EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Rise Up or Die
- Rallying Cry: Citizens Worldwide to Unite in 'March Against Monsanto'
- A 'Nonviolent Army of Love' Rises in North Carolina to Face Down Rightwing's Assault on Progress
- The Latest Lie: IRS Targeted Conservatives
- Genetically Modified Democracy: Monsanto and Congress Move to Stomp on Your Rights
Popular content
Today's Top News
How Much Damage Will Clinton Do Before She Folds?
n the wake of ten straight losses, Clinton's going to need some miracles to win, and Mike Huckabee's already ahead of her in line for divine intervention. But the question is how much damage she'll do to Obama and the Democratic chances before she quits.
If the fight goes to the convention, we know the answer: Unless she totally routs Obama in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania, her sole remaining path to the nomination depends on convincing the superdelegates to overturn the will of the voters, and convincing the credentials committee to honor the problematic Michigan and Florida elections. So she'll have to practically destroy the party to save it, or more accurately to save herself. Assuming a possible breaking sex scandal doesn't bring down McCain, he already beats Clinton by 12 points in the latest poll, while Obama defeats him by 7. If the young voters, independents, and African Americans who Obama's enlisted in droves stay home in November because they feel they've been betrayed, Clinton's chances would be slim to none.
But she still can do real damage to Obama with her negative attacks in the remaining primaries, particularly in swing states like Ohio. Recent match-ups show Obama a solid victor in states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Virginia, and Oregon, and dead even in Ohio, while Clinton goes down to defeat in all of them. But depending on how negative she gets and how long the primary battle continues, she could cost the Democrats the election by forcing Obama to spend his time responding to an endless succession of petty attacks, and by giving the Republicans ready-made talking points, like Hillary's comment that only "one of us is ready to be commander in chief."
The potential damage is magnified if you count Clinton's surrogates. At the Youngstown, Ohio rally following Clinton's Wisconsin defeat, International Association of Machinists President Tom Buffenbarger called Obama supporters "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." That's despicable rhetoric, echoing the worst Limbaugh/Fox myths about limousine liberals, while it dismisses the majority of union members who just backed Obama in the Wisconsin and Virginia primaries, or the members of unions like SEIU, The Teamsters, and the United Food and Commercial Workers, who just endorsed him. It also happens to totally steal its language from the sleazy "latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading" anti-Howard Dean ads of the right-wing Club For Growth, that helped give us the disastrous candidacy of John Kerry.
If repeated enough, though, those myths have the potential to stick. Clinton supporters have just created a new "527" political committee, which while technically independent and issue-oriented, is explicitly designed to allow Hillary supporters to evade the standard $2300 donation limits. The group aims to get contributions of $100,000 or more from as many as 100 Hillary donors, so they can pour $10 million in ads into the next round of critical races. Whether or not this is legal, and that's arguable, no other candidate has done anything remotely similar in this election. And since the ads have no checks of accountability, they'll be as nasty as their backers decide.
Between Clinton's actions and those of her surrogates, they might just stigmatize Obama so much that some of her supporters stay home in November, instead of voting for him. They'll also encourage Republicans and independents who've been crossing over to support Obama do the same, or even vote for McCain despite his embrace of Bush's disastrous policies. I think Obama will still win, so long as his supporters do everything possible to make that happen. But Hillary's attacks will plant the seeds of doubts. And these will diminish the magnitude of Obama's likely victory just enough to make far harder for him to pass the major changes we need.
Clinton's attacks could also make a difference in down-ticket races. Right now, Obama mobilizes huge new constituencies that could elect a wave of new Democratic Senators, Congressional representatives, governors and legislators. But if Clinton manages to damage his appeal sufficiently, he will become far less of an asset even if he still wins. Plus the longer she remains in the race, the more he has to spend money responding to petty attack ads like one in Wisconsin where she accused him of avoiding debates, although he'd already participated in 18 and had two more coming up. It also means, as Tom Edsdall has pointed out, that the Democratic National Committee risks getting so starved of cash because it's all getting diverted to the nomination fights, that the DNC can't develop the critical grassroots infrastructure to implement its 50-state strategy.
Hillary may give up if she fares poorly in Ohio and Texas. Bill intimated recently that she had to win both or she was likely done. But she's talked of fighting all the way to the convention, as have her key strategists, so it's at least possible that she could keep the race in limbo until less than 10 weeks before the November election, making it far harder for Obama to focus on defeating McCain.
One solution, ironically, could come from the superdelegates. They were established originally as a conservative force in the Democratic Party, a bulwark against grassroots insurgencies like McGovern. In 1984, they actually handed the nomination to Walter Mondale, for his disastrous candidacy, despite Gary Hart's lead in elected delegates. But they also have an ostensible mandate to consider the Party's greater good, and if they acted in this fashion, they could play a key constructive role.
Suppose a critical mass of superdelegates did what 400,000 petition-signers just asked them to do in a MoveOn/Democracy for America ad that ran in USA Today-and pledged to honor the will of the voters? Suppose they announced in advance that they'd support whichever candidate had more elected delegates going into the late August convention? Suppose they also came up with a joint solution to the Michigan and Florida mess, where these states lost their delegates by violating a Democratic Party agreement on when states could hold their primaries? It would be a travesty to validate their sham elections given that the candidates couldn't even campaign in Florida, that Obama and Edwards had pulled their names from Michigan ballot, and that Clinton herself told New Hampshire Public Radio that her staying on the Michigan ballot was irrelevant because Michigan's vote "is not going to count for anything."
But what if the superdelegates acted now, to make clear that they will not validate those two elections as they stand, and that they'll encourage their colleagues on the Credentials Committee to do the same? As an alternative, they could urge those two states to do what the DNC has already suggested, and rerun their elections as caucuses. Yes, this would cost some money and effort, but if the experience of the states that have held them is any guide, it would also offer a major chance for the party to mobilize and engage new supporters, and it would bring participants together in a way that reminded them of the values they shared in common. If the two state parties, both dominated by Clinton supporters, still refused to go along, the superdelegates could also offer the alternative of simply seating Clinton-Obama delegates 50-50, to make it a dead wash. But they need to make clear that Clinton won't be able to pull out a last-minute victory by gaming the rules.
Facing a relatively united bloc of precisely those superdelegates that Clinton still hopes to win, I suspect she'd be far more likely to quit, and do far less damage while still in the race. Key party elders like Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi are already working to ensure a convention process that pulls the Party together, rather than splitting it apart. They and others might play an additional role by speaking out against destructive negative campaigning (whether by Clinton or her surrogates), and making clear that if this goes too far, she will lose their support.
Were Hillary running less of a scorched-earth campaign, it could continue onto the convention without major damage. But she's pursued this approach from the moment Obama emerged as a serious challenger, and seems only to be reaffirming it more in recent weeks. That means that if Democrats really want to avoid a divisive fight, they'd do well to unite around Obama now. He just got the endorsement of the 6-million member Change to Win Coalition (and individual member unions like SEIU, the United Food and Commercial Workers, UNITE/HERE, and the Teamsters). The United Steel Workers, a national social justice leader, initially endorsed John Edwards, and will make a decision at their next board meeting. It's time for the other major industrial unions and progressive organizations to commit too, or to reconsider their earlier support for Clinton.
That's also true of prominent individuals, like Edwards, who I originally supported. It's now well overdue for him to encourage his supporters to back the legitimate inheritor of his quest for change. Maybe Clinton will still make an improbable comeback, but the longer she keeps campaigning, the more attacks and divisiveness we'll see. The more party leaders speak out to prevent this from happening, the less risk that she'll create lasting damage in her desperation to hold onto a prize that's now almost certainly slipped away.
Paul Rogat Loeb is the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen's Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. His previous books include Soul of a Citizen: Living with Conviction in a Cynical Time. See www.paulloeb.org
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

72 Comments so far
Show AllMs. Clinton has turned toxic. She's completely dominated by her own craving for power and inflated ego. She has lied. She has voted contrary to the best interests of this country on any number of things including the invasion of Iraq. Her attitude seems to be that, if she can't attain the presidency, then she'll trash the system so badly in the process of losing that nobody else will want it either. Her supporters need to pay a lot more attention to what is going on. The sooner she can be encouraged to leave the race, the better!
Here is thee message that the people get...It is not rocket science
Hillary Vs Osama or
Obama Vs Osama
Which is the winner?
Do I hear a Nader?
Never Mind!
Old Troll
Hillary hasn't "folded" yet and she might not. If history hands her to us as a candidate, the most harmful thing we could do is gripe until she and Nader produce President John McCain.
Bashing Senator Clinton is counter-productive and unnecessary. We might yet need to turn around and support her.
Please Hillary, go back to the Senate where you can really shine. I'm a feminist too, but all my senses tell me this is Barack's moment, and we do need a leader who embodies the qualities he so naturally expresses.
You can help tremendously by your vigorous role in the Senate, even ascending to Majority Leader, should you so desire.
Thank you for your willingness to campaign, and for your commitment to the much better nation we yet can be.
Rich M:
"An Obama victory might be the very worst thing that could happen"... or it might not be.
Ultimately the irretrievable destruction of the Democratic Party might not be the best thing for this country-- which would allow the Republicans an unfettered grip on American politics for another generation, and speed up their mad march toward irretrievable destruction of the earth.
I've been thinking like RichM for awhile.
It doesn't matter how much damage Hillary can do the damage is already done. Many liberals/progressives/independents aren't going to vote for either Obama or Hillary. If Nader doesn't get in the mix I just may stay at home in November. I don't think things can get much worst for me anyhow regardless of wither a democrat or a republican gets it.
Not only that it would serve you brain dead, led around by the nose, by the MSM democrats. If you wanted a democratic in office you should have supported the only person who represents your vies in words and actions, Dennis Kucinich. I hope he'll run again in 2012 but right now the best man who will actually help the American people is Ralph Nader and he's not in the mix yet. As far as I know.
You democrats need to quit buying into the MSM nonsense and get behind a man who will actually fight to do this country some good Ralph Nader. It's not too late.
It's becoming clear that Hillary cares only about herself and is willing to take the Democratic Party down in her effort to win the nomination. Yes, she's lied over and over, and her negative attacks do not bode well for any idea of her representing the US in international diplomacy. That's a nonevent anyway, she's unelectable. Her behavior is certainly living up to my opinion of her. And all you Hillary lovers, get real and look at what she's doing. Can't you see she doesn't care how much damage she inflicts to try to get what she wants? She's like a parent eating her young. So now she's setting up outsiders to swiftboat Obama? It's clear to everyone else that Obama is the voters' choice. At least Romney had the sense and grace to get out of the way - or maybe the Republican leadership had the cohones to put the squeeze on him. We never know what goes on behind closed doors.
The Democratic Party itself looks like the gang that can't shoot straight. Either that, or they hate the thought of winning. If the situation weren't so serious, I'd call it a comedy of errors.
I would be very disappointed with Obama if after her egregious behavior he chose her for Vice President. It would send me off to vote for Nader. I don't want to see her anywhere near the White House. A person has to have some standards for behavior.
kathyodat
Hillary will not go anywhere willingly.
The woman who "stood by her man" after the Lewinsky affair, for the simple expedient reason that leaving him would hurt her chances at a Presidential run, is going to go kicking and screaming.
if obama really does have connections to the nuclear power industry and advisers who want to end social security, shouldn't we find out BEFORE his nomination is inevitable?
the vetting that has not been done by the media yet is astonishing. what will we learn? if clinton's campaign is the means by which we learn his dirt, is it not better than learning it when the only alternative is john mccain?
Some of the things being said about Hillary make me think twice about Obama supporters. The race is far from over, it's exactly what it's supposed to be: a race. Blaming Hillary for staying in the race is a strange thing to do, and it seems to undermine democracy.
Hillary has made some wrong moves, and I've never given her my support. The sense of entitlement being shown by Obama supporters, though, turns me off. His rhetoric has been fluff for the most part, and I've yet to find it inspiring. He took Edward's words when it suited him, and yet has not made any real anti-poverty efforts. The one candidate who had a forceful agenda was pushed out, largely due to Obama. The race is now between two people with incredible egos. As for me, the one who pretends he doesn't have one (and oh yes, this ambitious man does), the incessant and insidious attacks on Hillary as a woman, and the snide, anti-democratic rhetoric of articles like this, makes me want to vote green party. Keep up this in-fighting, folks, it's only destroying the little faith I had left in the Democratic party.
look out mama there's a white boat coming up the river......which one is not so power hungry as to repeal the patriot act? Or HR 1955? Or all those creepy executive orders? Mr. Bill ratified nafta, repealed the glass steagall....did Ms. Clinton think these were good things? Does Mr. Obama? Gosh, haven't heard........
cribbed from a thread at another site: Obama is not so new here in Illinois where he helped kill real health care reform by changing the word "shall" to "may" in the Senate after the Health Care Justice Act passed the House. I was so hopeful but obviously SO naive when Democrats gained full control here (I think it's now seven) years ago. All they've proven is that they can rule just as corruptly as Republicans.
Hillary canceled her rally in Dallas out of respect for the death of a motorcycle officer in her
motorcade. Shouldn't she cancel the rest of her campaign out of respect for the 3000+ servicemen
and women who went to a war she voted for?
Well, Loeb, Clinton is doing no more damage by staying in the race, than you are being the eternal flack for the Democrats.
Hillary hatred is as irrational and damaging to democracy in the US as Obama mania. The rest of us can do nothing but throw up our hands as the US electorate get it wrong again.
Did the Republican canidates not attack each other with as much ferocity as Clinton and Obama are, or is the media intentionally focusing on the Democrats?
International Association of Machinists President Tom Buffenbarger called Obama supporters "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies."
The owners of the corporations whom Buffenbarger's machinists depend on for contract work are the same "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies" that he is complaining about. Until Americans such as Buffenbarger face the demons inside their own selves the slow-motion ongoing train wreck will continue. Any day, Buffenbarger can start supporting the idea of dispersed small local enterprises that are independent from concentrated death/destruction capital. Any day now, Buffenbarger.
"latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies." Wow, all those African Americans that are voting for Obama are better off than I thought.
The leadership of large unions all make six figure salaries and some make more, so "latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies" are probably not living much different a lifestyle from most of them. I was in the teachers union in Seattle and on the executive board (volunteer work). One of the women on the board was married to the President of the Teamster's local and she used to get picked up from the meetings in a chauffeur driven white Cadillac limousine.
People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
I think Hillary understands herself that she should concede. "I am honored to be on the stage with Barak Obama." That statement said to me that she is starting to recognize that he is already an historic figure, which is something she could never quite be because she will always be "the wife of."
If you read her autobiography you can see between the lines that she was manipulated by her husband into taking the lead, and hence the fall, over National Health Care in 1993. You can be sure that if Bill Clinton saw victory at the end of that he would not have let Hillary have that one. He saw that it was going to be a loss, and he let Hillary be the pigeon.
I believe that he is manipulating her into continuing this race in much the same way. He has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
Judging by what was in her autobiography, Hillary never figured out that she had been set up by Bill to take the fall in the health care fight of 1993. Does she now realize that the position she is in is one that will only get increasingly disastrous?
Since Bill has whored himself into hundreds of millions based upon his electoral success as a Trojan horse for Republican ideology, would it come as a surprise to learn that he doesn't really care what Hillary's decisions do to the Democratic Party or Hillary's reputation?
For a smart woman, she is really stupid when it comes to Bill.
DD: What's different about this primary is that those who have rallied around Obama have no patience with swiftboating or backroom political dealmaking. They want a new kind of politics, one that breaks with the mudslinging and manipulation of the past. They've realized that the way a person campaigns inevitiably reflects the way that they govern. If Hillary goes negative, or uses superdelegates and political maneuvering to cut Obama off at the pass when it's clear that he's the people's choice, the Democrats can kiss a whole generation of voters goodbye.
This article was nothing but a piece of crap. Hillary has a perfect right to stay in the race as long as she wants, and will know if and when to quit herself, without all the hand-wringing about it.
If poor little Barack can`t stand up to big bad Hillary, how is he going to take the Repug swiftboat crew and everything they will discover about him?
The author of the article and some of you posters need to take a tranquilizer pill and relax. If we could survive the last seven years we will make it though this one.
If I were a woman, I'd be really mad at Hillary Clinton (I'm not exactly happy with her, anyway). She had a wonderful opportunity to run for President, and to take the high road while doing so, thereby showing America how a presidential campaign should be run --- and she blew it.
Now it will be harder for a woman to get elected President than it was before Hillary's run at the office.
Rich M: You must have been in outer space for the past 7 years. You say the best thing that could happen is for the democrat's to be destroyed.The democrats haven't been in the White House or had the majority in the congress until nov. of 06. This republican administration is the most corrupt in history they are the ones who should be destroyed by being voted out of office. Bush/Cheney should be impeached and tried for crimes against humanity for their illegal war and lies they have told the people.You sound like the other Hillary hater's is it because she is a woman and smarter than you?,that's why most men hate Hillary they can't stand a brilliant woman. Obama is all mouth and no substance and his wife is a racist who hasn't been proud of her country until now when she thinks they can fool enough people to maybe get elected. Of all the people running in both parties Obama is the least qualified and the young people that are going to see him doesn't mean they will vote for him or anyone.H
Here in NYC, Obama received "0" votes in some of the City's most progressive districts. Even, Mayor Bloomberg, suspected "Fraud". The corrupt, Board of Elections called it a "human error".
This election is far from over.
"he irony is that in the long term, this might actually be the best possible outcome. The best thing that could possibly happen to the Democratic Party would be that it should so discredit & disgrace itself in the eyes of those who still gullibly believe in it, that it would be irretrievably destroyed. And without a Democratic Party (aka "The Washington Generals" playing the foil to the Republicans' "Harlem Globetrotters"), there would be no 2-party system as we know it. The decks would be cleared for the emergence of a true mass party of the Left."
RichM,
Your irony isn't lost on me. After repeatedly seeing the complete unwillingness of hard core Dems to look in the mirror and affect change from within, I believe the best thing for them to do is to self-destruct so that a new party can be built. As long as the Democratic Party holds a totalitarian-like grip on politics, things will never change and progressives will be out in the cold.
I'm doing my part to help this along.
"I'm doing my part to help this along."
Me too, I think I'm just going to stay home come this November. We really don't have any choice.
I recently retired from a transportation division of the International Association of Machinists. I was a dues paying member for almost 35 years and an elected official of my local.
I don't drink lattes, I drive a Jeep, not a Prius, don't wear Birkenstocks, and don't have a trust fund...and, like many of my labor brothers and sisters, am supporting Obama.(my ideal candidate is Gene Debs, but he died in 1925)
Buffenbarger is an example of the gulf between big labor leaders and the rank and file.The IAM issued a dual endorsement for President: Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee!!!!!If Obama wins the nomination what's the IAM going to do? Endorse McCain?
I just got my bill for my retiree's dues for the year. I may not pay, I am so mad...something I thought I would never even think of. AAARRRGGGHHH
Rich M:
I applaud your vision for a true mass party of the left. To believe the destruction of the Democratic party would clear the decks for a progressive 3d party is wishful thinking, just as hoping that electing better people may improve things may be wishful thinking. By not voting at all, you will indeed punish the Democrats, and you will, in the short term, help the Republicans solidify their power more and terrorize the American people more.
I don't "believe in" the Democratic Party at all. I don't care what party a person belongs to if they show some good judgment and the courage to stand up for their (people's)interest. I have a Democrat congressman who is a useless windbag, like most of them. But there are some good people getting elected and nominated as Democrats. I don't think it's the Democratic Party per se that's causing them to be spineless. I don't know-- maybe they are getting death threats. It wouldn't surprise me.
I think there need to be some changes that would allow viable 3d, 4th, etc, parties to develop, like public campaign financing and instant runoff voting, or just make everything nonpartisan. A really good (or popular) candidate can get elected as an Independent.
I am sick and tired of this misogyny. I'd have thought that we have arrived in the 21st century.
It's just nauseating. If this bloke had denounced a black or a Jew that way, no paper would have printed it.
Another naysayer has come out from under the rocks! Hillary, like all the rest of the candidates (male) can stay in the race as long as she has the money to fund her campaign and as long as she thinks she can stomach all the nastiness, sexist comments and dirty tricks from the Obama camp. Mr. Loeb would never have said those things in that tone, if Hilliary has been a Hilliard. He seems to think that when the going gets tought, girls just fold and go home - NOT HILLARY! Like the energizer bunny, she just keeps going and going - good for her. She is following her American Dreams. . .maybe the example will light the way for future women candidates. If the Obama camp can't handle the near kid-glove treatment from Hilliary, they won't be able to take on the Republicans, who entertain no such notions of fair-play as the race for the Presidency is all out war to them. Senator Obama has not been properly vetted by the media, but unless Senator Clinton lights this torch, then do we really know anything about him? The Republicans will find every speck of dirt and build it up to be a mountain. . .this race, no matter who the Democratic nominee is, will be down and dirty. If the kids don't like mud, then get out of the ring! Senator Clinton is up for the war as she has withstood the slings and arrows before and from much bigger and more ferocious people than Senator Obama; Senator Obama, who knows; he seems a little thinned-skin to me.
If we're going to judge candidates by the words of their surrogates, let's take a look at what Chris Matthews of MSNBC, who has been shilling for Obama had to say about Clinton's win in New Hampshire:
JOE SCARBOROUGH: What the hell happened in New Hampshire?
MATTHEWS:"You remember the Lone Ranger and Tonto? I think paleface speak with forked tongue. You hear me? Forked tongue....
I thought this was over. I thought it ended with "macaca."...
"I thought white voters stopped being what they didn't want to be. You know what it tells me? People aren't proud of who they are. They aren't proud of who they are. If they want to vote for Hillary Clinton, fine. Why don't they say so?"
In other words, Clinton supporters voted for her instead of Obama because they are a bunch of lying bigots. Really classy.
The idea that there is any real difference between Clinton and Oboma is ridiculous,they are both controled by the DLC zionist gangsters . I am waiting for the Dems to start whining about the Supreme court judges who will overturn Roe, but the DEms have already approved them even when they had the power to fillerbust them, I didn't see Hillory or Barack use their capitol to leed in that endevor,or perhaps I missed it?
The republicans are corrupt imoral war mongering gangsters who have no need for our constitution which they are destroying daily,while the Democrats help them,they manifest all the sins of the Republicans but add one more complete and utter HIPOCRACY>
Here's another lovely post-New Hampshire quote from Jesse Jackson Jr., who is the co-chair of Obama's campaign:
"...there were tears that melted the Granite State. And those are tears that Mrs. Clinton cried on that day, clearly moved voters. She somehow connected with those voters.
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:
"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."
I have a few questions:
1. Why is Jackson asserting that Clinton cried when she actually didn't?
2. How does he know that she never cried about Hurricane Katrina, just because she didn't do it publicly?
3. Has Obama publicly cried for our soldiers in Iraq or the victims of Hurricane Katrina? If not, why?
4. Is trying to undermine the legitimacy of his opponent's victories consistent with Obama's "new politics" of unity?
5. Is it consistent with Obama's "new politics" of unity to send out his campaign co-chair to accuse his opponent of not caring a rat's ass about the victims of Hurricane Katrina?
I'm no fan of Hillary Clinton. She is the closest thing that we will get to the neocons out of the Democratic Party. However, this is some incredibly nasty and hypocritical stuff coming out of the Obama campaign, and it's coming straight from the top. Obama's air of being being 100% on the up-and-up 100% of the time is really looking pretty phony.
Chris Matthews is a racist bigot and a sexist and an anti-smart people person. He needs to go!!! And none to soon. I stopped watching his show a long time ago and often do not even pay attention to the show where his other "guests" also make an appearance.
On the Fifth Anniversary of the Iraq War, Peace or More War?
February 22, 2008
http://pdamerica.org/articles/news/2008-02-22-13-48-29-news.php
"Congress will take up Bush's supplemental Iraq war funding request in the upcoming weeks, which coincides with the fifth anniversary of the war (March 19). Most Americans never thought we would still be in Iraq at this time. Five years down the road, few of us thought that Bush and his cronies, with the aid of a Democratic Congress, would have ruined our economy, shredded our Bill of Rights, spoiled our moral standing in the world, destroyed the lives of millions of innocent Iraqis, killed 4000 and injured more than 30,000 U.S troops. Few of us would have believed Congress, at this date, would be authorizing more blood and treasure on this failed exercise in Iraq."
Anybody care to guess how Obama or Hillary will stand on this? I bet it won't be the way the American people want. We want the troops home as soon as possible. Congress should stop funding the Iraq war and start funding for bringing our troops home.
National polls show Obama winning and Hillary losing against McCain.
Those are the facts. The GOP knows it... Clinton knows it and she, is more important to her than we.
btw...clyde paige... "Obama is all mouth and no substance and his wife is a racist who hasn't been proud of her country until now when she thinks they can fool enough people to maybe get elected."
What effing SWIFT BOAT for slow learners did YOU fall out of? How dare you repeat such filth on this website.
Hillary supporters generally have much more class.... clearly you're a Repuglican provacateur.
{sigh} It's not just mainstream or Nader. There are actual registered Greens running for President. Yes, Cynthia McKinney is now registered Green. Ralph is not and never has been. If Hillary does what this author is worried about then the Dems who would decide to stay home should get out and vote Green.
Personally, I'm hoping Ralph decides not to run, but to lend his support to whomever comes out of the Green convention in July. That would be the best use of his talents.
http://gp.org
Look at the damage Obama has already done!
He voted for the misnamed Class Action Fairness of 2005 a hand over of citizen power to corporations. Hillary Clinton, Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy voted against. Obama was warned by states attorneys general, for example his own, and dozens of citizen's rights groups not to favor corporations against the poor and disadvantaged but that is what he did.
Could it be because he has a cozy relationship with lobbyists?
His top campaign contributors are lobbyists and why is the media letting him get away with his lie that they are not?
Pam Martems has the story here:
http://www.zcommunications.org/znet/viewArticle/16601
RichM:
You just hit a homerun out of the ball park.
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png
It's true the left is a wet noodle afraid of its shadow. The left is afraid of a revolution, and lacks the will to fight on the the class warfare front: a prime and leading example of cowardice. The right is amassing all the money-power as usual, shrinking the middle class and bloating the lower class -- this may be its temporary undoing vis a vis a depression, but the rich will rise up again and farm the poor, using politicians as their farm hands as they did throughout the 20th century.
Electing Obama or Clinton will just put this process in slow motion, and the power structure knows this -- that's fine with them: no matter when the tsunami waves crash, they will be riding on the surf board above the drowning masses. When the tides recede, they'll mop up the mess and set up shop once again, ready for another paddle out to the surf breaks for another great ride.
The author suggests "Suppose a critical mass of superdelegates did what 400,000 petition-signers just asked them to do in a MoveOn/Democracy for America ad that ran in USA Today-and pledged to honor the will of the voters? Suppose they announced in advance that they'd support whichever candidate had more elected delegates going into the late August convention?" The implication here being that they might do that for solely altruistic reasons. And perhaps they might but the author seems to have overlooked a very simple and time-honored way to get the superdelegates to support his candidate, buy them. Apparently, according to a recent report: http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=336
The Obama PAC is doing just that as it has contributed almost $700,000 in contributions to the superdelegates campaigns as compared to about $225,000 for Clinton's PAC.
I think that this information is pertinent to the article and should have been at least mentioned rather than this "Oh, wouldn't it be great if those superdelegates were to follow the wishes of the voters," piece of deceptive BS.
Consider America since the advent of Reagan a generation ago - one grand economic and foreign policy fuck-up after another, brought to you by both Republicans and Democrats. America is no longer Sisyphus trying in vain to push the rock up the mountain; it is Wile E. Coyote of the Roadrunner cartoons having gone over the cliff, suspended in mid air a split second, looking down and now free falling to the floor of the canyon. Keep watching for the puff of dust way down at the bottom. That is our ultimate destination.
RichM you are making me laugh out loud swatting those pesky flies away.
The Democrats are the 90%'s opiate. But it eventually wears off, and the reality of the "infected wound" emerges.
Proud to be an American??? Hell no. I do not take pride in mass murder, occupation, repression, torture, and genuine disregard to all things humane. My apologies to the "patriots" who said the pledge too many times in grade school.
If all we get out of this election is to rein in and reverse the worst excesses of the Bush nightmare years-- and there are many, many-- I will be very grateful and relieved. If we don't even get that, then the pessimists on this thread (and you are very eloquent, and I agree with much of what you say) will be proven 100% correct and I will likely leave the country.
Quote of the day: Rich M: "Anyone who thinks it's important to say they're "proud" of their country — even when their country behaves immorally & disgracefully — is a moron."
After watching SNL tonight, she's at least got the NBC/Lorne Michaels establishment/GE & casts vote.
How ugly THAT was.
Yeechh!
RichM -- "Democrats have historically served as capitalism's "B Team." They are permitted to take temporary power only when the Republicans have raped & looted the country so outrageously & for so long, that social anger reaches dangerous proportions"
As usual RichM gets it right. The Democratic Party needs to be gutted and spat out. The core is rotten. We need a true Progressive Party that can help us retain our sanity. After wilting repeatedly and unfailingly to the Republicans on issue after issue its clear to any observer (except the democrats !) that the Democratic Party is really made up of closet Republicans for the most part.
I actually met a couple of Republicans the other day (my first Republican sighting in a long time) and chatting with them revealed an astonishing fact .... they are so friggin similar to a lot of Democrats that I know ... amazing !!