that he could have cleared up the Reagan comments, but then again, people were attacking him unfairly about them (in my opinion), and possibly he didn't want to dignify those attacks. Maybe he thought people would figure it out for themselves?
As far as his cocaine use: Honestly, of course it will come up in the general. It's not a legitimate issue in my opinion but he will have to talk about it directly. I think the majority of people will not hold it against him, and many might actually give him credit for turning his life around and being honest about his past. Every candidate will have some skeletons to address but compared to the Clintons, I think Barack's are relatively mild.
I thought Obama's Reagan comments were an enlightened approach to reaching out to Reagan democrats, independents, etc. letting them know that he is the man to follow. He needs white voters. What better way than than to appeal to Reagan democrats. I think it will reward him. Hillary's decision to attack him for it may backfire on her. A true leader unites, he was posturing as a president for all Americans, moderate Republicans too. Nice try, though.
Go Hillary.
ChrisNBama,
Point taken about drug use. It didn't hurt Bush or Clinton when they ran.
In disagreement with most on this board, I worship policy and action not personality and persona. Meaning I support Hillary because of certain programs that she plans to adopt (universal health care modeled after Social Security (Single payer)etc..)and also I feel she is a little more hawkish on national Defense and Foriegn Policy then the others, But even if the nominee was Obama or Richardson or even Kucinch i would support them because as the old saying goes "in politics there are no permanent enemies or permanent friends only permanent interests".
Montague wrote on January 24, 2008 12:14 AM:Bill Clinton is quite correct. Somebody who has the attention of the media (i.e., not me) needs to be telling the media to improve the level of the dialogue. Jon Stewart was right on target in his episode about this.
foreigner wrote on January 24, 2008 12:24 AM:There isn't one damn thing wrong with what Bill Clinton just said in that video and it is about time someone pointed out that the media is the culprit is this whole race or sexism atmosphere. Not one thing the Clintons have said is racist but have been portrayed that way erroneously. If I remember correctly the first comment about drugs was in reference to what the republicans might use against Obama - perfectly true, and not racist since Obama disclosed this. The second about the fairy tale was about his stance on Iraq, not his campaign as a black man. The third by the ex owner of the TV channel was stupid but not racist. The only ones complaining about racism have been the Obama supporters about comments that are not racist at all. This hatred for Hillary and Bill is a disease not a rational emotion at all. Some of you peoiple spread lies around here about the Clintons like there is no tomorrow. The display here is pitiful. I often wonder what site I am on and it is getting to look more and more like the hatred spewed by some republican blogs.
Ben wrote on January 24, 2008 12:26 AM:Win at all costs... That is the Clinton motto. I was a supporter for many years.
Is this what is best for our country? The mischaracterizations that the Clinton campaign has put out over the past few weeks has made me absolutely disgusted.
Obviously, they think you and I are idiots, and cannot think for ourselves, or consider the majority of voting people to be idiots.
We have all seen the actual comments that are said in this campaign, via the beauty of Youtube, TPM, and the rest of the Internet.
As a supporter of no particular candidate at this point, how is this behavior acceptable to our party?
Larry wrote on January 24, 2008 12:28 AM:Ted in Wichita
You are spot on about him pandering to "so called reagan democrats". It was a very smart move. He definitly needs a large chunk of the white vote to win. And i don't know weather your previous posts were an act or sincere but they point out a major problem he will have. Which is will white america vote for him as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and others start to show up endorse him. When he brings up black issues, and believe me he will have to keep african american support, how will rural ohio respond. Obama is very smart, he knows that race is a huge factor in the race, and he knows that he can not bring it up often if at all. But what is happening is that people in the african american community are openly talking about his canadicy in terms of race. this will not help Obama with his most crucial voting bloc, white dems. i think it will be fascinating to see how this plays out, because Obama is walking the thinnest highest tightrope in modern political history and if he beats Hillary or even makes it really close he will have proven himself as one of the best politicians of our day. because at the end of the day he is what they all are....a politician.
MD wrote on January 24, 2008 12:29 AM:As an non-US observer, here and on Kos, I have to really say I think Obama fans *do* sound freeperish.
The bile leveled at the Clintons in posts - esp. on DK - is absurd and disturbing. The selective interpretation of events is bothersome. Many DK primary diaries DO read like the Free Republic.
The Clintons aren't Antichrists, and I still trust their intentions. To dehumanize them, to make them into right-wing caricatures, is, I thought, NOT what progressives were about. It's also funny how media that are regularly disparaged are treated as gospel when they back the 'proper' storyline.
(To be clear, I don't have a preference. The people I liked never even ran!)
Shane wrote on January 24, 2008 12:37 AM:I must be missing something. Bill Clinton made some good points. The media like to cover some gossip-y story. It's easy to follow and digest. They don't cover much policy, which will be the things that'll effect us. Maybe there's some over-arching previous incident that I'm not aware of, but Bill is making sense to me.
Jim H wrote on January 24, 2008 12:44 AM:So Ed Schultz goes on...Hardball... and calls Bill a liar, does he? What a jerk. And Ted Kennedy and Rahm go to Jonny Alter and tattle on Bill? I got a simple answer. Have Democrats left their balls somewhere?
Jim H wrote on January 24, 2008 12:48 AM:"maybe billary should stop making racially tinged comments then..."
What the hell have they said that was racially tinged? You can't oppose the election of Obama and not be a racist? Have you lost your mind?
By the way, get calm one day. Listen to Hillary's comments on LBJ vs. JFK one day. There's not a damn racist thing there.
rachelrachel wrote on January 24, 2008 1:01 AM:Re: "Barack is honest" meme
Sorry, I don't buy it.
He has said that a vote for the Iraq War Resolution was a vote for Bush's war, and that everybody at the time -- the supporters of the bill, the administration -- understood it that way.
The difficulty with this is that you can read the resolution itself, read the statements of Hillary Clinton and others who voted for the resolution, even the statement of President Bush, you see that it was not conceived as that.
What the resolution did do was authorize the president to take military action, persuant to a UN resolution, should Saddam Hussein not cooperate with the weapon inspectors.
Here is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, from her floor speech:
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation.
At the time, Senator Clinton seems to have thought that the resolution would have made war less likely. She obviously didn't see this as a vote for the war. To say otherwise is a distortion. Bill Clinton was 100% right to label it a "fairy tale."
There were numerous members of both houses who did not want to vote to war, who voted "yea." Chuck Hagel, an outspoken opponent of the war, helped draft the resolution.
There are a lot of criticisms that can be made of the resolution, perhaps the strongest being that it gave President Bush a "blank check," that it gave him pretty much the sole discretion of determining whether force was necessary. One could argue that the resolution had the effect ("post hoc ergo propter hoc") of bringing us to war, another assertion that could be debated.
But to say, "Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War," is nothing but pure demagoguery, appealing perhaps to "low information voters" (I didn't make up the term) who haven't informed themselves on the issues. It might have appeal to certain segments of the Democratic primary electorate, but I think with much less appeal to the general electorate.
All politicians shade the truth to some extent, making themselves look good and their opponents look bad. Voters can decide for themselves what kinds of untruths they find most offensive.
To me, Barack Obama's lies about the war are among the hardest to forgive. In many ways he is an appealing candidate, and I will vote for him if he is nominated, but his misstatements on the war will remain in my eyes a big mark against him.
Here's the text of the resolution.
Who's running for president, Hillary or Bill? Is that not the most important question of this whole primary?
Phil Stephenson wrote on January 24, 2008 1:02 AM:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjVYh4IjAM0
Says it all!
Phil
southpaw wrote on January 24, 2008 1:09 AM:Somewhat related...
Yesterday here in the Dallas area a local African-American classic R&B AM radio station, KKDA, was running exerpts of Bill Clinton's MLK Day speech from monday on their News breaks.
Jut thought I'd pass that on...
ChrisNBama wrote on January 24, 2008 1:29 AM:RachelRachel:
The vote was an "Authorization for the Use of Military Force". All of Hillary's triangulation in the speech is padding to ensure she had a level of plausible deniability in the event the war went badly. But a yes vote is a yes vote. She enabled the President to invade Iraq. That's fact, not spin. The money quote of interest from her speech is here:
"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."
Per the constitution, the legislative branch has the authority to declare war. This vote, while not a declaration, allowed the President, with congressional approval, to invade Iraq.
Remember also that when Clinton voted to authorize the war, Bush had already deployed several divisions of our military, and was building air strips in Qatar. This was far beyond saber rattling: it was clear and unambiguous intent. You don't authorize the expenditure of billions of dollars of tax payer's money on simply "sending a signal" of this nature.
The American people were in turmoil, as was the world community in the face of the obvious fact that the US was going forward with its threats to conduct war. During this time, Obama bravely stood before a largely assembled crowd of anti-war protesters and declared that he wasn't opposed to all wars, just dumb ones (like the one about to occur in Iraq).
Even after the war was launched, Hillary advocated it, and even argued against establishing a time line for withdrawal. When the winds of public opinion shifted against the war, Hillary's position "evolved"--the same criticism she levied at Obama regarding his position on single payer healthcare in the last debate--and she started speaking out against it. Yes, she's a leader alright. She's lead by polls.
Further remember, that when she cast her disastrous vote, she hadn't even read the NIE. Hillary, in the most important vote that she would or will ever have to make, failed in the test of judgment. She voted on the wrong side of history, and we will all pay for that mistake, for all the enabler's mistakes, for a very, very long time.
Gabriel wrote on January 24, 2008 1:40 AM: Joe Lisboa wrote on January 24, 2008 1:48 AM:What the hell have they said that was racially tinged?
I'm not exactly sure myself, but I'll call my Islamic drug-dealing fairy-tale slumlord and see if he can channel the spirit of Ronald Reagan to aid our prognostication.
Please don't be so brazenly disingenuous and/or foolish.
Joe Lisboa wrote on January 24, 2008 1:57 AM:Sorry for feeding the obvious Hillary-in-Wichita troll (and on a self-defeating sidenote: "Ted," do you really think that posing as a white supremacist Obama backer will actually advance whatever bizarre pet cause/position/person you're pushing?).
As for the coke issue: do any of you honestly believe for a second that W doesn't have a solid-gold razor blade emblazoned with the likenesses of Coolidge, Harding, and Hoover stashed away in the Oval Office somewhere at this very moment?
kravitz wrote on January 24, 2008 2:20 AM:With a history like the Clintons, I'd be very good at rewriting it too.
Perhaps we should fact check billary's resume.
Dan wrote on January 24, 2008 2:48 AM:Campaign Comments:
1. Political campaigns are like this, except usually a lot more vicious. Bill Clinton is involved because Hillary’s campaign was not effective before NH, and now it is effective because Obama is frequently put on the defensive. If Hillary tries to compete in the “soaring rhetoric” category, she’s at a decided disadvantage. So she (or Bill, her surrogate) has to bring Obama back to earth to defend his record. If Hillary is criticized for voting for the Iraq war resolution, then it’s fair to ask what is Obama’s voting record concerning that war now that he’s in the Senate. Is it equal to that of Dennis Kucinich? Charges of “lying” or “distorting my record” are amateurish complaining. Any candidate for office can make that charge and many do, but it’s pointless. Candidates themselves must set the record straight, because there is no successful politician who has never taken two actions that are in apparent contradiction, so almost all are easy targets.
2. Lee Atwater-Karl Rove comparisons to Bill Clinton are way off the mark. Please think about specific examples before writing. The “Willie Horton” piece was tantamount to accusing Dukakis of complicity in rape and murder. And Karl Rove used push polls to accuse McCain of having a black baby out of wedlock. And what about the swiftboating of John Kerry? Bill Clinton has not even approached these levels (he’d have to assert something ridiculous like Obama never finished Harvard Law), nor will he because he’ll support the Democratic nominee. Atwater-Rove had no such constraints.
Thompson Lives! wrote on January 24, 2008 3:06 AM:[quote]Ted in Wichita said, "Everything I have written, much with poor grammar, are real feelings and questions that I beleve a great many white people have about supporting Obama. Isn't it funny that we conjure up ideas of race....but it is a given that one of the most talked about election attributes is who gets the black vote. It has been this way for years? So, what is necessary to get the black vote? Are special interests required? Are promises required? What do blacks want? What do they need? There is a race card, a social one, unprovoked by any one politician. We talk about who will get the black vote, the latino vote, etc.
How in the hell did illegal latino's get so much empathy that they are able to push a political agenda?
You see, Shine, I want things to stay white for another 35 years...I should be dead by then. I don't want to lose our white grip to a grip that is more unsofisticated than ours. Our sucks, but theirs is sure to suck much worse.
So to speak.
It's about having the power. Whites have it, don't give it away. Simple."[/quote]
I ran this through Babelfish and it came back: "I never graduated high school."
roo_P wrote on January 24, 2008 3:07 AM:rachelrachel,
Explain why Clinton, just hours before, voted against the Levin amendment which required either a U.N. authorization or, that failing, a separate new authorization specifically authorizing the use of military force.
Dan wrote on January 24, 2008 3:11 AM:To ChrisNBama
"But a yes vote is a yes vote." Is a "present" vote a yes vote or a no vote? Obama has surrogates to explain the politics surrounding his present vote on issues of importance to women (he's a supporter in spite of those votes), but the politics surrounding Hillary's vote on the Iraq resolution are apparently of no importance even when she is on the record as wanting her vote to lead to diplomacy.
rachelrachel wrote on January 24, 2008 3:11 AM:Hi ChrisNBama,
Thank you for your response, and I appreciate your maintaining a civil tone.
You said:
All of Hillary's triangulation in the speech is padding to ensure she had a level of plausible deniability in the event the war went badly.
Perhaps so. However, unless you are capable of reading minds, the best authority of a person's motivations is that person herself. Thus far, the best authority on that subject has not supported your interpretation.
She enabled the President to invade Iraq. That's fact, not spin.
No, that's an interpretation of the facts with which one might or might not agree.
The money quote of interest from her speech is here:"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction."
She said that the vote may lead to war, not that it would. Another quote of interest from her speech, which I have cited above, has her saying that she thought the resolution would make war less likely. So, if we take her at her word, her view was that the resolution might lead to war, but it was more likely to prevent it.
Per the constitution, the legislative branch has the authority to declare war. This vote, while not a declaration, allowed the President, with congressional approval, to invade Iraq.
That's kind of a distortion. The resolution gave the president approval to take necessary action, which might include military force, against Iraq, if Iraq did not cooperate with the weapons inspectors. The idea was that a show of unity would make the threat of force more credible, and persuade Saddam to cooperate.
Also, "military force" might be short of a ground invasion. A more prudent approach would have been to use aerial bombardment at first, then escalate if necessary. Bush didn't do that, and he deserves all the blame for it.
Remember also that when Clinton voted to authorize the war, Bush had already deployed several divisions of our military, and was building air strips in Qatar. This was far beyond saber rattling: it was clear and unambiguous intent.
Such actions are consistent with creating a credible threat of force, which would be required to enforce the UN Resolution.
I notice that you've spent quite a bit of time criticizing Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, which is beside the point I was making. I will neither attack nor defend her on this, she being perfectly capable of defending herself.
My point was whether Barack Obama was willfully misrepresenting what was in the Authorization for the Use of Military Force. As a lawyer, he undoubtedly knows that the way to ascertain the intent of a legal document is through the plain words of that document. And the plain words make it clear that the resolution was not simply a resolution to go to war. The "Hillary voted to take us to war" crowd will present anything but the document itself.
So, it's possible that he didn't read the resolution or that he read it and didn't understand it, but I think that the most likely explanation is that he willfully lied about its contents.
Dan,
Same goes for you. Explain the Levin amendment vote. Why would someone interested in diplomacy NOT vote for it?
rachelrachel wrote on January 24, 2008 3:23 AM:roo_P:
Explain why Clinton, just hours before, voted against the Levin amendment which required either a U.N. authorization or, that failing, a separate new authorization specifically authorizing the use of military force.
I'm not defending or attacking Clinton. She has spoken at length on this issue and if you want to know her reasoning, you might try her campaign website or her Senate website.
My point was that Mr. Obama was telling an untruth when he said that the Iraq War Resolution was a vote to go to war.
Mark wrote on January 24, 2008 3:28 AM:Dan,
I agree that it's fair to challenge Barack about his funding votes, but to say these votes amount to inconsistency is not credible. Hillary also voted for funding until recently. By that standard has she also been "pro-war"? No. After initially voting for the war, she changed her mind and came over to Barack's position: Speaking out about the need for a change in policy, but agreeing to fund the mission. Her and Bill's rhetoric on this is simply trying to muddy the waters. It's not honest and they both know that. Barack Obama has consistently opposed the war. You might disagree with his strategy of opposition, but you can not take away this fact.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say claims of lying amounts to "amateurish complaining", but then you also say it's up to the candidate to set the record straight. That's exactly what's happening here. I agree with you that we should be talking about the issues, but when your opponent is consistently misrepresenting the truth, then they do need to be called on that.
Please take a look at this video, which documents Clinton mis-information (I guess "lies" is too harsh for some people) about Barack's record on choice in New Hampshire. First-hand account from a completely credible source.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/23/213221/309/346/442059
Derrick wrote on January 24, 2008 3:33 AM:Lee Atwater-Karl Rove comparisons to Bill Clinton are way off the mark. Please think about specific examples before writing. The “Willie Horton” piece was tantamount to accusing Dukakis of complicity in rape and murder.
Bill Clinton keeps repeating that Obama called her "A Punjab Senator" when it was a stray memo by a campaign staffer. He doesn't associate that remark with Obama's campaign but with Obama personally. That is just plain lying and accusing him of racism. And now Clinton is claiming that Obama's campaign is the one making their statements about race when you can cite all manner of non-Obama people (Donna Brazille, Clyburn, others) who blew the issue up immediately. I'm a long time supporter of the Clinton's but this kind of intra-party campaigning is plain disgusting.
SciVo wrote on January 24, 2008 4:15 AM:"What a big baby."
Umm, wat? Bill Clinton scolds the press, and your conclusion is to characterize Obama as infantile? Are we even in the same universe?
CNN: Today, Putin said that Russia would retain the option of nuclear first strike.
Hillbot: OMG, Obama is such a big baby!
CNN: Today, a landslide in western Oregon blocked a rural highway for five hours as road crews worked to clear it.
Hillbot: OMG, Obama is such a big baby!
I'm impressed by your ability to stay "on message" as it's called, but that's not actually the same as admiration.
It's the Surname, Stupid! wrote on January 24, 2008 4:19 AM:Most people left of center (the US center) seem to be rightfully uncomfortable with "my country, right or wrong" but don't seem to have a problem with "my party, right or wrong."
Make no mistake, I came into this election with one objective: to do my best to prevent dynasty-governance. It's simply bad for the country and encourages entrenchment and cronyism. In reality, the Clintons are no better than the Bushes, except that GWB is a few IQ points shy of the Clintons. Maybe more than a few points, but you get the idea. But the gross misuse of power is the same in either case.
HRC and Bill have now made it all too easy to find other reasons to block another Clinton Administration. For starters, Bill has the responsibility to act like an ex-President first. That's why he still gets paid as an ex-President. I have no problem with his campaigning for Hillary but sometime after she got clobbered in Iowa, plan B came out.
It is simply not appropriate for an ex-President to act this way. I looked past the Oval Office sex and hearings, mostly because he was already in office and it was realpolitik to just move ahead, but now he is disrespecting the office of the presidency before he even gets back to the White House. (Yes, he is obviously going to be part of the White House team.)
Here are the sad facts:
The real issue for the next president will be oil, pure and simple. Energy controls our economy and therefore controls our foreign policy. Moreover, oil (and natural gas) are key input components for the pharma and the ag industries, and all the imagined hydrogen or nuclear will not make up for those inputs of real hydrocarbons. All indications are we are past peak oil.
This is not about alternative energy, folks, it's about not having enough hydrocarbons to even spin the synthetic fibers in your clothing.
None of the candidates has even addressed this issue and, frankly, few have even shown a knowledge about the interdependencies of oil and natural gas on our very way of life.
The next president will be overwhelmed by this issue to the point that universal health care won't even see the light of day. We won't be having the luxury to even talk about it. It's like thinking about what foreign policies Lincoln might executed while president had he not had a few pesky domestic issues that took all of his time.
In times of genuine crisis, the country is pretty good about getting it together. It won't be Kumbaya, but it won't be Rovian either -- neither the GOP nor the Democratic sides can really afford it because both sides like the status quo (e.g. a two party system with both sides benefiting).
That's real politics, folks.
This is how you can vote for an Edwards, an Obama, or a McCain. In fact, only Huckabee really strikes me as scary on the GOP side because he is so anti-intellectual. And in times of crises, those people who are so very, very certain about their faith tend to come up with some very unchristian ideas.
So can we please stop with "my party, right or wrong"? Since Iowa, Hillary, isn't running her campaign as if she has more experience, except perhaps experience with the nuances of mass media. We just past MLK day and to paraphrase, I'm not impressed with the content of Bill & Hillary's characters. I'm tired of their battles becoming my party's battles and I'm tired of their battles becoming my country's battles.
The true color of the Clintons came out after their scare in Iowa. It's not pretty, even for power politics and their arrogance and recklessness that they interjected into this campaign could only happen because of a concentration of a very wealthy power base. And that power base is there precisely because the Clintons have built a dynasty. The Bushes are the same way and you can see the cyclic effects of such. Neither dynasty represents the middle class very well since both require the very wealthy in the power base to get elected.
We need to heal the Democratic Party and stop the Clinton machine. The Clintons represent our modern Tammany Hall (look it up). There is a reason why many Democratic Party Elders aren't running to endorse them. Say "no" to dynasty rule in the United States - both GOP and Democratic. We did fight a war about it some time back in the 18th century, I believe.
rachelrachel,
Clinton specifically opted to not mandate certain diplomatic steps. She specifically opted to not mandate a new authorization after the diplomacy part was done. That is what the Levin amendment was for. So I disagree.
The vote was for war. Whether she cast it because she actually supported the war, wanted to appear tough or lacked the judgement to understand what Bush would do is a matter that can be argued.
hillaryclinton.com says not a whisper about the Levin amendment. Neither does her Senate page. Curious, is it not? I will see if I can find something.
John Crandell wrote on January 24, 2008 4:51 AM:Looking at the latest tracking polls, it looks like something negative is affecting Clinton and people are switching from Hillary to Edwards
in South Carolina.
Could it be Bill's big mouth???
Some people are posting that this is an election adn whatever it takes to win is fair game. I disagree. I want a president who will be honest with us. If someone gets to the office by lying, their presidency is already compromised. Teh Clinton's are good at lying, no doubt - but that doesn't mean I have to vote for them. I am an independent and I'll vote for McCain.
He's right about one thing- the press is lazy. Bill is trying to emphasize teh race/gender divide and get people talking about it, as a not-so-subtle way of emphasizing that Obama is black, and people shouldn't vote for him because of it.
I do not want someone that shamelss representing us - the Clinton's can not be trusted.
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 6:02 AM:Wah Wah Wah cry the ObaBots!
Not Fair! Not Fair! Not Fair!
Get off the cross or pass the nails Hussein.
And for the men among the ObaIdiots, if there are any left, grow a pair.
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 6:17 AM:If anyone had any doubt this week has resolved it. Bill Clinton is a candidate for president and Mrs. Bill Clinton is his surrogate. Hillary cannot win on merits, quality of judgment, character, experience, vision. So the Clintons are putting Bill out there and employing the worst Bush-Rove style dirty campaign tactics.
I abandon my posture as a life-long Democrat. The most important thing for the future of our nation is to be sure the dishonest, divisive, Bush-Rove-style, corporate serving, win-at-any-costs Clintons are DEFEATED so badly they will retire from public view. They are dangerous and proving it more and more every day.
random wrote on January 24, 2008 6:25 AM:Annonymous 6:17 said "The most important thing for the future of our nation is to be sure the dishonest, divisive, Bush-Rove-style, corporate serving, win-at-any-costs Clintons are DEFEATED so badly they will retire from public view. "
hmmm. I fully understand your sentiments. The Clintons are really damaging Obama, the Democratic party and the democratic process. Simply focusing on defeating the Clintons serves their purposes, distracting us as a nation from real issues, real solutions and the difficult consensus we must build to change for the future.
The best way to defeat the "dangerous" Clintons is to get behind Edwards or Obama and deny Hillary the nomination. What a great victory for reason, hope and democracy that would be. And what a great "gag order" for red-faced loud-mouth, liar-in-chief Bill.
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 6:28 AM:random,
Your approach may be wiser, but I am done with the Democrats. I am searching the internet for SwiftboatHillary.com and ready to volunteer and write a check. The Clintons need to be stopped now.
puzzled wrote on January 24, 2008 6:34 AM:Why do people hate Hillary so much?
She has been a good wife to Bill -- looked the other way, lied, worked hard as a stand in candidate. He owes her.
Let's put a big red bow on the presidency so Bill can give it to her.
In our heart of hearts we know, the Clintons deserve the presidency again. Forget the Constitution, qualifications, their marriage melodrama.
What is more important -- Bill and Hillary or the future of the nation?
Cynic wrote on January 24, 2008 6:38 AM:If Bill can make Hillary president, can he have all the new girlfriends he wants?
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 6:52 AM:Dear Cynic... Bill's sex life is none of your friggin business.
Just because you sit in the dark stroking your tiny one to fantasies of servicing Obama doesn't mean anyone else's sex life is your business.
Now get back to your rubber ducky...
Dear anonymous:
swiftboatinghillary can be found at Obama.com.
But then you knew that.
dear puzzled:
ah yes another Rethugican who wants to pry into and control every aspect of our lives, even our marriages.
this is what you have become?
It looks like damage control from The Clintons' Campaign landed on the board over night.
Concerned In Iowa wrote on January 24, 2008 6:56 AM:It's the Surname, Stupid! said
"I'm not impressed with the content of Bill & Hillary's characters. I'm tired of their battles becoming my party's battles and I'm tired of their battles becoming my country's battles."
Thanks for a thoughtful post about the Clintons, the Bush-Clinton era of the dynastic presidency and its dangers.
This nation needs unity and a president who has the vision and capacity to inspire, convence, and lead a majority of the nation. The Clintons will only divide us more.
poor poor concerned in iowa.
and tell me how hussein's threats to bolt the party with his voters will unite us?
huh?
or didn't the GreatBlackOne fart that info into your face this morning?
Hey Tapper
If Bill Clinton is distracting the President of the United States with his irresponsible, mysogonistic sex life, and using public dollars, IT IS MY BUSINESS as a citizen and it is the nation's business.
As one biographer has noted: "Bill Clinton's behavior pushed an unfortunate human tendency to a pathological and blatant extreme. [He] seemed to tempt fate about what others treated with some degree of discretion, necessitating a first ever presidential 'bimbo eruptions unit'", a function now transferred to the 'Hillary for President' campaign.
Tapper, why does the Hillary Campaign think they can bully the nation into making her president?
Please examine your conscience and then your tactics. Is destroying the nation worth what Hillary pays you to troll the comment boards?
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 7:11 AM:Gee anonymous,
as one biographer has noted
"anonymous is a lame ass Rethugican more interested in swiftboating Hilllary than the good of his nation."
The American people were clear: Bill's sex life did not concern them.
It was only Rethigicans like you who tried to make an issue of it.
And where is Newt now, hmmmm?
And further, when is the last time Hillary came to your door to bully you into voting for her?
Gee, did she threaten to take away your rubber ducky?
It is just such stupidities out of Obama and his ObaIdiots that leaves me with contwmpt for his and your shallowness.
Tapper,
Your garbage mouth displays your primary credentials as a Clinton advocate. Will you get a White House appointment if she wins?
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 7:18 AM:Tapper,
Is that you Bill? Lay off the viagra, dude. You're straining your health.
Have a good day lying your way back to the White House and all those interns. mmm
blueshift wrote on January 24, 2008 7:19 AM:Really, Bill? Though I have NEVER voted for a republican presidential candidate, and voted for you twice, I guarantee that I will vote for any republican who opposes the 'Billary' ticket. Please, go home.
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 7:20 AM:dear anonymous,
again you are consumed by others' sex lives.
what's the matter, not getting any?
not surprised...
Bill is so full of crap it's leaking from his piehole. He's the one who said yesterday, "Some people think having a woman president would be MORE of a change than having a black president." Transalation: some people think women are better than negroes.
But he wants this to be about the issues and not about race or gender. Yeah, right. GIVE ME A BREAK.
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 7:24 AM:Geez, the ObaIdiots are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
and yeah Mark F, "fairytale" is SUCH a racial slur.
Pathetic.
Tapper, You and the mean Clinton machine better hope the tabloids don't examine sex lives of either of your candidates. It could get really ugly, really fast.
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 7:28 AM:dear blueshift,
the beauty of America: you and your rethugican buds are totally free to vote for another rethugican douche.
just don't call it "progressive"
and by the way, if HRC is bullying america into voting for her how come it's not working with you?
no rubber ducky for her to threaten?
Cynic,
Don't go their if you value your life and career.
Signed
Huma Abedin
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 7:31 AM:dear cynic,
now I know why Hussein supports homophobic "ministers".
you guys really ARE rethugicans!
but really dudette, your preoccupation with other's sex lives is not healthy.
ever considered professional help?
Tapper: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."
random wrote on January 24, 2008 7:32 AM:IF any wants to understand Clinton dirty politics read Tapper's posts.
Why do do they think attempts at intemediation are effective. It just makes concerned citizens into CLINTON HATERS!
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 7:35 AM:Tapper what you call "sex lives" others veiw as issues of honesty, trust, and character. But those are words the Clintons don't understand.
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 7:35 AM:dear Mark F
no I did not.
i'm a fag, always been one.
but more to the point,
only rethugicans cared about bill's sex life.
it didn't work then, think it will work now?
but hey thanks,
you help me understand Obama's campaign of gay hating and gay baiting.
sooooo progressive of you guys....
random: Amen to that. I used to respect Bill a little. Now I hate them both. I wouldn't vote for Hillary under any circumstance. This is about honesty and integrity, and the Clintons don't know the meaning of the words.
Hillary Clinton is EXACTLY the kind of self-centered, careerist cretin I DON'T want in the White House.
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 7:37 AM:dear random,
did you mean "intimidation"?
of you?
please oh please tell me how i did that, i'd like to be able to deploy it in my neighborhood.
thanks.
I want to thank Tapper for all the posts. They have solicited some of the most articulate arguments against the Clintons I have read. Makes you wonder, though, if Tapper really is working for Obama to make the Clintons look bad.
out of the loop wrote on January 24, 2008 7:38 AM:Politics always has been a dirty business, filled with liars, cheats, and cads. But we are at a critical point in history with a great danger of losing our democracy. Reasonably, one could argue that it's already lost. The Clintons represent the old dirty way of doing things. We cannot support them and have a clean conscience. If Hillary is the candidate in November, I see no reason to vote. God help us.
Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 7:39 AM:tapper: I wasn't referring to his sex life. I was referring to his dishonesty.
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 7:40 AM:dear anonymous,
neither you nor any other rethugican has any business in my bedroom.
period.
but hey, glad to see your true rethugican colors coming out:
vote obama, he'll police your sex life!
jackohearts wrote on January 24, 2008 7:43 AM:Unfortunately, Bill Clinton is correct. Certain reporters are allowing themselves to be spun by the Obama campaign. Note the quote:
Dick Harpootlian, a former chairman of the South Carolina Democratic Party and a supporter of Barack Obama, said some of Bill Clinton's recent remarks on the campaign trail were appeals based on race and gender. He said the comments were meant to "suppresses the vote, demoralize voters, and distort the record," and said they were "reminiscent of Lee Atwater."
There it is again, a direct accusation designed to inflame racial strife.
Note the timeline: In the wake of the New Hampshire primary loss, Obama campaign Co-Chair Jesse Jackson Jr. directly inserts race into the South Carolina primary by going before the T.V. cameras and calling upon South Carolina African Americans to note that Hillary had tears for her appearance (an untruth) but no tears for victims of Hurrican Katrina. Jackson spoke in a very threatening voice while making a direct appeal to African Americans.
I can't help but compare that direct appeal to the twisting of Andrew Cuomo's words, said the same day to a reporter in a discussion that did not even involve Obama. I can't help but compare Jackson's direct appeal to the twisting of Hillary Clinton's words regarding MLK, a subject raised by Obama to ridicule her.
For Harpootlian to compare Clinton to Lee Atwater is pathetic and nasty. I think he is suffering from psychological projection.
I am sure Karl Rove, the modern day Atwater, has busted a gut laughing at this video. He never imagined that his Wall Street Journal article (http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB119992615845679531.html, witten to encourage this very sort of thing, would be so successful. To see Bill Clinton being wrongfully accused of being Atwater must be very gratifying to Rove.
Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 7:43 AM:tapper ranted: "vote obama, he'll police your sex life!"
I think we can let the sheer tin-hat lunacy of that comment speak for itself.
Wow. Just wow.
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 7:43 AM:right Mark F,
that's just the bait and switch you rethugicans always use.
IT WAS ABOUT HIM GETTING A BLOWJOB!
and it was a losing strategy against Clinton then.
it will be again.
you rethugicans just don't get it:
americans want you out of our bedrooms!
period!
dear Mark F,
weak, weak.
it's the obaidiots always bringing up bill's sex life.
oh and the HRC's-a-lesbo "slur".
must be a campaign talking point.
and ps, grow a pair so you can loan them to Hussein
President Clinton -
Your point about the media robbing the citizens of the information they need to make cogent political decisions is spot-on.
Really.
Now shut the fuck up.
hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 7:48 AM:Tapper is insane. Where's that guy that mocks him by posting his insane rants in haiku form? Someone needs to take the edge of this mess.
Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 7:51 AM:Bill Clinton said on Wednesday:
"I think it would be just as much of a change, and some people think more, to have the first woman president as to have the first African-American president."
Bill Clinton is a very clever man. A very clever, very dishonest, very self-centered man, who doesn't mind helping to rip apart the Democratic party if there's a chance it might get his wife elected. This is dirty politics at its most professional. The implication of the statement above is that this race is NOT about the issues. In fact, the former President's statement attempts to trivialize the issues and present Obama's "change" argument as little more than a choice between a woman and a black man. Bill's saying that he thinks the real issue is whether a woman is better than a negro.
Bill Clinton is a king-sized a-hole.
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 8:01 AM:Hey TApper, I think random spoke of your "attempts at intimedation". He might have added "amateurish" "woefully lacking" and "counterproductive" as modifiers. The Clinton Machine likes to call names, lie and bully to hide lack of ideas, qualification, experience and character. Flame on Tapper, you're making a great case against the Clintons. Thanks for that!
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 8:01 AM:well i'm off to campaign for mittens here in the sunshine state.
but i do want to thank Mark F and all his fellow ObaIdiots for making my morning.
I haven't laughed so hard since when? oh yeah, yesterday!
now get back to kissing Hussein's ass you naughty naughty boys!
Greg Sargent said: "Also note Bill's strongly worded objection to comments by prominent South Carolina Democrat Dick Harpootlian, an Obama supporter, who charged that some of Bill's recent comments "were reminiscent of Lee Atwater," an extraordinarily over-the-top comparison of the former president to one of the most notoriously dirty political operatives of the last generation."
I don't think Harpootlian's comment was over-the-top in the slightest. The way Bill has been playing this game has reminded me for some weeks of the way Rove and Atwater played it. It's all about the politics of personal destruction. Bill is very good at it, and you're very biased, so you don't see it. But Hill and Bill are playing the filthiest sort of politics.
The Lee Atwater comparison is actually quite apropos.
Random wrote on January 24, 2008 8:03 AM:Yes please, keep Tapper posting. His rants are very helpful to the anti-Clinton cause. More, Tapper, please. The dirtier the better.
Mark F wrote on January 24, 2008 8:03 AM:Bye, Tapper. Bawk, bawk, bawk!
Anonymous wrote on January 24, 2008 8:26 AM:Has anyone noticed that the posts from TedInWichita and Dennis have the same grammatical patterns as the posts from the guy who runs the My Man Mitt web-site? He occasionally posts on TPM.
Goldspinner wrote on January 24, 2008 8:53 AM:Here's an easy compromise for everyone...vote for John Edwards. Speaking of Edwards, where's the TPM coverage of his support for the Dodd FISA filibuster, hmm?
Daniel A. Greenbaum wrote on January 24, 2008 9:20 AM:it is a good thing that Obama is not a juvenile as many of his supporters. Bill Clinton has been race baiting? Please, the only people race baiting have been the Press and Obama supporters. If you don't like things Obama has done or said it is not race baiting to bring them up.
Bill Clinton is hardly out of control. He is getting coverage that the Media is not otherwise doing. Journalists continue to show themselves to be intellectually lazy and just not too smart. Bill Clinton is able to go over their head and it annoys the Press.
Obama and Clinton are hopefully tough smart politicians who can keep their arrogance in check. Otherwise the attacks from the Republcians will make their supporters weep and do the impossible keep a Republican in the White House.
Michael A wrote on January 24, 2008 9:28 AM:How about using this article for a post? Mr. Bill's own words. What about with the same headline.
BILL CLINTON: RACE, GENDER, KEY TO SOUTH CAROLINA
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080124/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_obama;_ylt=AsOs56kpE_34Icb3._hEIeus0NUE
His point is don't worry about issues just vote your gender or race. h. clinton loses in south carolina, but wins in "white" states nationally because according to mr. bill all women should vote for her. Forget about issues or the country, just vote for her because she is a woman.
And then, he has the f'cking gall to claim that the press is stirring up the race and gender issues?????? The lying, manipulating jerk is destroying the democratic party and ruining our chances of getting back the presidency. I hope he rots in hell with the king for his lies and distortions.
ChrisNBama wrote on January 24, 2008 9:37 AM:RachelRachel:
Sorry for not responding sooner, went to bed. I actually wrote a lengthy response to your post, but since I forgot to put the ".com" on my email address, the server rejected my post, returned me to the original post without saving my response. So let me just say that I agree with Roo's analysis.
Dan: The 130 present vote Hillary talking point doesn't faze me. I suppose you think it should somehow concern me, but it doesn't. All the articles I've read of Obama's time in the senate agree that he was a highly effective legislator who wasn't afraid of tackling politically dangerous issues. I thought it interesting in the SC debate where Hillary's oppo team apparently failed to mention that one of the examples she gave of him voting present was one of the bills sponsored by Obama himself. How embarrassing. "Ready to lead" my foot.
ekdhollywood wrote on January 24, 2008 9:43 AM:Tapper is awesome. Keeping shouting truth to the kool-aid drinkers Tapper! You Obama-bots just regurgitate right wing talking points like your candidate. I think it's because you watch too much TV. turn off the idiot box. think for yourselves. neither you nor the wingnut media you're always quoting has any right to judge or police other's marriages or sex lives. and campaigning with a self-loathing homophobe ain't progressive in the slightest. and what the big dog told the media whore was the God's honest truth. the fact that you take the media's side against the Clintons only proves that you are a cult of personality (and by the way, your emperor has no clothes) and you aren't real Democrats. Go freep some other board. Vote Hillary!
ChrisNBama wrote on January 24, 2008 9:54 AM:RachelRachel:
One final observation. Hillary is always chiding Obama about the difference between words and action, or poetry versus prose, whatever her precise wording is. I think that can be a fair distinction and criticism to make. That said, what was the result (action) of Hillary's yes vote for the AUMF? She may claim until her dying day that she intended that Bush use it to apply additional pressure on Saddam, but doesn't this call into question her judgment? Doesn't this seem naive to you that with the military buildup in the region and the rhetoric coming from the White House, that she didn't see this coming? I mean, I remember those events well as I was involved heavily in the anti-war movement, and was greatly displeased by Hillary's vote at the time. I viewed it then, as I do know, as huge lapse in judgment whatever her motivations or intentions.
Now, is Obama distorting the truth when he says that her vote on the AUMF is a vote for war? Ask John Kerry and John Edwards. They seem to agree with Obama on the meaning of the vote.
Pug wrote on January 24, 2008 10:04 AM:Whenever I see the headline 935 Lies, I have to remember it's about Bush/Cheney and the Iraq war, not Clinton/Clinton and the primary season.
So, of course, our response to that should be to vote for a couple of the biggest liars in the history of the United States.
You know, we love that guy who had his law liscence suspended for lying. He's our kind of guy.
Pug wrote on January 24, 2008 10:08 AM:neither you nor the wingnut media you're always quoting has any right to judge or police other's marriages or sex lives.
Oh, of course we shouldn't judge. If Bill wants to sexually harass and screw numerous other women during their 35 years of marriage and she doesn't mind, why that's just none of our business. He's so cool, that Big Dog. Oh, yeah, an she's a feminist.
hello_world wrote on January 24, 2008 11:02 AM:I for one won't judge Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage. That's the one topic that I think should be offlimits (but of course it won't be in the general, fwiw). The Clinton's marriage is a private matter between them.
But it is very fair game to discuss how Bill Clinton conducted himself during their marriage, and enlightening about exactly what he considers sacred. Like his vows. When you contrast that with how he's acting today on the campaign trail, and I have to ask myself: would Bill Clinton ever lie to me?!?
There I go, using those damn right wing talking points again.
Tapper wrote on January 24, 2008 2:44 PM:Why do I like hiding under Hillarys skirt
would take too long to explain.
And I like being in Mitts cult for the same reasons.
I know none of you think I'm very smart,
but I like what I like .
It's hard to explain.
