Clinton's Cringe-Worthy Moment

Elmysterio, maybe one day you'll figure out the difference between and insult and a joke. There was no insult intended: If I was trying to insult you, you'd know it.

RSJ Said: "Right, and you have a 22-inch penis. I suggest you read some more of the comment threads having to do with Obama."

Bah. I've read them all dude... and it seems that the majority are just in LOVE with Obama... Sorry for pointing that out that you have to resort to insults. fuck sakes.

Hamster, point well taken -- I wish he'd do that as well.

Chunga, of course he's not the perfect progressive, but he is more progressive than any other viable candidate who has a chance of beng elected in 2008. Anyone you vte for is a toss of the dice -- we can only hope a President Obama will be much more liberal than Candidate Obama -- but even if he isn't, he'd be an improvement over Hillary or McCain.

Seriously RSJ - Your not really trying to peddle Barack as a real progressive are you?

RSJ February 28th, 2008 10:19 am:
"Seriously, Obama is building a progressive movement to beat John McCain in November"

Are you sure you don't mean Obama is building a centrist - AIPAC, corporate, same old same old, with a handsome face, a deep voice, and lots of meaningless rhetoric - movement. To insure the election of John McCain in November.

Words are important, but only when they are backed up with substance. By the way.

The American people are lucky to have a primary season which gives them a "dress rehearsal" look at how the various candidates would fare in the Oval Office. In this election season, the voters have seen the once inevitable Hillary Clinton become a struggling person who will say or do anything to win the nomination. In the management of her own campaign staff and budget, she has proven that she lacks the knowledge, skills and abilities to be an effective leader.

It is time for Hillary Clinton to go home and bake some cookies. She has proven herself to not have the skill set to be President of the United States.

It is a very sad day to hear over and over again from so called progressive women who's only defense of Hillary Clinton's pathetic performance is that she is a woman. They are as stupid as the bigots in the republican party and are trying to limit debate about who is the best candidate. The fact that Hillary Clinton is a poor candidate does matter for intelligent people men or women.

Hillary has revealed something, in her campaign, I hadn't been aware of before. She is BORING -- as well as disingenuous and completely over her head. I'd love to support a woman some day but not a woman who helped to enable the Iraq invasion. Obama is the person for the times, and the sooner the Democrats acknowledge this, the better for them and our country.

RSJ,
I'm just sayin'... Obama could score a lot of points by not falling into the trap set by questions like "Would you use force if... blah blah" We-- the media, the Congress, and the public-- have gone way too far, in my opinion, towards granting the president unlimited power. This is a serious and substantive problem and by accepting questions framed that way, it doesn't give confidence that the candidate will do anything to correct it.

Hamster, I suppose Obama should do a thirty-minute disquisition on Constitutional law in every debate, between being questioned on his pastor's relationship to Louis Farrakhan -- BTW, his reverend never actually praised Farrakhan, but how's a journalist like Tim Russert to know that? -- and Hillary Clinton demanding he unequivocally reject the Black Muslim's endorsement after he'd already unequivocally done that. I'm sure you'd do better if you were in the hot seat, but, alas, we're stuck with the bumbling and inarticulate Obambi. ;)

Seriously, Obama is building a progressive movement to beat John McCain in November -- if he doesn't dot every 'i' or bore the public to death with civics class lectures along the way, you'll just have to forgive him. He's got a lot on his plate at the moment.

Deutsch, Hillary's claims of Obama distorting her position on NAFTA really came down to one word: "boon." In his literature, he quoted Newsday as saying that Hillary thought NAFTA was a boon to the American economy. That was the article writer's summing up of her position. After the Obama material was distributed, Newsday published a clarification and admitted the article was misleading.

Hillary was quoted during the debate as saying, following her election as senator from New York, that she thought NAFTA was good for New York and America, and she didn't dispute the accuracy of that quote; she only changed her mind when she started running for president, so Obama's campaign flyer was accurate, except for quoting that one word, "boon."

On the health care issue, Hillary confessed on George Stephanopoulos' This Week show two Sunday's ago that there would have to be an "enforcement mechanism" to make people purchase health insurance under her plan. This is what Obama's material said, so he did not distort her position; rather, Hillary is just uncomfortable with the public knowing that they'll be forced to buy Hillary Care from large profitable corporations. Much better to babble about 'Universal Health Insurance that covers everyone' that is not provided by the government, than to confess that you're going to force strapped middle-class families to pay up to an HMO.

Hamster and Little Brother, I agree; one day we'll have a woman as president, but I hope it won't be someone as tainted as Hillary.

This campaign season is an object lesson in how identity politics has metastatized into a malignant mess.

The knee-jerk reflex to champion Senator Clinton as the female bullet destined to shatter the bulletproof-glass ceiling to the Oval Office is essentially on the same level as the lizard-brain solidarity of voting for the person because of their ethnic background-- for example, the way Italian-Americans fervently supported Frank Rizzo in Philadelphia.

Moreover, there is no end of irony in reading scathing accusations of sexism, misogyny, and witch-hunting-- as if such indictments were not a manifestation of the exact same thing.

Project much?

Once lodged in the eye of the beholder, everything is sexism-colored. Thus, as hamster and others have sensibly noticed, there's no way to express "legitimate" dissatisfaction with Clinton. To her embittered feminist supporters, rejecting Hillary is proof of the persistence of sexism; any rebuttal to this conclusion is dismissed as rationalization, denial, dishonesty, deceit, etc.

Tragically ludicrous. Even in a dim light, it ought to be possible to tell the difference between Hilary Rodham Clinton and Joan of Arc.

Is being president the ONLY position that once achieved will finally prove women are strong and can fight for themselves?? We have two female senators and a female governor in my state. There were a couple of female U.S. secretaries of state in the last 10 years, and a couple of Supreme Court justices. It's kind of a reach to compare this with a time when women were burned alive or with the Taliban. Good grief. If Hillary Clinton does not become president, maybe it's simply because she wasn't the best candidate.

Nichols has joined Zunes and Loeb in the contemporary "witchhunt" - even when she's down he has to keep kicking her. You guys will really show her (and all women) what can be in store for them if they dare to be strong and fight for themselves. Women got burned alive by the millions just for knowing herbology or looking at a man angrily, with the charge they were "having sex with the devil." In Iran, a woman has been given a death sentence by the Taliban purely on a man's statement that she made him "become impotent." Same old, same old - - -

John Nichol's tin ear has betrayed him once again. He thinks Obama prevailed in the debate by claiming, in part, that Hillary is "whining" about the distortions coming from the Obama camp. He is so blinded by his love affair with Barack, that he doesn't recognize Obama's extreme misogyny by that comment. Obama, thoughtlessly believed that just to focus on a woman's recourse to whine was a sufficient counter to Hillary's just claims of distortions in her health plan and her Nafta position. It raises the question of how much women have to do to educate yahoos like Nichols.

Clinton simply doesn't have the horsepower that Obama has. She's no match for him, nor is McCain. Barack will turn our nation around. Arrogant and stupid white men have screwed up our nation and the world. Obama will bring out the best of our nation, rather than the worst (as Bush has).

Power to the people - via power to Barack Obama!

How ironic is it that Hilary Clinton, who was part of an insurgent campaign in 1992 that dislodged an incumbent president, whom 18 months prior looked unbeatable, is now the clunky "establishment" figure with the bloated clumsy political machine that is best at tripping over its' own feet?

Chunga wrote: "By the Barack Obama is indeed a plagiarizer, even if he did have permission to use the speech materials of others, he had an obligation to declare when and whom he was quoting. You know so as not to try to fool people into believing he actually has any fresh ideas."

In other speeches, 'By the Barack Obama' did credit Deval Patrick, he just forgot to in a couple that the media focused on.

Words Are Important: "Why isn't there an article published that is pro-Nader. I don't remember many pro Kucinich or pro Mike Gravel articles either."

WAI, there are articles BY Ralph Nader at Common Dreams, including this one posted Feb. 24th: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/02/23/7247/ as well as pieces by Kucinich and Gravel. Consult the archives.

Elmysterio wrote: "Totally! It's been an Obama circle-jerk around here lately."

Right, and you have a 22-inch penis. I suggest you read some more of the comment threads having to do with Obama.

Am I the only one with the opinion that Hilary's used the 'Always me first questioning' moment to sneak in backhanded plug for us to watch the SNL (Feb 23) show, which especially in the Tina Fay skit, was a ringing endorsement of her fellow NY sister (Hilary). Currently her endorsements are so few and far between that you have to grab and magnify them wherever you can.

Personally, I found Obama's declaration that he has "been a stalwart friend of Israel" to be just as cringe worthy as anything Hillary said during that debate, and just as worrisome.

I agree with everything Bill from Saginaw says above. In addition, note that when asked whether they would use military force if thus-and-such happened in the Balkans NEITHER candidate pointed out that according to the Constitution the president cannot unilaterally use military force without an authorization or declaration of war from Congress. Obama, a constitutional scholar and lecturer, should have pointed that out. Instead, we have the appearance that presidents can single-handedly throw our military around as they wish. This would be an excellent time to get back to a balance of power, and toning down the arrogance of the executive.

This is the kind of shit that is being talked about rather than where the candidates stand on issues. PLEASE give us some substance.

I'm wondering what everybody will have to talk about on CD when President Obama takes over. There will be nobody to complain about, no more need to bitch about Hillary Clinton, no more George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and so on.

Of course, it might be that, in time, some will be saying "Told you so!" And the circle will turn again.

Words are Important Said: "Is this a 'progressive' website? Or is it move-on organization that is only pushing the Democratice Party Leadership position while throwing occasionally a few crumbs to the progressives."

Totally! It's been an Obama circle-jerk around here lately.

To me the most "Cringe-worthy Moment" was when she was asked why she still refuses to release her
and bill's tax returns. She never said why and the best she could come up with is I'll try to get
them together and get them to you. I'll be looking forward to seeing them right after Chaney's
lost e-mails are found.

This was not an aricle worthy of being on Common Dreams. What, don't they have more relevant articles in all of America? Do they have to bow down to the emotional tripe?

Why isn't there an article published that is pro-Nader. I don't remember many pro Kucinich or pro Mike Gravel articles either.

Is this a 'progressive' website? Or is it move-on organization that is only pushing the Democratice Party Leadership position while throwing occasionally a few crumbs to the progressives.

I need more. I want more. I expect more. But I won't be getting any more.

so it goes...

"Not an inch between them."

And Nader's the problem, is he?

Okay then...

This judgment error on Mrs. Clinton's part reveals why Obama is the better candidate. He's the one with better judgment.

This same analogy, though, doesn't extend to John McCain. There, Mrs. Clinton should be seen as the one with better judgment--Because of POLICY.

Sidi February 27th, 2008 12:16 pm

"Hillary's act is getting real old, real quickly."

Hillary's act was old as soon as it started. But then so was Barack's.

By the Barack Obama is indeed a plagiarizer, even if he did have permission to use the speech materials of others, he had an obligation to declare when and whom he was quoting. You know so as not to try to fool people into believing he actually has any fresh ideas.

Well, I think Obama still has a slim chance to pull this one out, even after Hillary Clinton's superlative debate performance last night.

The video clips showing Hillary saying she was "absolutely honored" to be with Obama one night and then telling him he should be ashamed of himself the next may have snagged her some male voters, especially married men and those under 25, and I'm sure her references to the SNL skit nailed down the vast 'It's all the media's fault' sympathy vote, as well as her program to force people to buy medical care from large insurance corporations.

Frankly, I'm surprised she didn't start sarcastically demeaning anyone who extends a hope that we can pull together and make things better -- there's an enormous pool of jaded upper-middle-class blue-collar voters in Texas and Ohio just waiting for a wealthy white candidate from Washington to articulate that stirring message of harsh reality. "If I'm elected you'll all be wearing hair shirts and sack cloth!" would have summed it up nicely. I fear she may have lost that voting bloc to John McCain.

Furthermore, observe how she masterfully forced Obama to denounce AND reject Farrakhan's unsought endorsement of him -- that showed the kind of tough leadership on precise word definitions we need in these troubled times. Imagine her pushing around that big bully Vladimir Putin with this devastating word play!

But I think she missed a chance to really bury Obama by not mentioning her close relationship with Rupert Murdoch -- the Australian media magnate is so beloved by Democrats that that by itself would have likely put her over the top in the March 4th primaries.

And I don't know why she didn't take the opportunity to announce her running mate, since DC insiders already know who it is: Clinton/Lieberman in 2008 -- yeah, that's the ticket!

"You know, I have been a critic of NAFTA from the very beginning,"

Must have been critisizing it from the White House kitchen, while her husband ignored her

Look for it tonight on Olberman--rumor has it that Hillary will be his "Worst Person in the World" tonight. There now, don`t we all feel better now that her true character is out. Just kidding, although it would not surprise me much. As soon as we are rid of her, then we can concentrate on Nader, Paul, and Gravel, who are the real contenders.

Well, so much for yet another round of intrepid reporting on last night's MSNBC installment of who led, who lagged, who sputtered or exploded out of the gate, who faded down the stretch, or who caught a second wind and sprinted just before crossing the finish line, in the ongoing cosmetic horse race for the Democratic presidential nomination breathlessly reported by the mainstream media.

On a more substantive note, what bothered me was how neither Barack nor Billary broke with George Bush's framing of international jihadi terrorism as an existential threat that requires an ever-vigilant Commander in Chief eager to respond militarily to every real or perceived threat.

In particular, Senator Obama seemed almost nonchalant in his response to the question about whether he had ever advocated bombing Pakistan. Never did. But of course, he would not hesitate to do what exactly what George Bush did just last week, when a Predator drone was used to kill al Quaeda's latest #3 man, el-Libi, on Pakistani soil without Pakistani knowledge or consent.

I recognize a primary campaign is usually not a format for challenging broad assumptions about how foreign policy should be conducted conducted in the future, or for broadly castigating policies of the past that have had bipartisan support. I also acknowledge that in a lot of other domestic policy areas, Barack Obama has extolled the virtues of making major change happen.

Yet neither he, nor Hillary (nor the mainstream media for that matter) seem at all aware or concerned that effectuating murder across international borders by means of a robotic device is still murder, and a clear violation of existing international law, regardless of who's ostensibly trying to keep who safe. Using tactics like this, other than absolutely as a last resort, yields little but more counter-productive violent blowback in the future.

Bill from Saginaw

"I didn't have a public position on it, because I was part of the administration." Am I the only one who thinks this is laughable? Is Laura Bush part of the current administration? What an ego!

I think the most telling thing about Hillary is her support of an anti-flag-burning amendment. This was pandering, pure and simple. If she'll suck up to the worst and most ridiculous right-wing standards for a few lousy votes, what won't she do? With Obama nothing so far but a good preacher in an empty suit and Mad Dog McCain nipping at their heels, I think it may be time to quit this country. Reagan pulled the plug long ago anyway, and the last breaths of the gallant old gal are now a death rattle. Of course, Cheney may decide none of those three will be president when he invokes martial law.

Actually don't think Obama is perfect and in the present climate where this subject is as taboo as it is-- with both parties goose-stepping in lockstep, it is notable that yesterday Obama differentiated between supporting Israel vs supporting Likud. Now that is language you don't hear from any of them--despite the revelations of the powerful lobbies. He also mentioned heling the rift between African-Americans and Jews, which was admirable.
There is a better opportunity here with Obama than you know there will ever be with the Clintons.

Also in this debate, Obama said:

"I have some of the strongest support from the Jewish community in my hometown of Chicago and in this presidential campaign. And the reason is because I have been a stalwart friend of Israel's. I think they are one of our most important allies in the region, and I think that their security is sacrosanct and that the United States is in a special relationship with them, as is true with my relationship with the Jewish community."

"And the reason that I have such strong support is because they know that not only would I not tolerate anti-Semitism in any form but...

So, Mr. Obama, do you think that that _all_ Jews are "stalwart supporters of Israel"? I know a number of Jews who aren't supportive of the current state of Israel. You seem to be treating the US Jewish community" and the State of Israel as if they are one in the same? Isn't that in itself a form of anti-semitism? Kinda like the poeple who thought Kennedy would be taking orders from the Vatican?

And, why all this vigorous pandering to a people of a particular religion, or ethnicity - which is it?) who represent only 2% of the US population and are, almost to a person, are very well off thank-you, to the exclusion of a people who represent 13% of the US population (60% of Chicago), who face racism and discrimination every day?

At least she voted against CAFTA with Obama. Too little too late, but then again the 1990s was when neoliberal orthodoxy was at its height.

No one should be rejecting Hillary without recognizing her attachments to the DLC -- the Republican wing of the Democratic Party --- and rejecting that, as well!

Hillary is part of the LEADERSHIP of the DLC which solicits and sponsors the Democratic "blue dogs" who consult with President Bush and the GOP on strategy and vote with them!

Neither Hillary nor the DLC are liberal ---

Hillary's act is getting real old, real quickly. She is turning off many progresives within the Democratic Party with her recent behavior. She keeps claiming she is ready on day one, she has not even been ready with her recent debates.

This does illustrate how disconnected Clinton is from the real world of democratic voters. She considered herself inevitable with the support of the entire democratic establishment and the money of the lobbyists and her calculated votes for war with Iraq and Iran and now she is being beaten by a young candidate who has over a million donors to his campaign and is her intellectual superior and she is reduced to mocking his supporters and crying about the media. She has proven herself unworthy to be the nominee.

This bit wasn't even worth writing a column over, but I love using "worthy" as a suffix. Some people are so good looking that they are lustworthy while others are so ugly they are shudderworthy. You can marry "worthy" to adjectives as well as verbs. Bush and Cheney are jailworthy, for example.