Bill Clinton: The Chris Matthews of South Carolina
I’ve thought most of the criticisms of the Clintons’ campaign, including the role played by Bill, have been overblown. Given the standard level of campaign rhetoric, and particularly considering the bile that will be launched towards Obama from the currently pro-Obama right-wing noise machine if he’s the nominee, most of the “controversial” comments have been rather mild, standard election fare, generating interest primarily because it was coming from the Clintons.
Beyond that, it seemed most of the efforts to inject dramatic racial conflict into the contest were media-driven rather than an intentional Clinton strategy. And all of the grave concern over how Bill Clinton is sullying the majestic glory of his status as an ex-president — all because he is, as anyone would, actively and aggressively campaigning for his spouse — has struck me as silly and slightly pompous.
But the last few days have changed my view on those matters substantially. The Clintons’ strategy has become increasingly trashy, even ugly, and yesterday’s remarks by Bill Clinton — in which he pointedly compared Obama’s candidacy to Jesse Jackson’s and thus implicitly (though clearly) dismissed South Carolina as a state where the “black candidate” wins, followed up by the Clinton campaign’s anonymous branding of Obama as “the black candidate” — reeked of desperation. Here’s how Clinton fan and loyal Democrat Anonymous Liberal put it:
It pains me greatly to write this post because — despite his many faults — I have long been an admirer of Bill Clinton. He’s a man with enormous political talents, and I think he has used those talents over the years to advance progressive notions of justice and equality in a significant way. And I think his commitment to these ideals is genuine and deeply held. Which is why it is so disillusioning to see him engaged in what is obviously an attempt to marginalize his wife’s chief rival as “the black candidate.” Just today, he was trying to spin away Obama’s overwhelming victory in South Carolina by going out of his way to compare Obama to Jesse Jackson. There has clearly been an attempt by the Clinton campaign over the last week or so, led chiefly by Bill Clinton, to dismiss Obama’s success in South Carolina as being all about race. The goal has been to transport us back in time 20 years, to turn what had begun as an almost post-racial election into a replay of 1988. As Clinton knows, if Americans come to see Obama as the candidate of African-Americans — like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson in prior presidential races — his support among whites, hispanics, and other ethnic groups will plummet. . . .
Clinton is sullying his reputation, harming the Democratic coalition, and setting back race relations in this country, and he’s doing all of this solely to advance his wife’s near-term political prospects. It’s as if he’s become so focused on winning this primary battle that he’s completely lost sight of all larger considerations.
It’s hard to argue with any of that. As it turns out, the South Carolina polls were even more inaccurate than the New Hampshire polls were, though that fact hasn’t received much attention because predicting the wrong winner (as the New Hampshire polls did) is a far more dramatic error than under-predicting the winner’s ultimate margin of victory (as the South Carolina polls did). But, mathematically speaking, the magnitude of the polling error is actually greater in South Carolina. The average of the pre-New Hampshire polls showed Obama with an 8 point lead, and Clinton won by almost 3 points — a difference of 11 points. By contrast, the average of the pre-South Carolina polls showed Obama with an 11 point lead, and he won by 28 points — a difference of 17 points.
One highly likely explanation for this huge disparity is that so many voters decided to vote for Obama in the last several days as a result of their revulsion towards Obama’s treatment by the Clinton campaign — and Bill particularly — just as New Hampshire voters decided in the last several days to vote for Hillary as a backlash against her ugly, patently unfair treatment by the press:
Bill Clinton’s aggressive campaigning in South Carolina in the days leading up to the state’s primary may have had a net negative effect among South Carolina’s Democratic primary voters, CNN exit polls indicate. Roughly 6 in 10 South Carolina Democratic primary voters said Bill Clinton’s campaigning was important in how they ultimately decided to vote, and of those voters, 48 percent went for Barack Obama while only 37 percent went for Hillary Clinton. Fourteen percent of those voters voted for John Edwards.
Meanwhile, the exit polls also indicate Obama easily beat Clinton among those voters who decided in the last three days — when news reports heavily covered the former president’s heightened criticisms of Obama. Twenty percent of South Carolina Democrats made their decision in the last three days and 51 percent of them chose Obama, while only 21 percent picked Clinton.
That’s well-deserved and good to see. Presidential campaign tactics are often dishonest, deceitful and ugly. That’s true of every successful campaign. But that doesn’t mean there are no lines, and this last week, Bill Clinton (and thus, by effect, Hillary) has been (at least) flirting with that line and has now clearly crossed it — nowhere near what the Republicans will do if Obama is the nominee, but he’s nonetheless unquestionably on the wrong side of it. Many Democrats — including progressives — have an ambivalent attitude towards the Clintons despite Hillary’s relatively conservative record since she’s been in the Senate. They distrust their “triangulation” and soul-less political tactics, as expressed most vividly in Hillary’s case by her years-long support of the Iraq War and general support for war-loving policies.
But they also respect the Clintons for being among the very few Democrats of any significance with the willingness and ability to stand up to and defeat the right-wing monster and, most importantly, to recognize its true character. The Clintons’ behavior over this last week does nothing but highlight the absolute worst parts of their character and make any rational person dread the return of the whole Clinton show to the White House — not because of how their political enemies react to them but because of how they, almost addictively, conduct themselves.
This behavior may be shrewd because dividing the Democratic electorate along racial lines may be their best chance for success. It may not matter, because the huge number of large states being contested on February 5 places a premimum on party establishment support more than anything else, and Clinton has a significant advantage there. But regardless of their strategic value, comments such as the ones coming from the Clinton campaign about Obama over the last couple days are ones that would (rightfully) provoke angry protests and probably accusations of “racism” if they came from the Right, and there’s no reason those comments ought to be treated any differently because they’re coming instead from the Clinton campaign.
Glenn Greenwald was previously a constitutional law and civil rights litigator in New York. He is the author of the New York Times Bestselling book “How Would a Patriot Act?,” a critique of the Bush administration’s use of executive power, released in May 2006. His second book, “A Tragic Legacy“, examines the Bush legacy.
© Salon.com
The Republicans are watching with glee as the Clintons attack Obama. They can’t wait until they face off against Hillary (if it comes to that) in the general election. As Frank Rich pointed out in The Times today, the Democrats might possibly lose the election if this sort of thing continues.
The Clintons might make legitimate and devastating criticisms of Obama except that they would also be true of Hillary Clinton:
that he’s a pawn of big money; that he harmed indebted consumers with his vote to make bankruptcy more punishing (in time for the new recession); that his health care plan stinks, etc.
The Clintons are becoming more disgusting with each passing day and I hope the pro-clinton establishment of the party will realize how much damage they are doing and stop supporting them.
Wvery candidate tells the people what they think they want to hear. Those are just words, it is what that candidate has done and will do in the future. They have all been a part of this train wreck that has been going on for years. How do we know what they will do. Based on past voting records we sort of get an idea how they will consider new legislation. There is no one running that will have the courage to do what needs to be done to turn this up side down country right side up. It is too bad that our system is so broken that only those who sell out to the highest bidder even have a chance to ‘win’ the presidency. Vote or not, I can’t see that our votes make much difference.
do you trust capitalism a muslim not an african american that claims too be black, do you people realize you could be aiding the enemy for, who which we are war with. you gotta think what happened to this country. Does anyone support the national anthem or the pledge of alliegence. A muslim by the name Obama does not support America in traditional ways, and we are no longer black or white thing anymore as you can here about race constantly and i am tired of republicans running the show but i only have 2 canidates that qualify, i would say America can use the humor in the oval office like who is she going too have oral sex with is she going too inhale, i find it funny and i think we do need too lighten up but realize who we really are.
Ill willingly throw my vote away rather than vote for the Clintons again.
Chris Matthews is bad for America.
We have nothing to fear but the Clintons themselves.
This is an election about who we are, who we want to be. If America does not regain its can-do, we’re in it together, no man is an island spirit in its greatest traditions, it will soon fade into a shadow of its former self. Here is an analysis of the latest on the Clintons versus Obama. http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/27/14512/4399/221/444226
militantliberal
yes, the Clintons are in a catch 22. anything for which they could possibly slam him, they are but the poster children.
so much for triangulation.
It always amuses me to see conservatives get all hot and bothered about the Clintons when Bill successfully implemented their programs better than anyone else. Of course the people who get mad at Bill Clinton aren’t upset about his giving military aid and money to the death squads in Columbia, or the continuance of sanctions against Iraq, or kicking poor people in the teeth. No, they are upset about a blue dress and a cigar.
Likewise with Hillary, people get worked up because “she’s emotional,” or “she’s going to take my guns,” “…she’s a socialist” (I love that one especially)
Is anyone outside of progressive circles such as Common Dreams calling out Hillary for who she really is? A corporate shill and militarist? Thank God for Common Dreams but I sure wish people like Chris Mathews actually did some real reporting (impossible I know) and said something actually substantive about Hillary or Obama or anyone else for that matter.
Am I asking for too much?
Interesting to see that Greenwald thinks NOTHING at all about the fact that Bill Clinton [is] a war criminal, extremely too, and a criminal in other ways. “Man” do most Americans love having criminals for political representatives.
“jimbojizm January 27th, 2008 1:55 pm”
That’s a stupid post, and he obviously doesn’t even know who he is, given he concludes with “and i think we do need too lighten up but realize who we really are”.
YOU DO NOT EVER represent who I am! The fact that YOU do not realise this very simple reality is indicative of the likelihood that you have too little awareness of who you are yourself. I am not you, and you’re definitely not me.
And that post is full of bs in terms of what he says about Obama; it’s just more putrid American stupidity, and again illustrates that he does not really have a good understanding of who he is, jim…, that is.
As for what militatliberal’s post says, I just made a post on another article here today and to provide two links. Both of the articles will be good complements to what militantliberal wrote.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/27/6650/?jal_edit_comments#comment-191612
Coincidentally, a cable movie channel just re-aired Primary Colors, the movie, based on the book (by Anonymous), that everyone knew instantly was about the Clinton rise to the Presidency.
If you haven’t seen it recently, or at all, I highly recommend it.
As is often repeated on these pages — Deja Vous all over again!
jimbojizm’s post is obviously the product of a computer programmed with hateful cliches which it is designed to combine in ways that sound meaningful. A mechanized troll . . .
Unfortunately, Obama, Hillary, or Edwards offer no solutions, just more of the same (though a gentler kinder type of getting screwed in the ass).
The planet is in crisis: from our continuous military response to any economic attack on the wealthy (we must protect the rich, the hell with the poor): the environmental crisis (global warming, destruction of animal habitat and extinction of animal species); the failure of any candidate to offer real solutions to the energy (fossil fuel) crisis.
No candidate has a history of protecting the public from the assault from Corporate America. All of this just to protect the financial assets of the filthy rich.
Me doth think that the conservatives complain too much about Hillary. After all, she hasn’t met a corporate dollar she hasn’t liked. And remember, it was Bill who brought NAFTA to us, creating all those jobs for Americans. Oh yeah.
The democratic party is again pulling another Charlie Brown, and the Charlie Browns (the democratic party surporters) know, for sure this time, make no mistake about it, that Lucy is not going to pull the football away. AARRGGHH.
The solution is not in the democratic party. So sorry. Get out of your comfort zone and don’t accept the easy answer just so that you can feel better about the terrible situation. There is a real crisis, it needs a real solution.
“I’d rather vote for what I want and not get it, than vote for what I don’t want and get it.” Eugene Debs
so it goes…
The Clintons really put themselves in a bind–they’ll now need Obama if Hillary wins the nomination WAY more than Obama will need them if the reverse occurs.
And if I were him in the former scenario, I’d tell those two power-mad scumbags to kiss my ass. Better a Republican wins in ‘08 to get saddled with the blame for the fallout from the Bush disasters than a one-term Hillary killing the Dems chances for another generation.
Bill Clinton needs to shut up!
There is a lot of difference between campaigning for your spouse and trashing her oppponents, especially when you just happen to be a former President.
The size of Bill and Hillary’s egos have clouded their judgement about what is best for the Democratic party, and the nation as a whole.
Like it or not, right or wrong, the fact is that Hillary carries enough negative baggage that many people will not vote for her come hell or high water. The sooner the Clintons accept that the better. She would serve the nation better by being a senator from New York. Who knows? Maybe she could be Senate majority leader, and could have great influence there.
Personally, I have had enough of Bush, Clinton, Bush…now more Clinton? Let’s move forward and leave them in the past.
Chill Bill!
WAKE UP! The Clintons are part of the right wing agenda, or more properly, the central bankers agenda. This agenda has nothing to do with the fake issues of abortion, gay marriage, and race. It is concerned only with making the elite rich even wealthier at the expense of working Americans.
Why do we forget that Clinton did nothing to reign in militarism and the military welfare state, that he passed NAFTA and other “free trade” deals to kill the American worker, that he repealed New Deal regulation of Finance companies leading to the credit crises today? Bill Clinton was a disaster for America.
This is a class war folks, and NONE of the candidates running for President are on your side (except Kucinich and Paul, both marginalized). Get out of debt. Reduce your expenses to the bare minimum, learn to grow your own food in your back (or front) yard. The worst is yet to come.
I think it’s very interesting that all of a sudden it’s “the Clintons” that are running for the White House. Isn’t the presidency supposed to be held by a single person? It appears she is not strong enough on her own. It certainly seems irregular and confusing from my vantage point north of the 49th.
You can’t have it both ways. If the candidates are more or less indistinguishable on the merits, you have to ask why the black population of South Carolina choose one over the other, and have done before. Clinton has committed the crime not of attacking Obama (which is what campaigns do), but of telling the truth. That is simply not allowed in America today.
I suppose that one could rank-order the various Presidential candidates who remain in terms of being more horrible or less horrible. The “100-year war” McCain clearly is more horrible that most in his enthusiasm for horribleness. Romney is pretty much McCain’s equal in war enthusiasm and eulogizing Bush’s policies. Hillary is slightly less horrible; she consistently has voted to start and continue wars, but at least she states on occasion a bit less enthusiasm than does McCain. Obama is least horrible in that he is on record for having opposed the start of the Iraq war, but he’s enthused about other wars and has threatened to go to war at times. He’s less horrible, but still horrible. As to Bill’s bad words during the campaign: none of this matters too much when we realize how horrible the whole lot of them are.
Perhaps Bill Clinton doesn’t want his wife to become President. Perhaps he is deliberately (consciously or unconsciously) trying to damage her campaign. After all, can we really imagine him as First Gentleman?
I think I’m going to write in Al Gore.
we democrats paid clinton back already by holding our nose and supporting him while the republicans impeached him. he left the party and the presidency in the toilet. we certainly don’t owe them a second presidency and she’s the only democrat i won’t vote for. also, she is the only democrat who will lose the general election. clinton wasn’t called Slick Willie for nothing and he should count his blessings because if he continues to try and put the dagger in HOPE, the party will let him have what we wanted to while he was being impeached. Which is to slap him across his political face.
Not to excuse Mr. Clinton’s behavior, but can people please look beyond style and instead at substance? Everyone who has talked about NAFTA etc is right on; also don’t forget DOMA! Seriously it doesn’t matter how much these people slander each other while campaigning. What matters is whether marginalized groups become better off when they’re President — and none of these candidates, even Mr. Obama, is going to change that. Of course we should still vote Democrat because the price of voting anything else (ie a Romney/McCain/Huckabee Whitehouse) is too high.
Obviously Bill and Hillary should keep attacking Obama, it’s clearly just making him more and more popular.
The Clinton dynasty is over.
Gotta go with Dr Zen on this. It was only last week that a push poll was reminding South Carolinans that McCain left his faithful first wife (who kept the home fires burning and raised their three kids while he was a prisoner) for a 25 year-old beauty with money. He then proceeded to use her family’s money to run for office. Is it a smear if it is the truth? Same goes for Clinton. Is it a smear to say that it isn’t over yet? That we have been here before with other candidates, and they never got the nomination? Facts are facts, however disppointing they are. Merely pointing out history shouldn’t make you an automatic racist.
It is going to be a long year, people. And getting this mad at the people who oversaw the longest economic boom in years is no way to start the new year. To listen to some of you, Bill is no better than BUSHCO. So, are ya better off than you were eight years ago? NO? What a shock. I know you are disappointed that we didn’t all hop aboard the Kusinich bus, but that bus was going nowhere. I’m also stating fact here, and yet, I’ll be crucified for it, just like some of you are doing to Hillary and Bill. All of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and S. Carolina heard that guy speak, and they all said, ‘no way’. Get over it, and get behind someone who can solve the problems we are facing now.
Truth be told, the last time we had to clean up after a Bush, we used a Clinton. He wasn’t perfect, but he wasn’t the Devil either. Just because this country isn’t all running to the progressive finish line, doesn’t mean I want a gentleman’s loss AGAIN. I want to win, guys. And guess what, Hillary may be not looking like a lady, but she is sounding more and more like a leader (and a winner), which is what I need right now. Hope is not a plan. And leaving behind millions of people who will be uninsued (which Obama’s plan DOES DO) sounds like a guy who is trying to have it both ways. It will still cost us, because those people have a nasty habit of getting sick too. In the end, he’ll be forced to use her plan, and then the attacks will begin.
Nothing I heard last week even came close to what I hear on the radio every day from our brethren on the right. Catch “Barak the Magic Negro” on Rush lately? What about John Gibson’s rant about why white people need to have more kids? Michael Savage talks about gay’s so much, ya start to wonder if he isn’t trying to tell us all something about what he feels deep down inside. And we won’t even go into the head of Glen Beck. O’Reilly is a lost cause, except to be a place-holder on “Worst Person’s” every night on Olberman. I think it is safe to say that Bill-O has falafel problem that no telethon has yet addressed. If you are offended by the Clinton’s now, you will be apoplectic by the end of all this. Pace is important here.
This is all media driven, plain and simple. They have 24 hours to fill, and if they can’t fill them with something that is true, they will make stuff up, or at least amplify a story until it reaches ridiculous proportions. What is the most upsetting, is that, despite knowing this, we continue to swallow this bull***t hook and sinker. I heard leaders in the black community denouncing this “racism” before they even heard the comments for themselves. Shame on you! You take a guy who put his offices in Harlem eight years ago and throw him under the bus? A guy who worked for the black community all of his eight years to better the lives of people at every level? A guy who was governor of one of the poorest states in the union, not once, but twice?A guy who was one of the first on the scene after the tsunami AND Katrina, well before our Moron-in-Chief told Brownie what a heck a of a job he was doing? A guy who is STILL helping people all over the world every year that he has been out of office? This is the enemy? Have ya seen the website? Applied for an intership? Volunteered? Or did you just catch Tweety, Gibson, The Scar, and O’Reilly, and let them make up your mind for you?
I get the feeling that in a week or so, this will start to be academic anyway. All we need is a panic on Wall Street when everyone realizes that this stimulus won’t work (check), a terrible speech by Bush telling us this downturn won’t last and we need to spend, spend spend (Monday night), and a few well-placed remarks by the Clintons reminding us of a time when they delivered Hope instead of talking about it, and she will be on top again. Then again, maybe Bill just read all the polls I have seen, showing her leading in every state coming up. We’ll see if the bump Obama needs even appears. And then maybe we can get back to doing OUR job, which is questioning the Corporate Media that is trying to make a buck more than it is trying to educate and enlighten. We might even try to get back to the issues, and not getting in a cirlce and yelling “fire!” every blessed week for the next month, like the right wants us to.
Greenwald’s summary of the Clintons’ problem is clear & accurate:
“The Clintons’ behavior over this last week does nothing but highlight the absolute worst parts of their character and make any rational person dread the return of the whole Clinton show to the White House — not because of how their political enemies react to them but because of how they, almost addictively, conduct themselves.”
Bill & now Hillary have always been vulnerable because they play the same sort of politics that the Republicans do — and so they have had little credibility when complaining that they’re the objects of dirty campaigns. Remember BC’s refusal to halt the execution of a mentally-deficient criminal and his attacks on Sister Souljah in ‘92.
The Clintons and the Bushes get along because both are driven by vindictiveness; whatever Obama’s deficiencies as a future president are, that kind of vindictiveness doesn’t appear to be part of his character.
The Karl Rove-Style 2008 strategy
The Karl Rove-Style 2008 strategy is obviously to plant stories in the gullible and whoring US media to create a sense of hostility between Obama and Clinton, so by the time of the actual election, the Democratic candidate will seem sullied and cheap in the eyes of the electorate, compared to the calm, clean-fighting elder Republican statesman, likely John McCain.
Don’t fall for it!
Or else we’ll have four more . . .
I agree. The Clintons are NOT of the Martin Luther King Jr — or even the Bobby Kennedy generation. They reflect a corporate mentality and way of life. Visionary leadership is beyond their scope. They come from a “board room’ strain of self-appointed, self-celebrating form of grandiose leadership — disassociated from the roots of the broader American vision.
Hillary’s comment about LBJ bringing hte
real” reality to King’s “Dream” combined with Bill Clinton’s “Fairly Tale” comment about King and Obama is a 21st Century “Jim Crow” framing of the human quest traditionally engaged by marginalized people.
Edwards and Obama are more closely associated with this American tradition rooted in the everyday people. The Clintons have always operated as a clown-like, self-promoting tour of an inferior, touring political circus cast upon us by the lesser ranks of Hollywood. They are the “B” movie — from which America needs to move on. Both Obama and Edwards reflect a form of visionary leadership from which the leadership of the people and their engagement will lead us into the best chances of a postive future.
Nobody’s right when everybody’s wrong……
I think it hilarious that the same posters who trash whichever candidate they do not favor, who overlook the warts and flaws of those they do favor, including righteous indignation should their choice be sullied ,even in the slightest way, take umbrage because Bill Clinton does as they do…..hilarious.
This is what we have allowed our political selection to sink to, yet we still believe the high road available to us, what a crock!
andrewsac January 27th, 2008 10:48 pm
“It is going to be a long year, people. And getting this mad at the people who oversaw the longest economic boom in years is no way to start the new year.”
The Clinton economic boom was a false boom. He and both the Democrats and the Republicans in Congress continued to enter into free trade agreements, each a loser, during his eight years in office. The agreements appeared to bring prosperity but in fact hollowed out the economy underneath.
IE. A business man has a business that has been successful in the past but is stagnet. To correct the problem he goes out and enters into agreements with ten new companies. The terms he negotiates bring in more business but are negotiated badly and each one is a losing proposition for his company. On the surface everything looks rosy. He has to build a new plant and hire more workers but underneath it all he is losing money on each deal. A bill that will have to be paid at some point in years ahead. Eventually he will go broke.
That is what Bill Clinton did to the U.S. economy. He went out and negotiated trade deals, badly, each one a loser. On the surface they sounded good and in fact the U.S. economy had to expand and hire more workers, but underneath was the ticking time bomb of deals that were negotiated badly and drew us deeper and deeper into debt to those countries that we traded with. We now have a six trillion dollar trade debt and it is coming time to pay the piper.
Lobo Gris
Clearly, Bill doesn’t have enough to do. At least when he was president, the job kept his enormous energies engaged. Well, with a few exceptions, that is. But Bill’s behavior now reflects very badly on Hillary. Either she is directing him (very bad) or she has no control over what he does (most likely and equally bad).
Meanwhile, Obama represents real hope for a future we can all be proud of. He inspires me, a white grandmother, to write and care about politics. He stirs the imagination of a whole young generation. How wonderful is that!
Can we just agree that Bill Clinton is not a progressive! Some even say his was the best “Republican Administration” in the last 50 years!
I will because I can say it here that my vote will go to ANY Dem. for president over any Repug.
Bill Clinton handed Wal-Mart (and the other mega-megas) NAFTA.
Hillary Clinton served on the Wal-Mart board.
they are both little more than corporate whores who will do pretty much anything to gain power and wealth.
Obama, like any candidate with a shot at winning in our media-monopoly campaign system, has his corporate backers too, but he seems much less beholden. Like Hillary might say, “It takes a village-full of money.”
Bill Clinton was the best Republican president of the post WWII era. We need to keep Hillary and the other repugs out if we hope to make any progress on climate change and the war.
My vote for Kerry was the last time I will vote for a Democrat just for claiming to be a Democrat. I will not vote for Hillary under any circumstances.
I am a life-long republican who supports Obama now and who will vote for him in November.
First of all, Obama started this particular little exploding spin fest by crowing about how his SC victory was some sort of historic breakthrough. All Bill Clinton did in response was to point out that Jesse Jackson already broke through that barrier (winning Super Tuesday as well). And with a much more progressive program than Obama’s thin, boiled down “hope and change” broth. On the other hand it must be said, if Clinton was race-baiting, what the hell was author Greenwald expecting? Who is Bill Clinton? Am I just too ancient or does anybody else remember the “southern Democrats”? You can take the cracker out of the South, but you can’t take the South out of the cracker…
Bill used the same tactics in Iowa according to several campaign workers I know. The press ignored all requests to investigate.
He did the same thing in NH
In all of the columns, news stories, and debates that I have read and heard, why has no one asked about Hillary Clinton’s role as the Rwandan Genocide unfolded and then continued on to its terrible fruition. Ask the loved ones of the almost one million Rwandans who were murdered — and, the over four million Congolese who have died (largely as a consequence of what happened in Rwanda)– what they think of the Clintons’ compassion, courage, and character. Do we really want leaders such as them to govern our nation again?
If you found any differences between McDonald,Jack In The Box and Carl’s Jr.,then you can find any differences between George W.Bush,McCain and Hillary Clinton.
Are you serious??? Regarding:
“Here’s how…Anonymous Liberal put it: I have long been an admirer of Bill Clinton. He’s a man with enormous political talents, and I think he has used those talents over the years to advance progressive notions of justice and equality in a significant way. And I think his commitment to these ideals is genuine and deeply held.”
“It’s hard to argue with any of that.”
Are you serious?!? Progressive notions of justice and equality??? That is an outrageous statement! Bill Clinton single-handedly, ignoring his closest advisers, put the very successful New Deal policies through a paper shredder, calling this act “welfare reform”. (Note: The New Deal policies powerfully reduced the extreme economic disparities
in US. Those shameful disparities are back.) Do you have any idea of what these policies actually cover? Did you know that they are directly in violation of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? That sections of it eliminate basic legal rights of people solely on the basis of economic status? Were you naive enough to think these were benevolent policies that enabled people to access the medical care, training and education vital to working their way out of poverty? If so, please wake up.
Welfare reform as we got it is two-pronged: One section of impoverished people is simply abandoned, dumped out on the streets. Period. The other part is essentially used as indentured servants. They are trapped into a system of mandatory minimum wage (or less) labor, usually part time, that is minimally subsidized. Businesses love it—it’s the cheapest labor available in the US, and workers know that if they lose their jobs, their children can be taken from them (”failure to adequately provide”, a vague but highly coercive provision of Clinton’s welfare reform package, also in violation of international human rights).
And that’s just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
Americans have only rarely shown concern about the fundamental rights, much less the well-being, of their fellow citizens (want to discuss New Orleans?). Americans will care more as they begin to understand the impact this has had on the wages and fundamental rights of ALL working class people.
If you do a little research, you will find that the international community understands how morally and legally corrupt Clinton’s policies concerning the poor really are. For Clinton, this was “just business”, and he regarded the devastating impact of these policies as unimportant.
So, what were you saying about “progressive notions of justice and equality”???
Are you serious??? Regarding: “Here’s how…Anonymous Liberal put it: I have long been an admirer of Bill Clinton. He’s a man with enormous political talents, and I think he has used those talents over the years to advance progressive notions of justice and equality in a significant way. And I think his commitment to these ideals is genuine and deeply held.”
“It’s hard to argue with any of that.”
Are you serious?!? Progressive notions of justice and equality??? That is an outrageous statement! Bill Clinton single-handedly, ignoring his closest advisers, put the very successful New Deal policies through a paper shredder, calling this act “welfare reform”. (Note: The New Deal policies powerfully reduced the extreme economic disparities
in US. Those shameful disparities are back.) Do you have any idea of what these policies actually cover? Did you know that they are directly in violation of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights? That sections of it eliminate basic legal rights of people solely on the basis of economic status? Were you naive enough to think these were benevolent policies that enabled people to access the medical care, training and education vital to working their way out of poverty? If so, please wake up.
Welfare reform as we got it is two-pronged: One section of impoverished people is simply abandoned, dumped out on the streets. Period. The other part is essentially used as indentured servants. They are trapped into a system of mandatory minimum wage (or less) labor, usually part time, that is minimally subsidized. Businesses love it—it’s the cheapest labor available in the US, and workers know that if they lose their jobs, their children can be taken from them (”failure to adequately provide”, a vague but highly coercive provision of Clinton’s welfare reform package, also in violation of international human rights).
And that’s just the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
Americans have only rarely shown concern about the fundamental rights, much less the well-being, of their fellow citizens (want to discuss New Orleans?). Americans will care more as they begin to understand the impact this has had on the wages and fundamental rights of ALL working class people.
If you do a little research, you will find that the international community understands how morally and legally corrupt Clinton’s policies concerning the poor really are. For Clinton, this was “just business”, and he regarded the devastating impact of these policies as unimportant.
So, what were you saying about “progressive notions of justice and equality”???