Clyburn: Bill Clinton's Behavior Has Been "Bizarre"
Bill Clinton is now coming under fire from House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-SC), for his recent accusation that the Obama campaign had long planned to play the race card against him.
Clyburn characterized the former president's behavior throughout this campaign as "bizarre," and said that there is now a nearly-unanimous view among African-Americans that the Clintons are "committed to doing everything they possibly can to damage Obama to a point that he could never win."
"When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar," Clyburn said. "I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation."
Clyburn has not publicly endorsed in the Democratic race.















O dear.
I hope Bill doesn't respond.
I figured his ghetto pass was revoked.
What a shame.
April 24, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I didn't know someone polled blacks and found out that they unanimously think this way. Could you please provide us links to this outstanding bit of research? Or is the racist Clyburn just blowing smoke out of his butt?
April 25, 2008 2:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
The black radio stations in NYC are demonizing Hillary Clinton full tilt.
You'd never believe that Bill devoted the last 8 years toward helping Harlem, and building a foundation that funneled millions into alleviating aids in Africa.
Bill must really be hurt that the black community is now out to destroy him.
http://www.clintonfoundation.org/cf-pgm-hs-ai-home.htm
April 25, 2008 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton has done nothing for Harlem. Hillary Clinton has done nothing for New York. They are a couple of carpetbagging opportunists who long ago wanted to position themselves for another White House run. What better place to do that from than the Big Apple?
April 25, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
DEAR ANGRY AFRICAN AMERICAN MAN
Is it possible you could articulate your racial hate in more specific detail? Start with why you would turn on a former President who has an undeniable record of civil rights support and then elaborate on how you (likely) loathe (and will eventually turn on) the whites who support your candidate.
Take your time. We realize this topic is paramount for you.
thanks
Goobers With Lunchbuckets Union
April 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Where's the gratitude? Does the black community eschew deeds and loyalty in favor of blind devotion to color? It's a shame to see our black brothers and sisters be so blatantly racist as a group of voters. I expected a whole lot more.
April 25, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, but Clyburn specifically pointed out the oft-spoken theory that Hillary is trying to damage Obama to the point where he can't win, paving the way for 2012
April 24, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
theory that Hillary is trying to damage Obama to the point where he can't win, paving the way for 2012
This theory makes no sense to me.
First, if she managed to damage Obama that badly she couldn't possibly gain the support of the party in 2012 or ever again. If McCain uses her endorsement of him over Obama in ads (and I fully expect him to) and if those ads are effective and get a lot of play, that alone could make her persona non grata with a lot of party insiders. I think 2008 is her only shot at the presidency. That's why she is willing to do things that will hurt her chances of getting deep party support ever again.
Second, as Hillary supporters like to say, she's not doing anything Rove and the GOP won't do in the general election. That's not entirely true, because being able to make ads with Hillary attacking Obama will carry more weight than if someone from the GOP says the same thing (and again, that's true by several orders of magnitude when it's Hillary endorsing McCain over Obama). But with that notable exception, the most she can do is add a small magnifying factor to the GOP attacks. The only way she could really damage Obama substantially would be to run as a third-party candidate, and I think it's safe to say that if she did so the Democratic party wouldn't want her back in 2012.
Third, obviously she isn't giving up on 2008, even though her chances are very, very slim. So I think it's safe to say that anything she does is focused on trying to get the nomination this year, and only that. She's smart enough not to waste money or energy or political capital on a farfetched plan for 2012 that could go wrong in a million different ways. And long-term contingency planning isn't her style, as we saw when she didn't close the deal on Super Tuesday and had no coherent plan in place for what to do next. Her style is more reactive than deliberative.
April 24, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
She certainly did her best to submarine Kerry in '04...
April 25, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes she did.
April 25, 2008 12:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
How so?
April 25, 2008 1:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is that why Bill Clinton campaigned for Kerry as soon as he got out of the hospital after his bypass?
I can't believe you people are still making excuses for a loser like Kerry.
Looks like your getting your Obama excuses lined up in advance. Try to show some pride and confidence in your candidate. This constant whining about how Hillary is hurting Barack is unbecoming.
April 25, 2008 8:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
All good points. But are you sure they actually do think rationally?
April 25, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Again, where's the proof for all of this?
BHO and his supporters/followers have constantly been playing the race card since his humiliating loss in New Hampshire. So there's no surprise the they would return to this tactic after yet another humiliating loss for him in Pennsylvania.
April 25, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
How is preforming exactly as you predicted you would a humiliating defeat? And BTW it was the crying card that got played after New Hampshire.
April 25, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
this is the natural reaction to the racist tactics of bill and hillary.
why would anyone not expect it?
April 25, 2008 8:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am with you, Mr Smorgasbord. I do not buy the idea that she is hoping to take him out in order to clear the way for a 2012 run, because if she is perceived to have had a hand in taking him out (and clearly she already is thusly perceived by a number of democratic constituencies) she would stand no chance in 2012. I think that it is plausible to believe that 1) she is still trying to win the nomination this year, although I do not half fancy her chances. It is equally plausible to think that 2) she is in it only in order to torpedo his chances, but not because she has a 2012 run in mind. That is to say, I could believe that she means merely to punish him for getting in her way. Certainly explanation #1 is the more generous, and I always prefer the most generous explanation possible, so I choose to believe it, but I think that a dispassionate analysis unmoved by my personal preferences would have to end in the conclusion that both of those hypotheses are equally consistent with the data as we have them, at least for now.
April 25, 2008 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that it is plausible to believe that 1) she is still trying to win the nomination this year, although I do not half fancy her chances. It is equally plausible to think that 2) she is in it only in order to torpedo his chances, but not because she has a 2012 run in mind. That is to say, I could believe that she means merely to punish him for getting in her way.
The big difference is that in the second scenario, she's hurting her future chances in Democratic politics of any sort for purely petty reasons. That doesn't sound like Hillary to me. I can believe that she'd be willing to sacrifice her future political fortunes for a shot at the presidency, especially this year with a weak opponent like McCain in a year when the GOP in general is very weak.
But if she doesn't get the nomination, I don't think she'll drop out of politics. She'll still want to climb as high as she can, maybe Senate Majority Leader or Supreme Court justice. And even if she's not actively planning for a run in 2012, there's no way she'd hurt her chances for a future run at the presidency simply to tweak Obama, no matter how furious she might be that he's on the verge of taking away something she views as "hers".
April 25, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I make no pretensions to any sort of mind-reading powers to see into the psyche of Sen Clinton and determine what is and what is not a motivator for her. That said, I grant that yours is a good point. As I said, I agree that the run-in-2012 hypothesis cuts no ice.
April 25, 2008 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we tell the WHOLE statement?
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/04/24/top-house-democrat-denounces-clinton-campaign-tactics/
April 24, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
RIGHT!!
Eric, you're ridiculous!
The BIGGEST point article is about him ACCUSING HRC of trying to damage Obama so badly that he loses and she can run again in 2012.
Wow.
April 24, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wait. The Times version doesn't have the entire story.
Which is a big hmmm in itself.
Sorry Eric. You didn't leave it out.
Check out the FULL story:
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/04/24/top-house-democrat-denounces-clinton-campaign-tactics/
April 24, 2008 11:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops, it's two different articles! In one night. He's really pissed off at the Clinton's.
April 24, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This interview was absolutely fascinating.
Irreparable Damage, folks. Now tell me exactly who is unelectable?
April 24, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has ALWAYS been unelectable. That's the really sorry part about this phase of the race. The Republicans always knew they could beat her. But they couldn't believe their luck when she began her campaign to destroy Obama. She's doing their work for them, and they can just sit back and enjoy the destruction. Meanwhile, she doesn't improve her chances one tiny bit. Her already high negatives are only increasing.
The Clintons are a cancer on the Party.
April 24, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is absolutely spot on!
All of the right wing smear machine would LOVE IT if she was the nominee, they would be shaking with joy at the prospect of attacking her.
Of course, they will attack Obama too (and with their usual gusto) but they cannot mobilize their base to come out and vote for McBomb or vote against Obama the same way they could get HUGE numbers to come out and vote against hillary. That has always been the case.
April 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a goldern shame. How many of her starry-eyed is she going to take with her? A fall of one so great makes such a horrid clang...
No more Obliteratti, thanks.
April 25, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Au contraire, the cancer to the party are all of the far left-wing liberals like you who think that a general electorate can stomach a liberal elitist like BHO.
Wise up and grow a brain.
April 25, 2008 2:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
President Bush has succeeded in destroying the conservtive brand. This is not 1984 when liberal was an insult. Quit living in the past.
April 25, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not living in the past. You're living in a present that doesn't exist.
April 25, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get back with me in november. We liberals thought Regan was to conservative to win in 1980 but the world had changed arround us. You are fixin' to get the same kind o' wideawake deliverd by Sen Obama. Let me know how you like it. It kind o' sucked from what I rember. I hate it for you. (not really)
April 25, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
November? I'm sure that you and your liberal-elitist friends will become very scarce about that time.
By the way, you should spend more time in the sun (and gym) instead of wasting it here by dribbling down your pants leg.
April 25, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
They always were. It's called the DLC, and this primary is a battle between the Clintons and their corporate bosses and what's left of the Democratic party they corrupted and took over.
April 25, 2008 3:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are ingrates.
Democrats, especially the black community, rescued Bill during impeachment. Groups like MoveOn started up to end it. And Bill only thinks about how we owe him something. Wrong: He owes us!
Could these two be more selfish?
April 24, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bizaree indeed. Good to see a well respected party heavyweight say so publicly.
April 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't think so. Clyburn is in the tank for BHO and has been for almost 3 months now. Wake up.
April 25, 2008 2:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Guess that's why he's endorsed him. Oh, wait.
April 25, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's saying MUCH more than that, Eric. He's ACCUSING HRC of trying to damage Obama so much that he loses in Novemeber and she can run in 2012.
Funny how you left THAT part out:
http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/04/24/top-house-democrat-denounces-clinton-campaign-tactics/
April 24, 2008 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apologies Eric. They were two DIFFERENT articles.
My bad.
Two article in one night by Clyburn?
He's PISSED.
April 24, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She cannot be elected.
She will not get enough turnout to be elected.
I cannot believe that they've been on this rampage for nothing - so maybe that is it - she's trying to ruin him and set herself up for '12.
Wow.
Karma she is a bitch. The Clintons have burned every fracking bridge they ever crossed.
April 24, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read that slightly differently. He's not saying he believes it--he's saying that African Americans in general believe it. Much worse for Clinton. Bye bye, electability.
April 25, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Rezko, Khalidi, Meeks, Bitter-gate...
Bye bye electability, indeed.
April 25, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that half of what you brought up there isn't even recognizable to me, a blog addict, is a bad sign. What about my grocer who last year in an idle chat as she was ringing up my dinnermakings told me she was going to support "the gray-haired guy?" She definitely cares about "Meeks" and "Khalidi" to an insane degree.
Then again, based on the kind of supporters we see in the Hillary camp, someone with her total lack of knowledge of politics would probably support the former first lady.
April 25, 2008 6:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pardon, I meant the last presidential election cycle.
April 25, 2008 6:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, sure, no doubt. Sen Obama may well have a hard time in the general election. That does not mean, however, that Sen Clinton is the stronger GE candidate. Sen Clinton would have at least as hard a time. That is hrebendorf's point.
April 25, 2008 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, yes they could be, and I think we are soon to see that.
April 24, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clyburn disrespecting the President will make real Dems mad. Did he read the memo?
Trying to divert the train wreck coming:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24300543#24300543
April 24, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real dems? Like you?
LOL.
The DLC is dead. Long live the Democratic wing of the Democratic party, dear.
April 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Radical, liberal, progressive?
You are the extreme left minority group.
Weak whiners.
April 24, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are living in the past. Wake up and smell the progress. Liberal is not he insult any more. Conservative is the damaged brand now. Thanks to GWB
April 25, 2008 10:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife, I want to ask you to do yourself a favor:
1). Go to http://www.slate.com/id/2185278/
2). Check both Florida and Michigan so they're included in the count
3). Now grab the slider at the top and give Hillary a 55/45 win in every remaining state (this margin is HIGHLY unlikely, but do it anyway).
4). Give Obama the single state of North Carolina by 55/45, which is far less than what the polls are currently projecting.
Now look at the delegate count. The ONLY way Hillary could win--even in this unlikely scenario--is if she could convince the super delegates to override the will of the people. Do you WANT that? Do you want over half of America to be pissed off because they were cheated?
April 24, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I do.
I want to win this time not lose three in a row.
The voters elected w twice because they drank he kool aid too.
April 24, 2008 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it that the Clinton supporters drink? Paint thinner?
April 24, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Crown silly.
April 24, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
They snort bullshit.
April 25, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, that tonic is called WINNING. For some reason those liberal elitists that the dems keep trotting out there just can't hack it in the general election. It has something to do with not being able to connect with middle America.
April 25, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just stunned by the Clinton supporters' allegations of "liberal extremism" among Obama supporters. As almost everyone has said, they are almost exactly the same on domestic issues, and differing only in their hawkishness on foreign policy issues.
You claim to be aghast at W's two wins, but I begin to wonder where your opposition to him comes from. If you favor Clinton over Obama, I have to conclude that you support hawkish foreign policy, and thus are pretty cool with Iraq, it being a great idea and a continuing credit to our nation from a hawkish perspective.
Other than that, what has W done that really pissed you off that somehow only Clinton and not Obama can rectify? And what makes Obama and his supporters "liberal extremists" what with their strong similarity in positions on the issues?
April 25, 2008 6:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are trying to over-complicate the issue. My argument is simple. Every election cycle the democratic primaries are held and the far left-wing liberals of this country (neo-libs), with a ton of help from the far left-wing liberals in the television and print media, hijack the democratic primary and they end up nominating an un-electable far left-wing liberal. And every election cycle, far left-wing liberals like you crow and cry about how this time it will be different.
The old Albert Einstein quote is appropriate here: 'The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.'
April 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are truly living in fantasy land if you believe there are far-lefties in the mainstream media. If that was the case, Dennis Kucinich and his Department of Peace would be front and center. Whether you like it or not, Obama and Hillary are more or less on the same page with regard to domestic issues. If you can't accept this, it will prove pretty much impossible to have a decent debate.
Additionally, if you think Gore or Kerry were "far-left" I don't know what right-wing lalaland your brain has been exiled to.
As far as the neo-libs bit, if you don't actually know that neo-liberalism is the extreme pro-business ideology of people such as the recently deceased Milton Friedman but actually is the "far-left" wing of the Democratic Party, I have to say I can't respect a word you say about politics at all, of any sort, electoral, domestic, or international.
April 25, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you don't believe that tv and print media is full of far left-wing liberals like yourself, then I'll just chalk that up to you having no sense of objectivity. After all, why would a far left-wing liberal like yourself see anything wrong with that ideology?
HRC and BHO are close in the issues (a BIG exception that comes to mind is that BHO is NOT for universal health care). They should be, as he 'borrowed' most of them from her. But it's his mindset that makes BHO the elitist far left-wing liberal that you obamabots all know and love. He's the one that proven, by his words and actions, to be out of touch with the mainstream of America. I don't have to convince you, because what you think doesn't change the truth.
Take off your political blinders and we can have a sensible debate.
April 25, 2008 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yet I have a huge problem with the media and the way it presents the election, both candidates, and the realistic options for politics in America. I can't think of a single media figure that I could consider "far-left" or even many that I respect, for that matter. Can you cite any example of some of these far-left figures and what makes them so?
Additionally, what about Hillary Clinton makes her well-qualified to implement a universal healthcare system? Her only experience with it has been to dramatically fail and accomplish nothing during the 1990s, when she arguably had her best shot. And why did that happen? Because of her dismissive, 'fighter' attitude that did not respect other people's opinions and input on the matter. It's all well and good to be tough, but what about when that doesn't bring you anything but failure?
Finally, instead of just vagaries and talking points, can you detail some of the actual aspects of Obama's mindset that make him an elitist? I really can't see it.
"Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite — a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes..." (from Wiki, the best definition I found via define: elitism on Google)
Can you help me understand what Obama has done that makes him this way in your eyes?
April 26, 2008 7:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
"An un-electable far left-wing liberal"? You are fucking kidding me. Dean was the "un-electable candidate," but he didn't lose to an incumbent whose re-elect numbers were below 50%.The Establishment candidate did. Gore, from Tennessee, a far-left liberal? Dukakis, DLC all the way, baby.
You are such a moran.
April 27, 2008 5:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry did not lose because he was to liberal. He lost because he did not diferentiate himself from Bush on the war and because he was a poor politician. Obama willl not be plagued by either of those problems. You are seeing a pattern where none exists.
April 25, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore and Kerry were all conservativ/Establishment Democrats. Even McGovern was actually a centrist war hero who just got painted as a dirty fucking hippie.
Bill Clinton couldn't get a majority as an incumbent running on peace and prosperity even after throwing welfare mothers under the bus. Not impressive.
You fuckhead, so-called "realists" are always nominating candidates who lose or underperform.
April 27, 2008 5:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
They drink whatever the GOP wants them to drink.
I thought that was obvious??
April 25, 2008 9:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're not going to win like that.
We're not going to win like that.
April 24, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't win like that - even if you win.
April 24, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Win WHAT, gotalife? The Clintons aren't your friends. They're the enemy. They're trying to destroy the party from within, and they're leading you by the nose to the voting booth. You're being played for a chump.
April 24, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sad.
April 24, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters have made it sad. You reap what you sow.
April 24, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary supporters are becoming everything they say they cant stand about republicans. They truly have internalized republican tactics. They are like abused kids who grow up to perpetuate the abuse back on their own. PATHETIC!
April 24, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the Stockholm Syndrome. it's the same thing that drove Patty Hearst to rob banks.
April 24, 2008 11:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you reject democracy. Nice to know.
April 24, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
At least you admit it. It's easier knowing how deep your contempt for Democracy goes.
April 24, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the goat fails to realize is that if Hillary gets the nomination by the only method available to her, it will be worth nothing.
Any polls that Jerome over at MyDD posts are not worth toilet paper without a huge chunk of the party behind her candidacy. She has only one path to the nomination and it involves overturning the will of voters. I agree that the supers are free to make their own choices, but they have no cover with her arguments. Voters will not only punish her at the ballot, they will punish her elected supers as they face their own re-elections.
What the Clinton clowns always fail to realize is that Obama has logic on his side. His argument never has to change with each passing day. Hers does. Consistency is what will get him the nomination. And it will keep the party from splitting in two.
Gotalife and his cronies (poor Matthew Weaver is so quiet these days) can send out all those pithy comments, but he does so because there is absolutely no logic to any of Hillary's arguments to taking the nomination. He's got nothing more than a hunch and that won't cut it.
The Democratic nomination race is over.
April 25, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Hillary wins the nomination, we will lose three times in a row.
Why vote for a fake republican when the GOP will be running the real thing?
Again.
God, this is getting tiresome.
April 25, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey trolls, get your story straight. Is Obama an "far-left-wing extreme liberal", or a "fake Republican"?
April 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real Dems? Oh my god. You've lost it, buddy boy. No points for that one.
April 25, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The only way for Hillary to keep her dream alive for a 2012 run would be for her to do her best to get Barack elected. That way, if he is not elected, this rumor, which I believe is true, would be put to rest. She needs to get on board as soon as this is over. She will have no time for sour grapes.
April 24, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't just about Hillary being able to run in 2012. This is a power play for control of the party and of the country. The Clintons are watching their power and influence slip away along with the power and influence of their friends in corporate America. They're watching the rug being pulled out from under the whole filthy scam. Barack Obama is their worst nightmare, because he's threatening their scheme to Republicanize the Democratic Party and remove the power from the people forever. I sincerely believe we're watching the birth pangs of a New America, or its stillbirth. It's up to the Left. We're the last hope. This was never going to be easy. Now it's an epic struggle. But the enemy has made itself known people are starting to see this for what it truly is. This may well be our last best chance.
April 24, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right (I love that gravatar, too, by the way.)
That is it and that was always what the Clintons were about anyway - Power.
And it's down now to a gutter fight for control and for the soul of this party and they are not going to win.
They've lost already -
This time the good guys win - the people who never win.
WE win this time, gotalife.
Deal with it.
If anyone deserves to quit losing it's progressives and African Americans.
Nobody else.
I'm out. One love.
April 24, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn straignt, Sister. Damn straight. To Hell or Glory.
April 24, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you had told me even a year ago that the Clintons would ever burn their bridges with the black community, which had supported them through thick and thin, I would have said you were crazy.
April 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, truly I'm shocked. They have between the two of them completely destroyed Bill's legacy.
It's really sad.
April 24, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!
April 24, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You never don't make me smile.
April 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
At least somebody finally said it - Hillary planning 2012 run. I think she is also trying to embarass Howard Dean and the DNC Power Players so she can force a regime change and put her lackey's in place.
Unfortunately it was an African American saying it, because it will just be written off as one black man supporting another.
April 24, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear hear!
April 24, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's taking it to the convention and will rip the party apart. And if she does, I hope Obama hands it to her, and takes his voters and goes home because there is no way to win the general then. Let her lose in November when nobody will vote for her and come back in 2012. If she comes back in 2012 she will lose the first three primaries--NH won't forget. I read an editorial in a NH newspaper and they are really against her now.
April 24, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
How, exactly, will she "take it to the convention?" This will be over in June, at the latest, when the superdelegates make Obama the nominee with their commitments. What does "take it to the convention" mean? There's no chance at all of seating those delegations. Obama will ahve complete control of the rules and credentials committees, and Pelosi (an obvious Obama supporter) is chairing the convention.
What's she going to do? Throw dead cats at Obama?
April 24, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's absolutely necessary that the party elders convince Hillary to concede. It can't appear that she was forced out. They've going to have to give her something--promise her Harry Reid's job or something like that. Maybe a free lifetime trip to Antarctica?
Whatever it takes. But the party will not survive an overturn by the superdelegates. If Hillary gets the nomination, the scene in Denver will make Chicago '68 look like a child's birthday party.
April 24, 2008 11:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can "take it to the convention" if she can convince enough superdelegates to hold off until August. This is what Evan Bayah has been telling the super-ds in Indiana, and I'm sure this is what Hillary was telling super-ds in closed-door meetings today in DC.
I think you might be overestimating the courage (or rationality) of some of these super-ds and also underestimating the will to power of Hillary. For her, the unelectability argument of Obama is a self-fulfilling prophecy- if she can destroy his candidacy, then he in fact will be unelectable. And pretty soon, she will be proven right.
The end time is near...
April 24, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
She can take it to the convention because she's willing to try to get pledged delegates to switch allegiances. Even if Obama has the 2025, she could well say it's not over until those 2025 actually cast their votes in August.
I hope to high heaven she doesn't do that, but I'm not ruling out the possibility. It's hard to be too paranoid with her.
April 25, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well there's some hanky panky going on in Michigan now. There's a link of the TPM home page, and here it is again. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080424/OPINION01/804240315/1008
April 25, 2008 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
But this is what the Republicans want. See, their angle on this is that if Hillary gets the nomination, they win, no matter what happens. Because if she loses, to McCain they win. And if she wins, the Democrats will lose Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. And then begins 30 years of Republican domination.
This was never going to be easy. But now is the time for Obama's supporters to make certain that the Clintons aren't allowed to steal this election. The Clintons MUST be defeated before we can defeat McCain. And we MUST defeat McCain.
April 24, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The days when I'm feeling warmest towards Hillary Clinton and the greatest president of the past 26 years, I think that she's staying in the race just so she can get more donations from her robotic followers and pay off her debts.
But maybe she's thinking ahead to 2012. Who knows? To contemplate what's going on inside that head (or all the Clinton heads) is to contemplate what goes on inside the head of an alien creature. Not something like Spock, he was logical. Some sort of illogical alien. From Bizarro World. A Bizarro Vulcan. I know I'm making sense. Don't look at me like that.
April 24, 2008 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Surely, this is a better way of winning right?
April 24, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's a Ferengi.
April 25, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's Saruman, doing the bidding of Sauron. And we are the Hobbits and the Dwarves and the Elves. And we will win.
April 25, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought I would make a good Hobbit. Or an Ent. I'd like to be an Ent.
April 25, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary has no chance for the 2012 nomination. If Obama loses, she'll be widely blamed. And even if she does work her ass off to get him elected, and he loses, the party will never nominate a widely despised and disrespected 65 year-old serial bullshitter with huge negative ratings. She's an obvious loser. Her political career is over.
April 24, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clyburn's real problem is that the Clintons did not step aside so that Obama could be handed the nomination without a campaign and exposure of his inexperience, hate & racism, and his lies. Clinton's have not damaged Obama, he's done it himself with his own words, associations, and actions or inactions. Blame the Dear Leader, not the Clintons.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 24, 2008 11:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, What's up with your comment about Obama putting his "half-Black arm around a White candidate"?!?
April 25, 2008 12:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta hand it to Matthew Weaver. He's batshit insane, racist, and it looks as though he uses his real name and his own picture as his avatar.
I've always wondered what it looked like under the white sheets.
Matty boy, you do have huge nads, I'll give you that.
April 25, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get that you don't like Senator Obama for whatever reason you've settled on today, but to write stupid shit like this is just beyond the pale. He's won 30 of the 45 contests. No matter how you slice that he's campaigned and WON. He beat her. 30 times. Not once. Not 15 times. BUT 30 TIMES.
Keep shifting the standard until you find one that gives you a winning argument. But you can't escape the facts: They've had 45 contests and he's BEAT her. No amount of "what . . . if", slanderous statements, declarations of lies or racism or sexism or whatever is going to change the fact, that in 45 contests, he beat her straight up 30 times. 30 TIMES.
Deal with it.
April 25, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Burning bridges is a load of crap.
Obama failed to even attend their events but Clinton was there.
The Clintons are always there.
Clyburn is trying to divert media attention away from Wright.
Too bad, Wright will be all over the media and this story will not.
Nice try Clyburn.
April 24, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clyburn is not concerned about Wright; he told Bill Clinton to chill out in South Carolina; he did not and the rest is history. He is saying it is time for Hilliary to leave; he is not one to say too much, but he should not be taken lightly.
April 24, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she's the superior candidate why can't she beat this inexperienced, lying, crypto-muslim who hates America? She's lost 30 contests to him. You'd think with all of her superior skill as a politician and his breathtaking weakness (I mean he HATES AMERICA), she'd have mopped the floor with him. And yet, here we are. By EVERY metric, she's getting her ass beat. Try as she might, she can't change the rules or make a magic wand and change that fact.
So let me ask you, given all of his weakness and her superior strengths, it shouldn't be a problem for her to win the next 9 contests, right? She's the better candidate. He's got severe flaws according to you, this should be like shooting ducks in a barrel.
If she beats him 9 straight times, she'll not only deserve the nomination, but I'll campaign and vote for her. But if she can't, let's agree that you don't show your face here again? Deal?
April 25, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear.
April 25, 2008 6:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
hey gotaLIE
better get some rest from commenting all day and night.
you might start seeing snipers.
April 25, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant JadeZ, absolutely brilliant!
April 25, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife -
You lose. Deal with it.
We win, this time. We have already won.
It's our turn - the people who never win - we win this time.
It's over.
You lost.
April 24, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah he's so damaged that is why he is winning. Have you noticed that Obama has not thrown the dirt at her that the GOP will? There is boxes of scummy stuff to throw at her, the GOP will have a field day. But Obama has party loyalty. But I guess when you are losing you can't afford to have integrity right? The only person that is being damaged by Hillary's campaign is Hillary. She's driving her negatives higher than Bush.
April 24, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton is a racist.
I've said so all along
He knows damn well he is a racist.
The only difference now is that his triangulation is not working when there are only two parties involved.
April 24, 2008 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not get hysterical. Bill Clinton is not a racist and that's not what Clyburn's saying. He's saying that the black vote is kaput for the Democrats if the sideswiping doesn't stop. And he's using a little muscle in that he's making sure the party elders chew on this when they consider their options. Good for him. I dare say I've had enough of all this blah blah blah about Obama's supposed failure to cut into Hillary's "base." She's got zero chance with his base, and that's an unmitigated disaster for the party.
April 25, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Clyburn is the racist here. Why else go to such lengths to put down the white person who did so much for blacks during his two terms in office? He's a racist, ungrateful, spiteful individual.
April 25, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Peter Paul hearing trial is tomorrow...The date of the trial will hopefully be set sometimes in September or October...This is another Hillary's problem...
The media forgot to say that her campaign is 15 Millions in debt not 10, FEC confirmed she had to included her own 5 millions as well...
So with her campaign costing her 1 Million a day, no matter how much money she raised, she will be more in debts than before...
April 24, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hang on whiners.
The Wright train wreck is coming and then another complete melt down on Fox News.
Obama has done nothing but gives good speeches that never matches his actions.
He does not deserve to be President.
Not even close.
April 24, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whiners? Pot, meet kettle.
April 24, 2008 11:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear gotalife.
April 25, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
James clyburn is a Barack supporter just like Pelosi and just like Pelosi he won't come out and say so publicly because he's in a position of leadership. This guy is not neutral and it would help if TPM point that fact out thus, allowing its readers to have the whole picture and view this in with a better perspective.
April 24, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You point is irrelevant, he is entitled to his personal view. He made a comparable statement about Team Clinton before the South Carolina primary; his first interest as Pelosi is the Democratic Party.
April 24, 2008 11:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
ADLEED said:
'Your point is irrelevant...'
And yours is completely assinine. What sort of mental state must you be in to believe that being a supporter of someone doesn't make your objectivity suspect?
April 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Penn fed Bill Clinton the remark in SC about Jesse Jackson. It was leaked by the campaign staff because they are angry at Penn about it. So how can Bill Clinton say he didn't mean to marginize Obama as a black candidate when it was planned in advance for him to say it? Total BS as usual. Racist or not, they know other white people are and they have used divisive strategies over and over in their campaign. I'm just glad someone who is powerful in Washington finally called them on it.
April 24, 2008 11:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, Clyburn can't even get the Dems to vote together.
He is not powerful, they laugh at him.
Some whip huh?
April 24, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please ignore gotalife.
She's a crazy troll from Vancouver, posts somewhat regularly about her two cats, her profile lists her as single and not looking.
So there you have the prototypical Clinton troll: single, crazy cat lady.
April 25, 2008 12:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain has his own problems with pastors. Hagee stated again this week that New Orleans was hit by Katrina because of homosexuality. And this is someone who McCain asked for his endorsement. McCain has a whole lot of problems, including 200,000 Republicans voting against him in Pennsylvania. Evangelicals won't support him because he is a foul mouth hot-head. And he's old and confused. There's lots of dirt on McCain and a book coming out next month on him. Doesn't matter who runs, they are going to get smeared. But nobody is hated more by Republicans than Hillary Clinton. And Independents don't like her either.
April 25, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife - you sure do put a lot of people down. You must have a real high opinion of yourself that you think you are so much better than everybody. Or do you just want everybody to be as miserable as you? Just wondering.
April 25, 2008 12:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
As I said before, gotalife is a crazy cat lady from Vancouver.
She's miserable and bitter, and clearly lonely and bored, since all she does is post all day.
April 25, 2008 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
We must win this. If we lose--to the Clintons or to McCain--America slips into a deeper darkness than we've already seen over the past 7-1/2 years.
This isn't just about electing Barack Obama. He's leading the charge, but this is our war. This is about average Americans making a stand and finally electing who they want to elect, and not who the political establishment allows us to elect. It's about taking back the power. It's the struggle to revive America's weak but still beating heart. We've got the rocks and they've got the guns, but we are winning.
April 25, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
She certainly did her best to submarine Kerry in '04...
April 25, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The destroy Obama and run in 2012 rumor has been floating around the blogs for months, but I think this is the first time it's been voiced by an actual Democratic official.
Now that he's voiced it, we might start hearing more and more about it. At the very least, it's bound to generate more chatter. It'll be interesting to see if anybody else picks up the ball and runs with it.
April 25, 2008 12:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shine - Yeah that's what I picked up too, gotalife comes off as someone who is desperate for attention.
April 25, 2008 12:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you take gotalife's comments as the sarcastic posts of an Obama supporter, they make a lot more sense. Of course, you could just ignore them!
Discourse is one thing but the bile that he/she posts, phew!
Gotalife needs to getalife, highly ironic screen name!
April 25, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama had never entered the race and Hillary had sailed to the nomination, she still would have lost the election in November.
She started out with negatives approaching 50% before she ever even announced (not that she needed to announce; the game plan to run Hillary has been open knowledge for at least 4 years). I never wanted her to run in the first place for that reason, and that was before she gave us lots of other reasons. She can talk all she wants to about how she's been fully "vetted"; the result of that "vetting" were negatives that for many years exceeded 50% and a several months-long rehash would have easily run them back up to that level...and again, that's without all the other more recent stuff.
April 25, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely correct. The same people who elected George W. Bush would have showed up by the millions to vote against her. She's never had the slightest chance of becoming president.
April 25, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"gives good speeches that never matches his actions"
should be "never match his actions"
under 50,000.00 per year blue is a good thing -
being illiterate is not
April 25, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do I believe Hillary is going to game the Supers and overturn Obama's delegate lead? YES.
Does she think that we'll all move faithfully back "into the fold" when she gets Obama to be her VP? YES
Will we then lose against McCain this November? YES
April 25, 2008 12:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a fatal attraction to YES?
Gaming the Supers is not all their is, YES?
In short Clinton is not worth it; the destruction would be too great. The danger is Clinton become destructive beyond the primary races and events.
You cannot play by two sets of rules, not at this time.
Obama will not participate in his own destruction, he wins on all accounts and settles for V.P. Not happening!
On the general elections, minus the drag of Clinton it will take care of itself.
April 25, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
NOT THIS TIME!! There are TOO Many of us that have had ENOUGH of the bullshit of the last 7-1/2 years and it just won't happen...there will be torches in the streets!!!
April 25, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
PaulieGooner - You just have to wonder about someone who spends their day going on a website just to annoy people and put them down. How pathetic is that?
April 25, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Debra, you hit the nail on the head. This person posts on most of the threads I see and, as you said, all to annoy people. Sad indeed!
April 25, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama would never be her VP. I saw him look her in the eye at that conpassion program on CNN. It was very clear that he hates her, and who would blame him? Obama won't help Hillary any if she steals it at the convention.
April 25, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
What we should be talking about is weather John
McCain is disabled.
I challenge anyone to tell me how he is disabled.
He gets $58,000.00 tax free because he is "disabled"
this on top of senate health insurance
this on top of a military pension
this on top of a senate paycheck
this on top of his wifes offshore tax shelters
Please, Please, Please
tell me what his disability is.
I do respect his sacrifice and service -
but please tell me how he is disabled
this is what the conversation should be about
April 25, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I believe he has some injuries related to his time as a POW. I wouldn't go there if I were you....
April 25, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, definitely not a good line of attack. His disability is that he can't raise his arms higher than his shoulders, and it's a result of torture.
April 25, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
He is a tax cheat, I believe that the disability pension is not taxable. The question is when was this disability determination made. Yep! His military records would be nice!
April 25, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
What has really been pissing me off lately is Carville,going on networks and basically baiting Obama's team. You can see on the guy' face, he knows he's talking bullshit. The whole Clinton campaingn's strategy is predicated on anything to smear Obama. Second point, do not put it past her to be planning a run for 2012. She would potentially be saying "see? I told you so! (not sure how effective it would be)". Final point, didnt she criticize Obama about some comments supposedly offending Clyburn?? Hmmm....
April 25, 2008 12:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain seems to be mentally disabled to me. I don't mean to be disrespectful to the man because I saw him on TV the day he came home from the VietNam prison camp and he really was in bad shape, so he can have that disability check. But he really doesn't seem quite right mentally.
April 25, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
For that matter, I thought that I'd never have cause to reconsider my fondness for Bubba Clinton. It's really sad that now I find myself agreeing with some of the stuff right-wingers were saying about him years ago. Ah well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
April 25, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ya, I would not go there
just like I would not go to the fact that we now have lowered the eligibility requirements to get into the military.
Now felons can sign up -
convicted gangbangers who conservatives would just as soon put to death without trial.
Now within one second they go to automatic hero status at the recruitment station where the conservatives get on there knees with their shiney flag lapel pins and swoon about this persons patriotisum and honor.
Ya, don't go there,
let McCain keep his 58,000.00 tax exempt taxpayer money for his disability - what ever the hell it is.
April 25, 2008 1:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I hate Carville. Everytime he talks about Richardson my blood boils. Richardson is a statesman and should not be treated with such disrespect by a has been. And now Carville is accusing Obama of hiding behind the skirt of NY Times because Obama won't do a debate in Indiana. Why should he? Hillary has no reasonable path to win the nomination. And again, who is Carville to speak to a U.S Senator that way? Carville is obviously Bill Clinton's mouthpiece, he says what Bill wishes he could come out and say. After Obama wins I hope he kicks Carville's ass out of the party, along with Penn.
April 25, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Clintons are there when they need you. Someone upthread made reference to the Clinton's purpose in all this being keeping control of the Democratic party from being permenently delivered into the hands of progressives a la Dean. I think their strategy against Obama involves that goal, but more deeply I think the Clinton campaign is now allied with the McCain campaign in an effort to retain establishment control of the US government. Obama and his movement are seriously threatening to upend the club that controls Washington. Certainly Hillary is doing her part in service to the status quo elite who pander to The People in order to retain power and lavish prerogatives. Why else would she be employing the Rovian tactics? They are now the status quo, pigs at the trough that it delivers. What a sorry generation of leadership we have endured, and here are the Clintons to remind just how sorry its been.
Its a hard road helping Obama up this high mountain, but this effort is in the long-term best interest of the country.
Yes, I'm bitter at my government. And because of this bitterness I cling to the civic religion and to the Republic for it which it stands. Obama '08 is a ray of hope that we may be moving on from the last 20 years of despicable politics and shabby leadership with a shred of dignity intact.
Throw the bums out!!
April 25, 2008 1:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The Clintons are there when they need you"
Boy, you got that right. I worked for an organization that strongly supported Hillary's health care plan. I never met her, but worked with her staff, some of whom are still with her. What I learned about these folks was:
1. Every day is fundraiser day. You can't get past Hello with these folks without them begging for money.
2. The lying is pathological. It got to the point we could not take their word for anything, no matter how trivial. Until it was verified, it was always open to question.
3. Loyalty is one-way. They wanted unqualified support (and money), but they easily cast supporters aside if they thought they could attract someone more powerful.
It's time to turn the page.
April 25, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is really pathetic to see how uninformed and downright unpatriotic and disrepectful that some Obama supporters are in their comments about McCain's disability pension and their implied suspicion of his disability. Are you guys for real?!
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 25, 2008 1:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Spoken like a true Clintonite!
I can almost hear hillary saying the same thing, starting out with her patented "You know," and then injecting her faux outrage because she thinks it will benefit her.
April 25, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "either you with us or against us" viewpoint of team Clinton as expressed through their toss them under the bus actions of political expediency regarding Moveon.org & the African American community lead me to conclusions any member of the democratic party should never have with respect to one of our major candidates for our party's nomination for president.
It would appear as though various parts of the party are arriving at this conclusion only after repeated and crass actions by Hillary Clinton & her surrogates that indeed demonstrate that she & they are willing to go to ANY extreme to seize the reigns of power.
April 25, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was reading how Hillary is called Queen of Pork because of her earmarks. But what struck me was how many were for defense contractors in NY. And of course they all donated and bundled money for her campaign. Then I realized, that's the real reason Hillary voted for the war, to help her rich friends get richer. She's no better than Bush and Cheney.
April 25, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
So mister Matthew Weaver,
Is it at all pathetic that you cannot say what his disability is.
Is it at all pathetic that you are defending something as pathetic as letting someone collect taxpayer dollars for a disability that does not exist.
You my friend need to get your priorities straight and put a little luster on that flag lapel pin of yours my boy.
April 25, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't you read some history? The news about his disabilities is easy to find on the Internet. You continue to show disrespect for him, plus your own ignorance.
Matthew
http://www.TheIndependentView.com
April 25, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is if you are wearing a flag lapel pin Matthew Weaver
oh your not! You naughty unpatriotic pathetic
"straight talker"
shame on you Matthew
why are you not wearing a flag lapel
now you have two questions to answer Mr. patriotic.
April 25, 2008 1:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe you Obama drones should except the fact that your canidate is getting by on affirmative action and dirty money (IE Rezko and Rev. Wright). It's time to institute a flat tax in this country, and I think McCain is the man who can do it. Can you smell what McCain is cooking!!??!!!?
April 25, 2008 1:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, something in the keating 5 kitchen,
or phoney disability payments
or wifes non tax returns made public,
or favors for develpopers,
or did he get in a fight in the kitchen,
whatever could it be toni phoney
April 25, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I know is my nephew had the top of his head blown off in Iraq, and he is being medically discharged. The army is offering him a 10% disability pension. Which essentially provides for no future treatment once he walks out of the hospital. He hasn't even got his scalp sewed back on yet.
April 25, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh God. I'm so sorry. Just tragic.
"The army is offering him a 10% disability pension. Which essentially provides for no future treatment once he walks out of the hospital. He hasn't even got his scalp sewed back on yet."
Unbelievable. And all that crap the Republicans spout about how they honour these kids they send over there. It's unbearable. 10%?
Doesn't bear thinking about.
April 25, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just as I thought Matthew,
you don't know what his disability is,
or if you do you do not feel strongly enough about it to share and inform.
Your too easy Matty, although in your defense
I would act the same if I was misinformed.
I my friend know the truth - because John McCain
said it himself you pin head, "I am in perfect health, I am robust, I could walk the grand canyon tommorrow"
Go back to your video games Matthew
April 25, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Neil, I gotta say - this is a dead-end line of attack. He can't raise his arms above his shoulders!!! And it is a result of torture! Haven't you ever noticed it?
That's what qualified him for disability and all we would achieve by addressing this is giving him another chance to remind us all that he was a POW.
April 25, 2008 7:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Rezko, Khalidi, Meeks, Bitter-gate...
Bye bye electability, indeed.
April 25, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I get why you don't think Obama is electable. I think you're wrong, but I get the gist of your line of thought.
Now please explain why you think Hillary *is* electable.
April 25, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, truly I'm shocked. They have between the two of them completely destroyed Bill's legacy.
It's really sad.
Posted by HusseinTenaX
If I had been a fly on the wall in their bedroom, I might have heard them hammer out a deal that Bill could redeem himself from Monicagate by sacrificing himself for Hillary's shot at being President. He OWES her. And it is killing him.
wow, that just sent shivers down me, I always liked Bill, the big lug.
April 25, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
"When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar," Clyburn said. "I think black folks feel strongly that that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation."
That's the most disgusting thing I've heard in this campaign! The Clintons have been working for black people for decades. They were heroes to black people. Clinton was often called the first black President. And when Hillary needed them they abandoned her in droves. They wanted a black President and they were just looking for some excuse to drop the Clintons. The minute Obama said that Hillary had dissed Martin Luther King, they willingly took the bait and dumped Hillary, the ingrates. And now Clyburn has the nerve to say that it's the Clinton's who lack appreciation??? That's disgusting! I hope she never does another thing for them.
April 25, 2008 3:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am white, and I have been canvassing for Obama in various states for the past 4 months. When I first started out, the African American people I talked to were solidly in favor of Bill Clinton. But as Bill Clinton's behavior and remarks became more and more bizarre, I saw their anger grow. And rightly so.
No wonder they no longer support him. The AA community has told me they feel duped and betrayed by the Clintons. I can tell you right now that if Mrs. Clinton is the nominee ( God forbid) that the AA community will be staying home. The Democrats need their support to win an election.
The Clintons are going up in flames but they want to drag others down with them. Just when I think they couldn't be any more self destructive and careless, they surprise me by surpassing themselves.
April 25, 2008 5:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The New York Times, which endorsed Clinton, is now seeing the light. They all but unendorsed Clinton with their savage criticism of her self destructive campaign. Basically they've put her on warning that she's got to stop.
As for Clyburn, back in January he was pretty benevolent towards the Clintons. He's stayed neutral but he did put Bill Clinton on warning after South Carolina. Now he's gone even further and called Bill on his BS. Good. It's about time the press and politicians called the Clintons on their behavior.
April 25, 2008 5:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between an editorial board and individual editors. The board endorsed Hillary. Individual editors can take an opposing view if they want to. One editor believes her campaign should be less negative. Hardly a retraction of the NYT editorial board endorsement.
April 25, 2008 8:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
there actually is no difference
April 25, 2008 10:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
If this is a surprise to Bill and Hillary Clinton, they apparently don't listen to urban radio stations.
And Hillary Clinton, apparently, doesn't listen to her constituents in the most populous part of New York.
She needs to go on another listening tour.
April 25, 2008 7:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why? Being a senator was only a stepping stone to the presidency, you aren't deluded that Clinton actually gives a damn about New York, are you?
April 25, 2008 8:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
James Clyburn has no credibility. He one of the dufuses who got so offended over something that didn't happen, i.e., Bill Clinton never called Obama a kid as alledged by Donna Brazile.
Clyburn just recognizes that Bill Clinton is fighting back and he wants to keep him down. Clyburn, Jesse Jackson Jr., Donna Brazile and many others did a number on Bill Clinton in South Carolina over bogus offenses.
The full truth, as usual, will not be written until the campaign is long over. The body of evidence already favors Bill Clinton's version of events.
April 25, 2008 7:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Listen All Obama Supporters;
HRC now claims that she knew nothing about her husband's pardon of the Weatherwoman Radical Susan Rosenberg! This from the SAME woman who is claiming all those years as First Lady on her experience resume'.
Let's undress this prevarication! It is simply unbelievable that she did not know about this. Since she has coma after Obama with her damn kitchen sink again-let's all do diligent searches for the proof that will expose this if it is untrue.
We must stop her by Indiana-if Obama takes In & NC this thing is over!
There must be an Obama supporter on Schumer's staff!
Let's get to work!
April 25, 2008 7:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand how statements from Clyburn putting the Clintons down can set off such a firestorm of comments at this late date. Clyburn was one of the first black politicians to threaten Hillary Clinton over the black vote when he said that during the SC primary campaign that if blacks believe Clinton stole the nomination from Obama they would get depressed and stay home in November.
Anyone can see that that's a call for blacks to stay home in the Fall if Clinton takes the nomination away from Barack.
That's been on the table all along. The Clintons know it. Obama knows it. The super delegates know it. What's the purpose of making it an issue now?
April 25, 2008 8:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
TPM knows their audience, knows which topics (i.e., racism, putting the Clintons down) will set off a firestorm. Setting off a firestorm keeps the site hits high, which attracts advertisers.
Many of the most vocal Obama supporters at TPM are like Pavlov's dogs: mention "race card" and the autonomic nervous system is activated. They also tend to be the ones who themselves threaten to stay home in Nov. if Clinton is the nominee.
This isn't a slam against all Obama supporters, just an observation of a specific subset at TPM. It's a very predictable subset, and I think TPM knows it and uses it. I've noted it before.
April 25, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Most of us will vote for a democrat in November. Why? Because some of us still believe that Hillary Clinton is a better candidate than John McCain. Now speaking for myself, my friends will have to drag me to the voting booth. And my mother, well if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, she's staying home. But I don't think that it's only African Americans that are angry by the way Hillary Clinton has run her campaign.
April 25, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
make no mistake, if the supers give the nom to HRC, the Democratic brand both locally and globally will take a major hit.
the U.S. ability to pressure any country to hold free and fair elections evaporates.
April 25, 2008 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama is so great why can't he close the deal. Why is he unable to win the big states. Think about it, these states are big, and he can't win them. Somethings wrong here...
April 25, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
He has won twice as many nominating contests as Hillary. Why should we wory about which 1/3 she won whe she has only won 1/3? Why cant she close the deal in the other 2/3 of the contests?
April 25, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton is so great, how come she's still losing to the guy who you seem to think isn't so great?
(cue more special pleading...)
April 25, 2008 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Clinton is so great, how come she lost a 30-point lead and a 150-million-dollar fundraising advantage to an upstart with a funny name?
April 27, 2008 5:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Top Hillary Strategist: The Real Negative Campaign Is Obama's"
Thank you Mr. Georin.
You, as Senator Clinton's top strategist, have now openly admitted that Senator Obama is better at "taking on the republican" attack machine, than your candidate.
Thank you Mr. Georin;
You, as Senator Clinton's top strategist, have now openly staged a Hillary WHINE FEST, in the Washington Post.
That means that Hillary can not stand the heat, and has run screaming and WHINING from the kitchen.
Mr. Georin.
Take that gun away from Senator Clinton.
She has just shot herself twice with it.
WHINE ON, WHINE ON, OBLITERATOR LOON!!!
April 25, 2008 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think your right Liam, the question is WHY Obama can't take the heat. Why is he getting out of the kitchen. Where will he go when he leaves it, the living room or perhaps a pantry? Why was he in the kitchen in the first place? I think this metaphore is a doubled edge sword for Hilliary, it raises a lot of questions, questions that need answering.
April 25, 2008 10:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure he exits the kitchen for the Oval Office.
April 25, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
The memo Clinton is upset about was leaked to the press by Obama's people and contained a litany of supposedly racially charged remarks:
1. "It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you're now running on off your website in 2004 and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since?' Give me a break.This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen..."
2. "It took a president [Lyndon Johnson] to get it done," said HRC referring to getting actual Civil Rights leglislation through the Congress.
3. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo that, "you can't shuck and jive at a press conference." (In the memo, the Obama campaign says Cuomo was referring to the Illinois senator. Cuomo's spokesperson Jeffrey Lerner has argued that Cuomo was "clearly saying that Iowa and New Hampshire were important primaries because the candidates could not duck the tough questions.")
4. The memo says that "Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela," when the former president declared, "I go to Nelson Mandela's birthday party every year and we're still very close. [...] But if you said to me, 'You've got one last job for your country but it's hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I'll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would pick Hillary.'
5. The memo notes that on several occasions the Clinton campaign and its surrogates have raised the issue of Obama's youthful drug use.
Racially charged? Maybe Cuomo's remark, but labelling the rest that way seem like a real stretch to me.
How about these next two examples? Are do these suggest a pattern of playing the race card by a campaign?
"But those tears also have to be analyzed. They have to be looked at very, very carefully in light of Katrina, in light of other things that Mrs. Clinton did not cry for, particularly as we head to South Carolina where 45% of African-Americans who participate in the Democratic contest, and they see real hope in Barack Obama."
and then this:
"We saw something very clever in the last week of this campaign coming out of Iowa, going into New Hampshire, we saw a sensitivity factor. Something that Mrs. Clinton has not been able to do with voters that she tried in New Hampshire.
Not in response to voters -- not in response to Katrina, not in response to other issues that have devastated the American people, the war in Iraq, we saw tears in response to her appearance. So her appearance brought her to tears, but not hurricane Katrina."
Those were made by Jesse Jackson, Jr., one of the Obama campaign's national co-chairs.
Or these, made by Obama supporter, Dr. Michael Eric Dyson on Hardball:
"So here, I think, with Obama, the possibility—I‘m not saying it‘s a necessity, I‘m not even saying it‘s a probability, but the possibility that New Hampshire voters, after seeing Obama‘s swagger, so to speak, from his confidence because of his Iowa victory, may have rejected him, repudiated him, or at least had second thoughts or become skeptical about pulling the lever, so to speak, for a black man."
Too suggest that those remarks by the Clinton team form a pattern indicating that their campaign was deliberately while ignoring much more clearly "racially charged" remarks by the other side is just playing favorites.
Clinton's been trashed by the press and now by a huge chunk of the Democratic Party and he's pissed. And that doesn't strike me as "bizarre" at all. It's just more nasty "personal" politics from people in our own party.
April 25, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about we stop all the damn personal politics and start talking about the issues again!
Our country is torturing peoople! Our health care system is falling apart! The economy is crap, with real folks, small town people in my community, talking about the next DEPRESSION! This is inanity!
Us progressive bloggers love to bitch about what a crappy job the media is doing on covering issues that matter. Guess what? We're the media too, granted, a new media. Let's stop feeding the damn trash talking machine already.
Ignore Clinton and she'll go away! With her gone maybe we can focus on the issues again.... If she insists on staying, I insist on an end to all this stupid, silly talk on bogus issues and electability. Let us instead talk about the issues and how we are on a razor's edge in this country from totally losing everything we stand for and everything we ever sacrificed to get here.....
April 25, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
real folks=small town folks. sorry for sounding like matthews there. not my intent. i hope you can grasp my intent. real folks AND small town folks NOT pundits, was the intention. Gawd, that sounded so much like Matthews. Blarg!
April 25, 2008 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The army is offering him a 10% disability pension. Which essentially provides for no future treatment once he walks out of the hospital. He hasn't even got his scalp sewed back on yet."
This is the "other America" that Wright was speaking of. I'm pretty sure most of the "REAL Americans" get it. Sometimes you have to spell it out for those that can't read between the lines (duh).
As far as McCain's disability, I wouldn't touch that with a ten-foot pole. He was heroic. No doubt about it. He still loses on policy.
Hillary was never electable, I knew that from the beginning. I always thought the GOP pundits were baiting her by bringing it up so often before she entered. That doesn't mean I didn't respect the Clintons, I just felt that we couldn't overcome her/his negatives in a general. Alas, now I truly find them dispicable (sp?). She is self destructing in a sick and twisted way. It's rather curious.
On to the general. The rest is hot-air from blowhard sour-grapers.
coffee's on. ta-ta for now...
April 25, 2008 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is there a place to go online where I can find rational and non-deranged Clinton supporters? Because I sure can't find any here.
April 25, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sorry, you're crazy if you think Sen. Clinton is electable. She has irrevocably broken the democratic coalition by alienating African-American voters without bringing new voters into the coalition which Sen. Obama has.
April 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who cares about the big states, and whether Obama can win them. ( he won Texas by the way). I think it matters more that he has won my state MN which has in the past has often gone Dem in presidential races, but state offices and local elections can go red. Obama won, he won big in suburbs and areas that tend to vote Rep. I think the large turnouts for Obama in districts that are otherwise a toss up are a strong indicator of his electability. At our precinct he won hands down. My demographic profile:white middle aged, middle class woman says I should be supporting Hillary. Oops, I got an education and I use my brain to study the candidates and their positions--thats why I support Obama.
April 25, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink