What Wouldn’t Clinton Do to Secure Power?
Haven’t we seen this movie before? Barack Obama has just proved his chasm-wide appeal again by conquering another Republican-red state - Mississippi - yet the battle for the Democratic nomination is set to stretch out on to the far horizon. As the comedian Bill Maher says, in a reference to John McCain’s age, “It’s a bad sign when the Democratic campaign is set to last longer than the Republican nominee.” But the looming ending to this story feels flatly familiar - like a slo-mo remake of Florida in the year 2000.
It is clear the Clintons are determined to get this nomination, any way, any how. If they have to do it by falsely claiming to have won states like Florida and Michigan - where Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot, because there was an agreement by all the candidates to punish the states for holding early primaries - then they will. If they have to do it by overturning the will of the Democratic electorate by appealing to the unelected super-delegates - a group of party functionaries who seem likely to hold the balance - then they will. If they have to do it by pandering to racist sentiments - dismissing Obama as akin to the black firebrand Jesse Jackson, or by leaking images of Obama in African tribal dress - then they will do it.
Some American liberals have been suddenly, violently disillusioned by the Clintons’ tactics over the past few months. But in reality, for people who could see beyond political tribalism, the nature of the Clintons has been plain for a long time.
The idea that Clinton was “the first black President” was always implicitly racist: so screwing around, riffing well in speeches and liking fried chicken makes you black now? In fact, Bill Clinton was prepared to lash black people whenever it was politically convenient, with the quiescence of Hillary. Just after receiving the Democratic nomination for President, Governor Clinton returned to Arkansas to authorise the execution of a black man, Ricky Ray Rector, who was so profoundly mentally disabled that he told the guards to keep his last meal so he could have it tomorrow.
Attacking blacks when an election neared became a habit: in 1996, Clinton signed a package of welfare reform that effectively abolished benefits for poor women after a two-year time-limit. They are disproportionately black - and as a recession hits now, they will suffer severely.
Of course you have to make compromises to achieve power. But at some point, on some issues, you have to say - no, I can’t. I can’t execute this mentally disabled black guy. I can’t plunge millions of kids into poverty. I can’t still insist I was right to back the war in Iraq, when it has killed more than 650,000 Iraqis. The Clintons don’t have that gagging reflex.
Instead, they chose to turn themselves into weathervanes, pointing whichever way the winds of mega-power blow them. This meant that on all the great issues of their time - global warming, spiralling inequality, the foolish “war on drugs” - the Clintons fed and fuelled the right. Hillary is following this approach to the letter. While promising in public to “take on the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies”, she is in fact shovelling more of their cash into her campaign than any other candidate, Democrat or Republican. Fortune magazine recently ran an adoring cover story calling her “the candidate of business”.
Why did it take us so long to see them for what they are? Partly, it is because the Clintons were blessed with a parade of even greater grotesques as enemies. The right couldn’t attack the Clintons on their genuine scandalous behaviour, because they supported it all: the executions, the abolition of benefits, the crackdowns. So they contrived nonsense scandals, like Whitewater and Monicagate. Today, many of them are serving up stale sexism against Hillary: right-wing host Tucker Carlson has announced, “There’s something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary.”
And partly, it is because the nightmare of the Bush years has made even the Clinton years seem like a halcyon heyday.
Think about the symbolism for the watching world if the Clintons manage to snatch this nomination. The people in a majority of states in America will have shown they are ready to embrace a black man as President - only for some white guys in suits to hand it to the wife of the ex-President. Their arguments in their own defence will seem feeble. The idea that Hillary is more “experienced” seems to me both anti-feminist and untrue. How does being married to a man make you “experienced” in his job? As the stand-up comedian Chris Rock said in a recent gig, “I don’t get it. I’ve been married for 10 years - but if my wife came out here on stage now, you wouldn’t laugh.”
I am not starry-eyed about Barack Obama. He wouldn’t have been my choice for nominee - I was a John Edwards man - and he has made plenty of ugly compromises himself. To give just one example: in 2005, he voted for the Class Action Fairness Act, which stripped away the ability of ordinary citizens to seek compensation from huge corporations. There was only one group who wanted this: the CEOs of the very Wall Street mega-firms that Obama takes millions from in practice today.
But there is considerable evidence that President Obama would be more susceptible to pressure from progressives than Hillary. To pluck one policy area: Bill Clinton increased jail terms for drug possession, creating a situation where one in nine black men between the age of 20 and 35 is now in prison at any given time. Obama, by contrast, was arguing for the full decriminalisation of marijuana as recently as 2004, and has refused to indulge in this deranged tough-on-crime escalation.
If the Clintons prevail, there will be a worse effect still: the US will be much more likely to have another Republican President. Most major polls show Obama is more likely to beat John McCain. The Republicans are desperate for a Hillary candidacy, knowing it is the one thing that can unite their base behind McCain. The far-right radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham have begged their listeners to go out and vote for her in the Democratic primaries; the National Review ran a front-page pleading, “Please vote for this woman”.
Hillary would be unable to make an election issue out of McCain’s greatest weakness - his support for the invasion of Iraq - because she (like me) made the same dumb mistake. She would have to fall back on reinforcing right-wing ideas by bragging about her “toughness”. The enthusiasm Obama has stirred among first-time voters would leech away.
With their latest lunge at power, the Clintons have shown us how they should be remembered when the end credits roll - as a greasy stain on the bright blue dress of the Democratic Party.
©independent.co.uk
Hey Clintonites!
Don’t you get it?? Your sideshow antics is turning off a huge block of the voting public. Hillary keeps saying that the FL and MI delegates should count even in spite of the original DNC rules. Their new campaign slogan should be, “Whaaaa.. Whaaa… It’s all about Hillary”. There is no way in hell I would support her in the Nov election and there are many others who feel the same way.
In answer to the question in your headline: nothing. The sooner Mr. Dean and the Democratic elders send her and her increasingly ridiculous campaign packing, the better for all of us!
As the article points out, the whole world is watching. If the superdelegates hand Hillary the nomination as the insiders did Humphrey in 68, that was the chant then, that will be the chant again. I don’t want that to happen, but if it does the democratic party can go to hell; I will never vote for that racist warmonger who will only get the nod by cashing in all her accumulated chips from party loyalists. The superdelegates need to know this: THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING
THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING THE WHOLE WORLD IS WATCHING
If Clinton gets the nomination we will have another Republican president because she is a Republican. She votes like one and she campaigns like one and she will preside like one.
Hillary Clinton is a sleazier version of Richard Nixon. Ugh!
My wife is so pissed because she voted for Hillary. She wants her vote back now.
Of course the whole world is watching - all the foreign media is covering it - and probably better than CNN is.
RE: Haven’t we seen this movie before? Barack Obama has just proved his chasm-wide appeal again by conquering another Republican-red state - Mississippi - yet the battle for the Democratic nomination is set to stretch out on to the far horizon.
I am not sure whether this is about Clinton winning, as Johann Hari seems to think, but about busy-work for the Dems so that the Repugs can go about business as usual uninterrupted.
So are you interested in the latest concerning NAFTA-gate?
Michael Wilson was a former politician and cabinet Minister when the very corrupt Brian Mulroney was in power. Michael Wilson is now the Canadian Ambassador to the United States.
Liberals want removal of Cdn. ambassador allegedly linked to NAFTA-gate
Michael Wilson is moving toward the centre of the so-called NAFTA-gate scandal after admitting he spoke with CTV journalist Tom Clark the night before the network broadcast a report alleging an Obama official told Canada the Democratic presidential hopeful’s threat to pan the North American Free Trade Agreement was only political rhetoric.
Obama’s rival, Hillary Clinton, used the report as apparent evidence of what she said was hypocrisy and double-talking on Obama’s part. One of her aides said the leaked information may have propelled Clinton’s victory in the Ohio primary contest.
Liberal MP Navdeep Bains led the charge for Wilson’s removal Wednesday during question period, saying the leak amounted to political interference. …
Brodie has been accused of being the first to leak the sensitive information to CTV journalists on Feb. 26, allegedly telling them that campaign officials of both candidates had told Canadian officials their statements about renegotiating the treaty shouldn’t be taken seriously.
The following day — and after the conversation between Wilson and Clark — CTV’s report only named Obama, whose team initially denied the charge. However, a leaked memo outlining a Feb. 8 meeting between one of Obama’s economic advisers, Austan Goolsbee, and officials at Canada’s consulate in Chicago, corroborated the story.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/03/12/wilson-nafta.html
Or, as she is commonly referred to of late:
Nixon in a pantsuit
Should anyone bring up African-Americans pressured to back Obama, keep in mind that women are expected to line up behind Clinton, either following Gloria Steineim and Ferarro, elitist feminist hasbeens who sold out to defend Bill Clinton ( while Hillary trashed the women he abused)–now grasping at their last chance to be relevant by crowning one of their own so they can experience it vicariously. And then there is the “abused woman” sympathy vote.
But then there is this:
“…Boscola wouldn’t say who used the “T” word with her but she said: “I get women coming up to me calling me a traitor, not voting for a woman. These are political insiders, committee people, elected officials.”
Sen. Anthony Williams’ support for Obama hasn’t landed him in hot water with fellow Democrats and Clinton loyalists, but it led to a rather uncomfortable moment with the former leader of the free world last week.
Former President Bill Clinton was addressing Democrats at Philadelphia City Committee, and Williams was in the audience. Afterward, Williams raised his hand, identified himself as an Obama supporter and while making a point about Pennsylvania’s primary, commented about the divisiveness of South Carolina’s primary.
That was the primary in which President Clinton was criticized by some for his attacks on Obama.
That got the former president going. He didn’t yell, but his voice did go up several decibel levels, according to several people in the room.
“I didn’t say anything back,” said Williams, who was reluctant to talk about the exchange, but who agreed to answer questions about it when asked. “Because, I mean, he was the president of the United States, after all”
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/local/20080313_Pa__Dems_take_some_heat_for_backing_Obama.html
and a NPR report this morning:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88165077
and then go to the blog and read the responses–in fact go anywhere and read how universally despised she has become. How anyone can continue to support Clinton, with each passing day,is incomprehensible.
Nothing!
The WashPost article on the internal disarray in the Clinton campaign ends by quoting an unnamed Clinton adviser: “There was an arrogant attitude on the part of the campaign for many months. And now we’re in the fight for our lives.”
The incompetence and arrogance of one person, Hillary Clinton, threatens to tear the Democratic Party asunder and lead to certain defeat in the fall.
Because she couldn’t even be bothered to fire up Bill’s enormous database of democrats and supporters and TRY to organize and contest the caucuses, she now whines that such contests are unfair and unimportant, and she is ENTITLED to win the nomination anyway.
And Howard Dean stands by and watches as this selfish child’s temper tantrum utterly destroys the Democratic Party.
Oooooooouuuuu, that last line…
if it`s Clinton against McCain in the elections , then my vote goes to Nader and it might be a good time for people to start rallying behind Nader and the green party..there won`t be much difference between having Clinton or McCain as president.
I don’t have much faith in any of them, even Obama whom I am supporting. I wouldn’t have thought this possible only several months ago but it looks like the Democratic Party is ready to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
I’m a white man, lower-middle-class, well educated but not degreed. When I heard that bitch Ferarro say that Obama wouldn’t be where he was if he wasn’t black I didn’t know whether to have a fit of laughing hysteria or get a gun and go on a which hunt.
It never ceases to amaze me how white people don’t get how they are so blind to the effects of their prejudice. It may be true that if you are black and Republican you owe your blackness to your position (Condi, Colin) but to put that rap an a guy from Illinois where Aryan supremacy is a raging virus is just beyond comprehension.
Note to Geraldine: MARTIN LUTHER KING WAS ASSASSINATED.
Jessee Jackson has been made into a ready-made joke for late night comedians, as well as Al Sharpton, and low and behold a black man challenges the DLC presumptive nominee for president in the party that is out of power and which has been made into the scapegoat for the decline of American ethics and marality for 15 years by the hypocritical GOP. I’M GETTING VERY ANGRY HERE.
OK Geraldine I get it, but aparently you don’t. She is still seething over the sexist remarks lobbed at her when she was a nominee, but she can’t see that is what she is doing to Barack because he’s black. Another note to Geraldine: WE DON’T WANT HILLARY BECAUSE SHE’S A WOMAN, BUT BECUASE SHE’S AN AMORAL, POWER-CRAZED MONSTER.
Ever since last Tuesday Barack has been getting more subdued, as if a seething volcano is about erupt. I’m with you brother.
I was in the Army during the transition from the draft to the vounteer service (’72-’75) and I can tell you that the whites for the most part were the bottom-feeding low-life of American society. I came from a lilly-white midwest smalltown and was thrown into a basic training company made up of Detroit inner-city black men. Talk about culture shock. It is only through the friendship of several decent human beings that I am alive to post this today. Some of those niggers wanted to kill me, and almost did. I forgive them.
Yea, I can say the word “nigger” not only here in the safety of my study, but to the faces of my black friends, who in turn call me “whitey,” “”cracker,” and “stupid honky.” You know why? ‘Cause they know, and I know, that when the shit hits the fan, they can count on me, and I can count on them.
Damn, I’m so sick of all this crap.
Time for history to turn the page on the Clintons. They’ve had their chance taken their path and screwed America for it.
I thought I’d vote for any Dem in the general. Hillary is no Dem.
I felt neutral towards Hillary until the vote in the Fall of 2002 to authorize the president to use force against Saddam Hussein. As is widely known, while twentysomething Democrats had the courage to vote “No” to that resolution, HRC was not one of them. Unlike John Edwards, she has refused to admit that her “Yes” vote was a mistake.
But here’s the think that made me absolutely sick about this woman. Shortly after the vote, but before I knew how she had voted, I heard an audio file of her speech to justify the vote she was about to cast. Honestly, that was one of the most vehement anti-war speeches I have ever heard. As I was hearing her, I was thinking “wow, I wasn’t expecting her to be so strong and firm in her position (against giving George Bush the power that he seeks)…I’m glad she is voting No…” only to hear the announcer, after the end of her speech, inform the audience that she had voted “Yes”. It was at the very moment that I learned that the words that come out of her mouth mean ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Needless to say, I have never bothered to hear her again. It’s a complete waste of my time and an insult to my intelligence. I find myself avoiding listening to her as much as I avoid listening to our current president. They are both embarrassing, although for different reasons.
Michigan and Florida should be rerun or Clinton gets rewarded for breaking the rules.
Vern , that “traiter” word gets thrown around quite a lot and, surprisingly, only at and among Dems. Why is Clinton resorting to Patriotic Correctness - isn’t that a Repug invention?
Vince - you and your friends know each other - don’t try it with strangers.
What can you tell me about Maine’s Congressman Michael Michaud? Does he support Obama or Clinton?
Monday, March 10, 2008
Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the story goes well beyond the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. It involves a senior source at the Canadian embassy in Washington. This source was contacted by American and Canadian media and apparently confirmed that it was Senator Obama’s campaign that contacted Canadian officials regarding NAFTA.
Will the Prime Minister’s investigation include the Canadian embassy in Washington and, specifically, any role that Ambassador Michael Wilson may have played in this scandal?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government was clear last week: the investigation is comprehensive and we will get to the bottom of this issue with full transparency.
I thank my hon. colleague for this question, which allows me to confirm this government’s position on transparency. We are accountable to Canadians and we will remain accountable on this issue.
Hon. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this was not just a mistake. This was senior public servants giving secret information to journalists. This is very serious.
Will the investigation into this affair determine whether the ambassador, Michael Wilson, was the primary source at the Canadian embassy who passed this information along?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are currently conducting an independent investigation into this affair. I cannot make assumptions about the results of the investigation, which will be released in due time. The House will be informed of the outcome of the investigation.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of trust. The world now knows that the Prime Minister’s office cannot be trusted with confidential information. His chief of staff, Ian Brodie, started the NAFTA-gate scandal by casually discussing sensitive diplomatic conversations to entertain reporters.
If the Prime Minister gave the order, then he is complicit. If Ian Brodie acted on his own, then he is incompetent. Either way, the Prime Minister has a responsibility to tell the House whether his chief of staff is under investigation. Yes or no?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the relationship between our country and the U.S. is a very important one and we are proud to have a free trade agreement. We have had the agreement for a long time and it has been very productive for Canada, for Mexico and for the U.S. It is a good agreement. We create jobs under this agreement. It is still in force and I hope it will stay in force.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it seems that NAFTA-gate swings both ways. Never mind Obama and Clinton. We now have confirmed reports that behind closed doors the Minister of International Trade told congressman, Michael Michaud, that Canada would be willing to renegotiate NAFTA, this despite the Prime Minister’s assurances that the government has no interest in reopening the agreement.
The question is very simple. Who do we trust: the Prime Minister, the minister or none of the above?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, that is so far from the truth. We have an agreement with the U.S. and with Mexico and the agreement is working. The agreement has been useful for Canadians, for families and for entrepreneurs in Canada. The agreement creates a lot of jobs in this country, a lot of jobs in Mexico and the U.S. I hope that this agreement will stay in force and it must stay in force. …
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, NAFTA poses serious problems; workers’ families know it and are suffering the consequences. The Minister of International Trade told the representative of Maine in the U.S. Congress that Canada was open to amending NAFTA. Michael Michaud, like the NDP, knows that the current agreement is not a good thing for today’s families.
Will the Prime Minister inform the Americans that Canada will renegotiate NAFTA or does he prefer to allow his office to meddle in the U.S. elections?
Hon. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I will give the NDP members credit for consistency. At least they have always been against NAFTA, not just some of the time. Their consistency, however, flies in the face of facts that show that NAFTA has been a tremendous success and that is why we support it.
Nearly 4.1 million net new jobs have been created in Canada since 1993, representing an increase of 32% over pre-NAFTA employment levels. It is a record that has continued under this government: 43,000 net new jobs in February; 361,000 net new jobs in the past 12 months; and 799,000 net new jobs since we became a government. Almost one million more Canadians are working today.
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government is refusing to answer the question. The fact is that our Minister of Industry told a U.S. congressman that Canada was willing to reopen NAFTA, but then we have public statements that suggest the contrary.
I simply want to ask the following question. Is the Prime Minister and is the government willing to improve the environmental and labour standards of NAFTA, or when it comes to standing up for something, are they only willing to stand up for their friends, the Republicans, when it comes to NAFTA?
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
Here’s a little more food for thought:
If the Clintons get the nomination (I strongly hope it doesn’t happen), who will be willing to be the VP nominee?
In David Broder’s column today, he correctly stated that Obama is unlikely to agree to serve as VP, given the expected chaos in a new Clinton administration. As Broder states “add in Bill Clinton’s ego and entourage, and serving there would truly be cruel and unusual punishment for Obama.” Who would want to step into that mess?
Will the Clintons be able to find a credible candidate willing to run for VP with them?
It took Bill Clinton less than one minute to reverse his promises regarding Haitians and gays once he was elected. Hillary has proven she would be the same.
If Obama is elected I hope we have a little more time before we are completely disappointed. It is hard to tell since he can be evasive - like missing the Iran vote.
This article echoes my sentiments exactly.
The other day I noted in one of these posts that Bill Clinton did an interview on Rush Limbaugh’s show on the day of the Texas and Ohio primary. I finally got around to listening to the interview. You can listen to it here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/clinton-went-on.html
And two things struck me about it — one was my discomfort over how friendly the interview was. But what really got me was Clinton’s answer when asked why the Michigan primary votes should count when Obama’s name wasn’t even on the ballot. Clinton said that while that presented a slight difference from Florida (where all the candidates’ names were on the ballot), the other candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot because — get this — they knew Hillary would win Michigan, and they wanted to show their support for her!
I almost fell out of my chair when he said that.
So, learnfromthepast, if you’re out there in cyber-space, yes, I did listen to Clinton’s interview on Limbaugh’s show, and what impressed me the most was the utter audacity, gall and deceit displayed by Bill Clinton.
The longer the Clintonistas carry on, the more I know I was right to back Jerry Brown in 1992.
I wonder why none of the pundits have pointed out that if the 3 o’clock in the morning call came and she was president, the person in the bed next to her would be Bill. He would tell her what to do. Do we really want that?????? A third term for Bill? Does anyone really think he wouldn’t be running the show or at least trying his best to.
As for Hillary - she really is a monster as demonstrated amost daily by her remarks. (”As far as I know”) The most recent being the Geraldine Ferraro flap which proves beyond any doubt that she will do and say ANYTHING to get the power she thinks she deserves.
I will not be able to vote for her if she’s the nominee; both she and McCain scare me shitless. I guess I’ll have to vote for a green candidate or something.
By the way, I’m a “senior citizen” who is a successful business woman; demographically I’m supposed to be for her; but I know plenty who will not vote for her under any circumstances.
dixie, I’m glad to hear that some seniors see through Hillary’s b.s. Here in Florida, which obviously has a large senior citizen population, Hillary is heavily favored over Obama. My parents, lifelong Democrats who are in their 80’s, love Bill and Hillary. And my mother would like nothing better than to have Bill back in the Whitehouse, in whatever capacity that might be. As for their dislike of Obama, I hate to say it, but I think there’s an element of unconscious racism there. They’d of course never admit it, but from the things they say, it comes through loud and clear.
Talk about a legacy for the Clintons! What Bill started Hillary may well be able to finish: The complete and utter destruction of the Democratic Party.
With the way they have acted in the last couple of generations would that be such a bad thing?
dixie @ 2:29p…Good post. One quibble though. Bill would be in bed at 3am but can we be sure it would be with Hillary?
What no one seems to be discussing (even Keith Olbermann in his wonderful Special Comment last night) is the painfully obvious fact that CLINTON WILL GOVERN THE WAY SHE CAMPAIGNS!
If anything could convince Independents and sane Hillary supporters, this would be it. I’ve had conversations with friends who say it’s just politics as usual and so no big thing. But I think it’s a very big thing.
What would she really do at 3 a.m. if a foreign power calls? Throw the kitchen sink at them? Throw a tantrum and complain they’re being unfair? Bomb, bomb Iran?
This campaign isn’t and DOESN’T HAVE TO BE politics as usual. Obama is maintaining a high standard of calm and truthfulness. And this is what HIS presidency would be.
And I read this morning in an excerpt from The Hill that many in Congress prefer Obama’s chances to help THEM get re-elected. So it may not be as easy as Billary thinks to sway the Supers when they have a real chance and a real choice to let democracy unfold.
Vaudree: of course not, and of course I wouldn’t. With all the places I’ve been, all the friends I’ve had, I carry around this weird awareness that I could be murdered by an angry black man who knows nothing of my heart. I would forgive him also. History is replete with thousands of instances of those very tradgedies. Those that I have shared that intimacy with were those that I shared much personal history. And the friendly name-calling was a way of desentitizing each other.
And this calls back to memory of working on a huge coal-fired generation plant in Rockport, Indiana. Right across the river from Owensboro, Kentucky. Red-neck country. Into this mix were thrown two young black “Field Engineers” (again and ironically from inner-city Detroit)the same job classification that I held. Their work was constantly sabobtaged, their lives threatened. Big Mike and Little Mike - I’ll withold their last names because I haven’t seen them for many years. Because we did the same job, suffered through the same work challenges, we became friends. Spent all of my evenings with them drinking Hennessey and listening to Prince.
I was a “nigger-lover” and got no cooperation from the white trades and was more frightened there than when I started basic training, because shit happens on heavy construction jobs. Big Mike was the best damn practical field surveyor I ever worked with (including myself) and Little Mike just wouldn’t take any shit from anybody. Barack reminds me of Big Mike, though Mike was a lot more handsome. Both are articulate, intelligent, and determined.
And boy, do I hate all this crap. Folks on both sides don’t know what they’re missing.
“The longer the Clintonistas carry on, the more I know I was right to back Jerry Brown in 1992.”
I also have been thinking about this. The day the Clinton won against Jerry in NY was the beginning of the end. I voted for Clinton in the general that year and haven’t voted for the Dem or Rep in the general again. This year I will be voting for Obama. I just hope I don’t have to write him in.
I’ve never agreed with Limbaugh, but I think he was up to something when the Clintons were in office.
It’s beginning to seems like they deserved the “Vast right-wing conspiracy” campaign against them.
Bill Clinton campaigned heavily for the middle class when he first ran and subsequently got elected. Then as soon as he got in office all of his actions were geared towards screwing the people that just elected him.
Now Hillary is campaigning heavily for the middle class and she claims she is just like Bill with all of her experiences being the same as his.
I suggest we believe her and vote accordingly.
Lobo Gris
Quit your whining. Obama is an empty suit, who has nothing to bring to the table except the ability to get idiots like you to spout the crap you see above. HRC won’t even be able to add Obama as the VP, because he is vulnerable (think illegal wiretapping, other illegal information access) to being indicted by the corrupt rightwing doj, because of his associations with Rezko. He has been asked to have an open discussion about this relationship; until he does, he must not be considered for the nomination. You can whine and cry all you want, but Obama must be squeaky clean, and he is not.
I’m sure someone else has noted that, had Obama “won” in Michigan and Florida and then wanted to count those states after the candidates agreed not to campaign there, Clinton and her supporters would be up in arms and screaming foul.
Stop YOUR whining deathtotyrants. Hillary is not going to be choosing a vice president because she can’t win the nomination with the states that are left. She is losing.
Barack Obama has just proved his chasm-wide appeal again by conquering another Republican-red state
It’s a good thing America can still produce charismatic “American Idol” material cuz it shure as hell can’t produce 700 mpg high speed rail material, or 90% energy conversion efficiency material, or strict limits on corporate power material.
Without the audacity of hope, there’s no audacity of pride. The scriptwriters know it.
a greasy stain on the bright blue dress of the Democratic Party.
Now the Demok party as a “bright blue dress” is the audacity of delusion, and the REAL STORY of the “falling down” empire.
deathtotyrants, you are right on! What is wrong with these Obama fans. “Oh, how terrible Hillary is; what a monster; what a bad woman; maybe she should be burned at the stake.” They make me sick. Obama fans, what do you think politics is?
A sweet game of tiddliwinks! And what are you going to do if your man gets the nomination and he has to put on the gloves to win the general elections? Are you going to be outraged at him? After all, politics needs to change and we all need to get along. Well, if you are examples of getting along with your ridiculous name calling, ugliness, whining and crying, then we Democrats will deserve to loose. . .I fear that we are looking at another John Kerry mess. He and Ted Kennedy could not even help Obama carry the state that they represent. If you look at the states that your candidate won, for the most part they are the red states. One of the largest states, California, went solidly for Hillary. With its Latino, Asian American population and Reagan Democrats, I suspect John McCain will look much better than Obama. And, oh, by the way, I can just hear the racist charges coming to me; well, guess what people, get real! We should be happy in this country that the majority of us try to contain any racial biases we may have. But, when it comes to voting, people try to protect their own, and in the case of African Americans, I am sure that you would applaud that! You are the biggest bunch of two-faced whiners that I have ever experienced. Oh, yes, follow the rules, you say. Well, the rules say that the superdelegates are supposed to vote for whom they think can win. If you look at the states that Hillary won — Ohio, California, Florida (neither campaigned in Florida, but both names were on the ballot), New York and likely to be Pennsylvania, then you are telling me that the superdelegates should not consider this. Now we are hearing African American ministers be blantly racist, saying that if Obama doesn’t get nominated, their people will stay home. Well, guess what, most of Obama’s wins come from red states anyway and remember the electoral college, people, that decides election results. Remember that Gore won the popular vote and lost the election. And what about all those women who will be enraged if Obama is nominated add to that Latinos and Asian Americans? Sure there are many who have chosen to cross over, but look at the statistics. So, Obama supporters, if you want to play by the rules now, then you will have to play by all the rules. So, whine away; you will have more to whine about if your candidate is nominated and your second favorite MONSTER John McCain gets elected. Your attitudes will surely help him!
Anne Faith, show about to start so cut and pasted video for later. Vince, I am glad that you valued your friendship with Mike - seems like a nice guy. Sorry that some jerks gave you a rough time over it. Still think that Edwards was better than Obama, though. But if Harper is willing to risk what he is going through now to sabotage Obama then Obama must be even better than I think.
RE: - If the Clintons get the nomination (I strongly hope it doesn’t happen), who will be willing to be the VP nominee?
I think it would be from the pool of Senators and Congresspersons supporting Hillary’s bid. That is all I know. Anyone have a list?
RE: - Clinton said that while that presented a slight difference from Florida (where all the candidates’ names were on the ballot), the other candidates removed their names from the Michigan ballot because — get this — they knew Hillary would win Michigan, and they wanted to show their support for her!
Did his nose grow when he said that! I doubt that they would even buy that on Aljazeera.
Those races need to be rerun to make it look legit, the question is who pays for them.
RE: - I wonder why none of the pundits have pointed out that if the 3 o’clock in the morning call came and she was president, the person in the bed next to her would be Bill. He would tell her what to do.
Hey, Bill looks good compared to Reagan and the Bushes so some people would not mind that. And I won’t make any jokes about Bill being elsewhere at 3am.
It does sound a bit sexist thinking that Hillary Clinton would need to ask her husband’s opinion before acting - a point I would legitimately expect her camp to make. Also, for all we know, Hillary filled in for Bill more often than Wendy Mesley filled in for Peter Mansbridge on The National.
RE: - the painfully obvious fact that CLINTON WILL GOVERN THE WAY SHE CAMPAIGNS!
That would make her a one term wonder only to be replaced by Jenna Bush. She tends towards capitalizing on things that can help her immediately but hurt her over time.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the former Conservative minister, Michael Wilson, now the government’s Ambassador to the U.S., was aware of the NAFTA leak that interfered in the American democratic process before the story broke.
Mr. Wilson is now hiding behind a so-called private conversation to deny any wrong. That is not good enough.
An internal probe by the Prime Minister’s staff will not get to the bottom of this scandal. When will the RCMP be called in to investigate the actions of Ian Brodie, Michael Wilson, and all the other actors in the NAFTA leak?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are taking this matter very seriously. It is why the Clerk of the Privy Council is right now carrying out a full and complete investigation.
I want to express to the hon. member the importance of our free trade agreement with the U.S. We have a good free trade agreement. It has been productive. It has been very good for job creation in our country and also in the U.S. and Mexico. We hope to continue to build on the good relationship that we are having with the U.S. in the near future.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, first, the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie, leaked sensitive diplomatic conversations to the media. Then, a classified memo was leaked from DFAIT. Now, we learn that the Canadian Ambassador to Washington, Michael Wilson, leaked the same information to a reporter. Coincidence? I think not.
We have three leaks with a desired result to interfere and influence the Democratic primary.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson are under investigation and that they have stepped aside? If not, why not?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said last week, this leak is a serious matter and that is why the Clerk of the Privy Council is currently conducting a full and detailed investigation.
I should point out to the hon. member that trade and diplomatic relations between Canada and the United States are important. These relations will remain good and valuable. NAFTA has been good for all countries involved—Canada, Mexico and the United States—and we will continue to work in harmony with the Americans.
Hon. Diane Marleau (Sudbury, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe that the government is lacking transparency to such an extent, in its management of confidential and secret information leaks involving our relations with the United States. The government, which promised to be open and transparent, continues to break that promise when we put questions to it regarding this embarrassing leak.
Will Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson leave their jobs during the investigation to determine whether or not they gave away this secret information, yes or no?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the Clerk of the Privy Council is investigating the matter. The investigation is going on right now, and I can assure the hon. member that, just as we work in a transparent fashion for Canadians, we are going to do the same in this case. This is a very serious matter, and the Prime Minister has said so. We are investigating.
The Clerk of the Privy Council is currently investigating, and we will definitely get to the bottom of this issue.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
Hi,
i despise Hillary Clinton. i’m no big fan of Barack Obama. But either way, it is absurd when pundits keep saying things like “Barack Obama has just proved his chasm-wide appeal again by conquering another Republican-red state”.
Clinton and Obama are not running against any Republicans in these “red” states right now! They are running against each other, in Democratic Party elections! One of them has to win! Whichever one wins each state did not “conquer another Republican-red state”! They just beat each other! It does not prove anything about their “electability” in the general election!
Same thing with the Clinton camp’s trumpeting her wins over Obama in “big” states, as if that means something about whether Clinton or Obama can win “big” states in the general election against a Republican opponent. It does not mean anything of the sort!
i would think that professional analysts and “pundits” would see through and destroy such ridiculous “analysis” that gets spun by party campaign spinners. Instead, such useless “truths” get repeated in column after column, as if they had some sort of relevance.
Obama will prevail and the Clinton’s will storm off into the abyss. You can expect no help from these two come the fall but that, I think, will be good for the party.
As a delegate to our Iowa county convention this Saturday it will be my job and any others that are attending supporting Obama to convince the Edwards delegates to join our side.
This convention could be very devisive as Hillary has sent out fliers to every delegate no matter whom they support reminding all of us to go with Hillary.
There is absolutely nothing these two power hungry creatins will not do to steal this nomination but they will not achieve nothing but their own demise once this is settled. I’m only hoping there is a formidable candidate to take her on in New York when the time presents itself.
And yes, I too, voted for Jerry Brown in 1992 and will not vote for anyone but Obama in 08. Nader can go you know what himself…
Webwalk, good point.
Sassysue, you say: “Now we are hearing African American ministers be blantly racist, saying that if Obama doesn’t get nominated, their people will stay home.”
Why is it that “blatantly racist?” There are many whites who have said the same thing. So are they racists too? I am one of those people who will either stay home or vote third party if Clinton is the nominee. So I guess I’m a racist.
Frankly, Blacks have been screwed for so long in this country - ESPECIALLY when it comes to having their votes counted and their voices heard — that I wouldn’t blame them one bit if they stayed home, because they’ve GIVEN UP on this f–ed up system. I don’t think that makes them racist. I think that makes them realists.
I don’t have any illusions that Obama is squeaky clean.
I KNOW the Clintons can barely breathe through all the slime and muck they carry around with them.
The Clintons’ 8 solid years of scandals have not been forgotten. I don’t want to return to those days.
If the Clintons get the nomination this time, I’m sure the Repubs have 3-ring binders full of material detailing Bill’s corrupt moneymaking over the last few years — we’ll then hear all about it.
In a recent blog post (linked below), I close by saying I’d rather vote for my cat than Hillary Clinton. If she “wins” the primary, I’m sitting this one out!
http://segdeha.com/blog/2008/03/12/ferraro-taking-one-for-the-team
RE: - This convention could be very devisive as Hillary has sent out fliers to every delegate no matter whom they support reminding all of us to go with Hillary.
So Dayjoe, would Clinton be doing this any way or does she think, for some strange reason, that Obama’s supporters may be slightly disillusioned because of the lies that came from Canada? A bit of this goes on any way, but Clinton would not be going all out on trying to steal supporters if she didn’t think that Obama’s followers are not as devoted as they once were. Tell Obama that I expect him to be in New Orleans during the SPP meeting in April - will he be there?
Don’t have to diss Nader - he’s done a lot of good.
RE: - Clinton and Obama are not running against any Republicans in these “red” states right now!
Actually, in some of the States, one can vote either in the Repug preliminary or the Dem but not both - and it seems that they won’t be voting in the Repug one. There are some Repugs voting in these things trying to get the person they want facing McCain.
RE: - Frankly, Blacks have been screwed for so long in this country - ESPECIALLY when it comes to having their votes counted and their voices heard — that I wouldn’t blame them one bit if they stayed home
If they stay home, then the Terrorists have won (you know who I mean).
RE: - If the Clintons get the nomination this time, I’m sure the Repubs have 3-ring binders full of material detailing Bill’s corrupt moneymaking over the last few years — we’ll then hear all about it.
McCain will raise one episode of Clinton corruption and Clinton will trump him with Kenneth Starr. To beat Clinton, you have to ding her in ways which don’t allow her to cry sexism or Kenneth Starr - and I think that, if Clinton gets this far, she will fall on the NAFTA sword she used against Obama because the story links her as well. If you check out waht Navdeep Bains says on Monday, March 10, 2008, it was “NAFTA-gate swings both ways. Never mind Obama and Clinton.” Now for my last up date until tomorrow:
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, Justice John Gomery says his landmark report on ministerial responsibility is being ignored and disregarded by the Conservative government. Of course, he is right.
Two of the most senior Canadian government officials are at the heart of the NAFTA-gate leaks, our Ambassador to Washington and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff.
The Gomery report states: “Ministers are fully responsible and accountable for the actions of exempt staff”.
Why has no minister taken any responsibility for the leaks? Why is Justice Gomery being repudiated by the government?
Hon. Vic Toews (President of the Treasury Board, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the government’s response to Liberal corruption was the accountability act, the most sweeping anti-corruption legislation in Canadian history.
As a result of the government’s response, Canadians now have an independent Ethics Commissioner, a new lobbying act, a stronger Auditor General, tougher rules for political financing, and real protection for whistleblowers.
These are things that members on the opposite side would not do when they were government. In fact, they perpetrated that–
The Speaker: The hon. member for Burnaby–New Westminster.
Mr. Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster, NDP): Mr. Speaker, even under Liberal corruption, even during the sponsorship scandal, several Liberal staff members, under suspicion, were placed on paid leave until the investigation by the Gomery inquiry was complete. The Ambassador and the chief of staff are at the heart of NAFTA-gate and the government should do the same.
There is a bizarre limbo dance contest going on between Conservatives and Liberals on who can go lower on ethical standards.
Why is the government failing to meet even the low ethical bar set by the previous government?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we have a very solid relationship with the Americans. We will maintain our solid relationship with the American government. The free trade agreement signed by the three countries has been working well. It has meant prosperity for all three countries, increased wealth and raised the standard of living in the three countries. We hope to continue to build on the solid relationship we have with the United States.
xxxxxxxxxx
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today I have a multiple choice question for the Prime Minister: (a) what did thePrime Minister mean by “financial considerations” when he spoke on the tape; (b) will he ask Michael Wilson and Ian Brodie to step aside; (c) why did he authorize his party’s in and out scheme during the last federal election; or (d) why did his environment minister’s chief of staff call the OPP?
He can take his pick but none of the above is not an option.
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have previously noted as one example the unacceptable leak on the Obama campaign. An investigation is being undertaken by the Privy Council Office and the Department of Foreign Affairs and I am sure they will do a thorough look into this.
We will continue to work hard to ensure that we maintain good and productive trade relations between Canada and the United States.
Hon. Stéphane Dion (Leader of the Opposition, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister failed the test.
We will give him another chance. On the tape, the Prime Minister mentioned an offer made to Mr. Cadman by party officials to help resolve Mr. Cadman’s financial situation in the event of an election. The questions are: (a) What offer? (b) What officials? (c) What financial situation?
While the Prime Minister is at it, he should tell the truth and answer all three questions once and for all.
xxxxxxxxxxxx
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the job of the Canadian Ambassador to Washington is our most sensitive diplomatic post, so sensitive that the Prime Minister usually appoints someone who he can trust to manage such an important relationship.
Yet, it seems our current Ambassador, Michael Wilson, forgot the first rule of diplomacy, knowing when to keep his mouth shut. By leaking confidential conversations to the media, Michael Wilson directly interfered in the American Democratic primary. Will the Prime Minister bring Michael Wilson back from Washington before he causes another incident?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we are taking this matter very seriously. This is why the Clerk of the Privy Council is carrying out an investigation right now. We are being a responsible government and we are going to get to the bottom of this investigation.
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are so desperate they are trying to sweep this issue under the rug.
For days now I have asked the Prime Minister to be clear about who is under investigation for the multiple leaks of sensitive diplomatic conversations. At least two of these leaks came from the Prime Minister’s inner circle: chief of staff Ian Brodie and Ambassador Michael Wilson. Yet, the government has refused to clearly state whether they are under investigation.
I will ask my question again. Are Ian Brodie and Michael Wilson under investigation? Will the Prime Minister ask them to step aside, yes or no?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, we cannot prejudge the outcome of the investigation. The investigation is underway, led by the Clerk of the Privy Council. We will see the results in due course.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/housechamberbusiness/chambersittings.aspx?View=H&Parl=39&Ses=2&Language=E&Mode=1
RE: -
RE: -
How many repuglys are represented here, pretending to be Obama fans? trashing HRC? You people are piece of shit trolls who are eager to promote Obama, knowing that he is vulnerable. Those of you who are not trolls, grow up. Those of you who are trolls, notice that piece of shit and repugly are synonymous. Go spread your poison elsewhere.
Thank you for contributing, deathtotyrants. Your contributions really elevate this discussion.
That’s cause deathtotyrants is all grow’d up, unlike the rest of us.
If you aren’t trolls, you’re suckers. The repuglies want Obama to win the nomination, then the doj can indict him just prior to the presidential election, assuming he wins the nomination, on the basis of illegal wiretaps of his conversations with Rezko and others. Deny that can happen at your, and our peril. It will ensure another four years of bush-type wars and destruction of our constitution.
I don’t consider trash from trolls “elevated discussion”.
Dear deathtotyrants,
You are not helping your cause.
Please note that in my post, i criticized spinners from both the Clinton and Obama camps. i am not here to pump up or denounce one side or the other. So perhaps you will hear me when i say:
You are not helping your cause.
Deathtotyrants, I never heard anyone call El-farouk Khaki a Repug, thus, I am presently giggling.
Jack Layton wrote a letter to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. On Obama’s letter he said “I could not agree more.” You can read both letters on line, if you don’t believe me - and below that is a short video where Jack sticks up for Obama in Question Period. Do you consider Jack Layton a Repug also!
http://www.ndp.ca/page/6236
There are two Dem candidates and things are apt to get a bit heated with people figuring that one is better than the other. I don’t care which one you compare to excretement, but if you call one of us “shudder” a Republican again, I suggest you follow Bob Rae’s example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1blymg20dw
(Rae is running against Khaki - Khaki came out publicly in support of Obama)
If Hillary steals this election, she should ask cheney to stay on as VP.
The trolls are here. Case in point:
“there are a couple groups keeping these monsters going and harming…. abortionists and femininsts… these should have their voting rights taken away for good !!.. electing monsters will destroy the world!!”
With double exclaimation points. Wow.
Man, this sure got ugly. Thanks vaudree - nice reporting.
deathtotyrants I’ve still got some sort of weird cognitive dissonance between your handle and your message.
DTT,
We agree on one thing - riverman is a troll. A bit unstable too. i should ignore him and hope he dries up and blows away, but he keeps posting his woman-hating rants on thread after thread.
Riverman - you are convincing no one at CD of anything, except that you need serious help to deal with your hatred of women.
I like wimmin the way I like my coffee…
White and Bitter
Still, I’m not voting for Clinton.
Yo, Death… wipe off that screen when you’re done…
i like my coffee strong and black, but if that doesn’t work i’m adding a little sugar to my coffee this fall, probably after an extended drinking binge in late august.
if clinton wins the dem nomination
i’m thinking black and sweet.
cynthia will get my vote
in a heartbeat…
…peace….
RE: Barack Obama has just proved his chasm-wide appeal again by conquering another Republican-red state - Mississippi - yet the battle for the Democratic nomination is set to stretch out on to the far horizon.
DUH- it was a Democratic Primary. Mississippi will go RED/Republinazi in November PARTICULARLY if Sen. Obama is the nominee. Get real!
RE: Some of those niggers wanted to kill me, and almost did. I forgive them…Yea, I can say the word “nigger”… but to the faces of my black friends, who in turn call me “whitey,” “”cracker,” and “stupid honky.”… Damn, I’m so sick of all this crap.
The only part of this rant that makes any sense is where the author admits that he is so sick. You got that right, jackass.
RE: I carry around this weird awareness that I could be murdered by an angry black man who knows nothing of my heart. I would forgive him also.
An even stupider jackass. Such an assinine comment.
RE: What Wouldn’t Clinton Do to Secure Power?
I strongly believe that the “winner” has been pre-determined, rendering all of this dog-and-pony show leading up to (S)election ‘08 moot and banal.
Vaudree, thanks for the excellent information as usual.
The latest word I heard on the radio the other day was that Goolsbee was asked to pay a visit to the Canadian Embassy in his role as an economics professor at the University of Chicago rather than as an Obama campaign aide. Once there, the talk turned to Obama and his views of NAFTA, but only a few minutes was spent on that subject, and Goolsbee claims he said nothing different in private than what Obama had been saying in public.
Hillary Clinton is, indeed, making herself a pariah within her own party — Randi Rhodes has said she thinks that Hillary, if she isn’t awarded the nomination, will slink off and run as an independent, just like her pal Joe Lieberman. She won’t expect to win, just split the vote for Obama so that McCain can squeeze through. She’ll then make nice with the Dem Party and come back in 2012 as its presidential candidate. Sounds crazy, but she doesn’t have many alternatives left. If the Superdelegates step in and hand it to her with Obama leading in pledged delegates and the popular vote, there will be chaos within the party, and many of the Supers have to face the voters in November. And I don’t see how she can win the Dem nomination — she’d have to win every state remaining by over 60 percent of the vote to overcome Obama’s lead in pledged delegates and the popular vote. She hasn’t yet won even one state by over 60 percent of the vote.
Another loose rumor — Obama is talking to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) about the Veep slot and will announce the choice before the convention. That would take some of the wind out of Hillary’s sails with women, and bolster his campaign in California. Obama/Boxer — that sounds like what Hillary’s been.
Vince Lawrence (March 13th, 2008 12:43 pm), I’m angry too, because Geraldine Ferraro is a type I’ve encountered many times in my life. Now that Gerry has done her dirty work for Hillary, even demanding an apology from Obama’s campaign for calling her a ‘racist’ when they didn’t do any such thing, this wealthy white lady will retire to her country club to celebrate with a few vodka martinis served up by that cute black boy in his ‘rightful place’ behind the bar. I wonder if it ever occurs to Gerry how much ‘the help’ despise her and her limousine liberal crowd?
Dixie (March 13th, 2008 2:29 pm), that 3:am call will be from Eliot Spitzer wanting to be bailed out of jail for consorting with prostitutes.
Deathtotyrants March 13th, 2008 3:28 pm): “[Obama] is vulnerable (think illegal wiretapping, other illegal information access) to being indicted by the corrupt rightwing doj, because of his associations with Rezko.”
You should really keep up; Obama has been thoroughly investigated by the government and the local papers in Chicago and they haven’t found one shred of evidence that he was connected to, or even knew about, any of Tony Rezko’s dealings. (BTW, Rezko has yet to be convicted of anything, so it’s still innocent until proven guilty.)
You also might notice that Hillary had her picture snapped with Rezko, and that she and Bill had their photo taken, and accepted contributions from, infamous mass murderer John Wayne Gacy.
Does that mean they should also be indicted for their brief association with Rezko and Gacy?
As far as your other posts, Deathtotyrants, I suggest you finish reading “How to Win Friends and Influence People.”
Gee, Slimeshady, did you wake up on the wrong side of life or something?
I am happy that so many Obama fans have a place to vent. It is good for your mental health after all. Now if there was a place in which you could gain a bit of reality checking, well one cannot ask for everything.
Bashing the Clintons used to be the pervue of the radical right, now, low and behold, we apparently have adopted such a heinous attitude ourselves, congratulations all!
The real facts seem to be ignored in this pell mell rush to endorse a neophyte politicians as the second coming of Robert Kennedy. Obama can win caucusses, he seems to have a bit more trouble winning actual primaries, excepting in those States which are going to vote for McCain in the general election. But never mind that stuff, lets just bash Hillary Clinton and everyone connected with her.
As to the regrettable remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, well, they were her remarks not Senator Clinton’s, she is now gone from the Clinton camp and, considering the nature of politics today and the remarks above, her tone fits right in with most of those here. Senator Obama’s resume is dreadfully short after all, his rise almost meteoric, and his message of hope empty of substance.
So indulge yourself kiddies, have fun bashing and acting like little junior Karl Rove’s. The future will prove the merit of your allegiance, the present already refutes your claims, as any independant review of the voting record, of Obama’s history and the contents of his book all brand him as a centrist and a globalist. But this is what politics have come to, fools voting for other fools……
Hillary is taking focus away from Obama and into discussions about her bad behavior. If we focus on her she will win the election. If we focus on the uplifting Obama and what we want, which is his promising administration, then he will win. She knows this, that is why she is doing it. Its called schtick. Or shit. Negative attention draws attention. Quit talking and thinking of her. Think of Barack and what he will do for our country. He is a new Abe Lincoln and it is his destiny to become president.
Wont it be nice to think of how everyone will start coming forward and repairing this country? How we will once again see a nation where goodness rolls down from the top? Do you realize how much this affects us who we are and what we experience by having a good leader? How will your life be improved! Its Barack. Weve given the others a chance and look what we got. Why not try something else? Why cant we give someone else a turn?
People…
The candidates are all politicians. All of them. They will all do whatever it takes to get elected. That’s the nature of politicians. If you think it really matters a rat’s ass if it’s Clinton, Obama or McCain, you’re delusional. Republican Party, Democratic Party. Two sides of the same coin. The key word is “Party”, which they do at our expense, at the behest of the corporations that fund them.
Only when this empire collapses in on itself will there be real change.
I agree but considering Johan Hari supported the invasion of Iraq it is a bit rich coming from him. I hope he realsies the folly of his error in 2003.
RSJ thanks - but providing information is easy - I can do that when I am barely coherent enough to post. Speaking of information, next week there is an Obama doc called “Obama Goes to Africa” - and I am sure that you will be getting e-mails from the Repugs with still of this film taken out of context - if you haven’t already:
http://www.cbc.ca/passionateeyesunday/feature_230308b.html
I wonder what the former host of The Passionate Eye (a program which hosts documentaries) is up to - Michaelle Jean is probably sitting around waiting for the government to fall. The Governor General is the Queen’s representative in Canada and the PM visits her to officially dissolve Parliament.
Jack Layton is a little upset that the Tories and Liberals got together and extended the mission in Afghanistan another three years. He figured this a decent issue to defeat the government over - though I doubt he needs an excuse - only help to do so.
Stephane Dion (who beat out both Rae and Iggy to become Liberal Leader):
I’m afraid there’s no denyin’ I’m just a dandelion,
But I could show my prowess, be a leader not a mouse
If I only had a spine.
I think that Clinton and Obama plan to put a few more troops into Afghanistan.
RE: - Bashing the Clintons used to be the pervue of the radical right, now, low and behold, we apparently have adopted such a heinous attitude ourselves, congratulations all!
There is a difference. Obamites just want Obama to win, Repugs fantasize about Clinton falling down flights of stairs. I have a tendency to point out to them that being quadriplegics did not stop Sam Sullivan from becoming Mayor of Vancouver or MP Steven Fletcher from getting so angry during Question Period that he tried to start a fight. They didn’t like finding out that becoming injured might actually increase Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning. I don’t like Hillary, but if someone goes too far, I will call them on it.
The other trick is to tell the the historical tradition of letting spouces stand in the place of someone who dies while running for office - you find that, despite what the right thinks of Hillary, that the last thing they want is Bill back.
Though this may have all changed - Repugs need corporate sponsorship to run and I think the sponsors prefer Clinton to Obama.
RE: - Randi Rhodes has said she thinks that Hillary, if she isn’t awarded the nomination, will slink off and run as an independent, just like her pal Joe Lieberman. She won’t expect to win, just split the vote for Obama so that McCain can squeeze through. She’ll then make nice with the Dem Party and come back in 2012 as its presidential candidate.
Hopefully, comparing Hillary to Lieberman is a bit low. I doubt that she would run as an independent, but I am sure that she will make sure that she gets some perk in an Obama administration which gives her a higher profile than Senator - and then she will proceed to spend the next four years refighting her party’s nomination and trying to put Obama in a position where he decides not to seek a second term. Hillary Clinton will try to be Obama’s Paul Martin - and with similar results.
Just looked up Barbara Boxer - Canadians will love her position on gun control. Unlike Hillary, Toronto Mayor David Miller’s tears when he talked about gun control (second video) were real:
http://www.thestar.com/videosearch?q=miller&r=assetSubtype%3AVideo&OrderBy=sReleaseDate+DESC
RE: - He is a new Abe Lincoln and it is his destiny to become president.
My friend said the same thing. Lincoln took a bit longer to become successful, though. And there seems to be a pattern in who Obama is compared to - as if the thought of his potential scarcity is meant to increase our craving for him. They would rather discredit him or buy him off by threatening his family than off him, though.
RE: - Question Period
Most of yesterday’s Question Period (same link as used before) was about Afghanistan because there was a vote later that day on whether or not to extend the mission, a petition on fire arms (Olivia Chow, NDP) and abolition of nuclear weapons (Paul Dewar, NDP) but there was a small bit on NAFTA-gate. Anyone interested in Airbus? When MPs start wondering openly what the PM and his Cabinet are hiding, they smell blood.
Note: Bob Rae is a born-again Liberal who considers the NDP a failed experiment (so as to distance himself from his poor performance*) and the only good thing I can say about him is that he looks better than expected jumping into a lake wearing digital swimming trunks on Prime Time TV. Rae ran against Stephane Dion for the leadership of the Liberal Party. *Ok, Paul Martin’s cuts did not help.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Hon. Jack Layton (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister promised that things were going to be different, and yet even Justice Gomery has to point out the ethical shortcomings of the government.
On NAFTA-gate, his senior aide and his officials failed to live up to the ethical standards that Canadians expect from high office holders here.
Will the Prime Minister start running the government ethically? Will he either clear his chief of staff or fire him, clear the Canadian ambassador or remove him from office, or get his trade minister to straighten out his story or shuffle him?
Right Hon. Stephen Harper (Prime Minister, CPC): Mr. Speaker, once again as I said, the recommendations of Justice Gomery that we rejected were rejected by a wide range of Canadians, including former NDP premiers Allan Blakeney and Bob Rae, who specifically wrote to me saying I should not adopt those recommendations.
In terms of the issue at hand, the Clerk of the Privy Council is leading a full internal investigation. We will accept whatever recommendations come out of that, but I can say that at the moment nobody is suggesting that there is any evidence that would suggest at this point that I should force anyone to resign.
Obviously, we are going to make sure we accumulate all the evidence before making any decisions, particularly decisions that would be unfair to any individuals.
xxxxxxx
Hon. Navdeep Bains (Mississauga—Brampton South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Vienna Convention states that diplomats have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of another state. Therefore, not only has Michael Wilson damaged our relations with the United States, he has violated one of the fundamental principles of diplomacy. Yet the Prime Minister refuses to remove the ambassador for leaking confidential information to the media.
With such serious allegations, why is the Prime Minister refusing to ask Ambassador Wilson, and the Prime Minister’s chief of staff, Ian Brodie, to step aside? What is he hiding?
Hon. Maxime Bernier (Minister of Foreign Affairs, CPC): Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, we are hiding nothing. An investigation is being conducted at present together with the PCO secretariat. This investigation will be thorough. No one has suggested that it will not be comprehensive and all-encompassing. It will be.
Thanks for the info, Vaudree, about the Obama documentary. I was unaware of it.
And when Nominee Obama does not carry a single red state in the fall election?
Are you going to blame that also on The Clintons?
Why you just don’t get it is beyond me.
The Democratic Primaries and caucuses are only a small percentage of the people that will vote in the fall.
Obama is already falling apart making more and more enemies.Saying no way will he ever be Vice President.
Not even to bring back together a colition to defeat the Republicans.
This is what you want?
Quickly, give us one real issue that Obama has any real new ideas? And you really think if a million people all throw their 2 cents into any issue .There will not be compromise?
His main theme is not based in reality .Furthermore he is not ready to be president. Do you really want another Bush like Resident.Have people whisper in Obama’s ears what to do next. Well you almost got him. So live with it and leave the Clintons alone. We have more then enough Rush Limbaughs in this country.
Vaudree wrote: “Hopefully, comparing Hillary to Lieberman is a bit low.”
Maybe a bit, but she did support the Kyl-Liberman act allowing Bush carte blanche to attack Iran. She should have known better after her vote to invade Iraq — an error she said she’d never repeat.
Genaman wrote: “And when Nominee Obama does not carry a single red state in the fall election?”
How many Red States do you think Hillary will carry? She’s more hated by the right than Obama is, and I’ve talked to several independents who would vote for Obama, but never for Hillary Clinton.
Genaman wrote: “Are you going to blame that also on The Clintons?”
If they are at fault I will.
Genaman wrote: “Why you just don’t get it is beyond me.
The Democratic Primaries and caucuses are only a small percentage of the people that will vote in the fall.”
Obama is building a movement that goes beyond just the Democratic Party base — Hillary isn’t. Obama also stirs people to action; Hillary doesn’t. I’ll take the guy who brings new voters in the door over the woman who turns most of them off. How hard is that for you to understand?
Genaman wrote: “Obama is already falling apart making more and more enemies. Saying no way will he ever be Vice President.”
I saw Obama on TV just yesterday — he doesn’t look like someone who is ‘falling apart’ — in fact, he was calm and affable. Who are all of these ‘new enemies’? Seems to me his ‘new enemies’ are those who supported Hillary all along. Also, why should the candidate with the most pledged delegates and the highest number of popular votes accept the vice presidency from the candidate in second place? That’s insane.
“Not even to bring back together a colition to defeat the Republicans. This is what you want?”
Perhaps you haven’t been paying attention — Obama IS assembling a coalition to defeat the Republicans, and he’s been doing very well at it. It’s Hillary who so mismanaged her campaign and her money that she desperately had to resort to cheap tricks, lies and negative campaigning to try and salvage what’s left of her bid for the nomination. Is that what she means by leadership? I’ll go with the guy who’s been running the best campaign and spending his money wisely.
“Quickly, give us one real issue that Obama has any real new ideas? And you really think if a million people all throw their 2 cents into any issue .There will not be compromise?”
He has promised to withdraw our troops from Iraq within 16 months; he has promised to restore habeas corpus; he has promised to end torture; he has promised to provide health care to every single American who wants it, without forcing them to buy it from the for-profit health care industry; he has promised that his White House will abide by the laws of the land, and the list goes on. While none of these things may be new ideas, they are ideas I don’t hear from Hillary.
“His main theme is not based in reality .”
Uniting people in a political movement to achieve results is not based in reality? Really. How would you, or Hillary, accomplish that then? Yes, he talks about hope and change — is Hillary then to be construed as the candidate against hope and change?
“Furthermore he is not ready to be president. Do you really want another Bush like Resident. Have people whisper in Obama’s ears what to do next.”
Obama is no Bush by any stretch of the imagination. He earned his college degree through hard work — he wasn’t a ‘legacy.’ While Hillary was on the board of Wal-Mart, Obama gave up the big money by joining a law firm and went to work helping unemployed steelworkers on the South Side of Chicago. He had ethics bills and other legislation passed in the Illinois State House; as a US Senator, he sponsored or co-sponsored over 500 pieces of legislation, including transparency in government laws and legislation to imporve conditions at VA facilites. In her lengthier time in the US Senate, Hillary has sponsored 20 — yes, 20 — bills, and most of those were for such important things as naming bridges and highways. BTW, Obama can also speak a coherent, grammatically-correct sentence in English. Your comparison to Bush is ludicrous.
Genaman wrote: “Well you almost got him. So live with it and leave the Clintons alone.”
The poor Clintons — have we been too tough on them? I’m awfully sorry, but, thank God, we’re sparing Hillary from attacks by John McCain next fall — to read you, she obviously couldn’t withstand them.
“We have more then enough Rush Limbaughs in this country.”
Yes, we do — and they are all supporting Hillary’s nomination.
Excellent response, RSJ.
Take some action, people. Write to your congresspersons, and to your governor if they are a Democrat– they are superdelegates. Tell them the future of the Democratic Party depends on putting a stop to Hillary’s destructive and ultimately futile campaign.
For an Obama-Rezko story and a clearly biased by friendship commentary by a friend of Obama’s, “The Obama I Know” by Cass Sunstein: www.chicagotribune.com March 14 edition.
I voted for Bill in ‘92. It was time to burn a Bush, but I had no illusions about him. Just because Rush Limbaugh was a lying shill for the Republican Party, doesn’t mean the things he said about Clinton weren’t true.
If you want to support Hillary fine, but don’t pretend there’s more there than there is.
The Dems should have long ago been on their knees to get Gary Hart to run. A Hart-Obama ticket would have been unbeatable.
It is interesting how personal posters here are about their candidate choices. Sort of reminds me of how adamant folks get about their favorite professional sports team—except in most of those instances, people seem to be abit more civil and retain their sense of humor as they spar about who is best.
Neither Clinton nor Obama feel the same loyalty to those of us here on Common Dreams, as we seem to have toward them. Doesn’t that strike you as strange? We will lash out at a fellow or sister CD er, to defend a professional politician who hasn’t even earned our loyalty.
Here’s what I think—as a population, we have been swimming for years in a sea of pettiness, polarization and plain old malice. We have forgotten how to express our highest ideals and we resort to blows–verbal or otherwise at the drop of a hat.
I am so sad for our nation—-if we here on CD, are representative of the would-be change agents, I am having trouble envisioning what exactly that change would look like. From here, it sure ain’t pretty.
Readers should be aware that Johann Hari was an overt cheerleader for the Iraq war in his columns 5 years ago. He and Hillary have that in common.
RE: Gee, Slimeshady, did you wake up on the wrong side of life or something?
No, I did not.
RSJ= Pompous Ass in what language?
LOL, Slime — but you got it wrong — SMART ass, maybe, but not pompous, old Mr. Dismal Shy.
starofthesea, you are right about your post. So much venom between people who share the same beliefs on so many issues: war, peace, saving our planet, the rights of the poor and working class, single payer, not for profit, universal health care, etc. I often think of Rodney King when I read these posts. As he famously said, “Can’t we all just get along?”
“Hillary Clinton is, indeed, making herself a pariah within her own party — Randi Rhodes has said she thinks that Hillary, if she isn’t awarded the nomination, will slink off and run as an independent, just like her pal Joe Lieberman.”
I listened every day to Randi Rhodes and my husband compared her to Rush Limbough. Now I agree with my husband and I will not listen to Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz and all the rest of the liberals who want to hang Hillary Clinton at every turn. Their biased coverage and the posts on this site are so venomous that I have lost any faith I had in the progressive movement. I have a 23-year-old friend who is a supporter of Hillary Clinton who is getting turned off by the people like many of you who are so filled with hate. She now says that she herself hates Obama because she blames him for this mess. I don’t hate him, but I definitely don’t think he is the saint that everyone is trying to make him out to be. I hope to convince this young honor student that even though we don’t like him or can vote for him, that we cannot blame him for venom that is being spewed in his name.
RealShittyJerk- I don’t really care that you consider yourself to be old, dismal, and shy, but your bloviated rants are the epitome of popousity, and it doesn’t come ascross as “smart”.
LOL Damn I hate that th edit function does not work!
Sassysue (March 15th, 2008 6:09 pm), I listen to Randi regularly and, as she has pointed out many times, she did not openly support Obama nor speak against Hillary throughout the primaries until the Clinton campaign degenerated into despicable Rovian campaign tactics before Ohio and Texas. Perhaps you are proud of those tactics, but most progressives are not — no matter how you try to spin it, it was Hillary’s people who started the venomous name-calling and it was Hillary who actually spoke more highly of Republican McCain than of her Dem opponent! That’s unprecedented, deplorable and shows to me that she is willing to risk defeat for her party in November in pursuit of her overwhelming ambition to be president.
Sassysue wrote: “I have a 23-year-old friend who is a supporter of Hillary Clinton who is getting turned off by the people like many of you who are so filled with hate. She now says that she herself hates Obama because she blames him for this mess. I don’t hate him, but I definitely don’t think he is the saint that everyone is trying to make him out to be. I hope to convince this young honor student that even though we don’t like him or can vote for him, that we cannot blame him for venom that is being spewed in his name.”
She blames Obama for this mess? He did nothing more than organize a campaign and fairly win more votes and delegates than Hillary and she ‘blames’ him for this mess? Doesn’t he have just as much right to run for president as Hillary does? The ‘mess’ is being caused by Hillary’s sense of entitlement, by her superhuman ambition, not Obama. The only way she can get the nomination now, save the astronomical impossibility of receiving more than 60 percent of the popular vote in every upcoming primary and caucus, is to appeal to the undemocratic Superdelegates to vote for her in spite of Obama’s lead, which is sort of like Bush appealing to the Supreme Court to get elected. Are you and your student friend willing to settle for Hillary being appointed the nominee over the wishes of the majority of Dem voters? And, if that were to happen, what do you think her chances would be in November, as many disgusted Dems and independents refuse to vote for her?
It’s nice of you to not hate Obama, but I don’t know of anyone on any one of these threads at CD who have called him a saint, or anything like that. Could you be more specific? I would be glad to point out Obama’s human imperfections to anyone here who thinks he is a saint.
I would also like you to be more specific about this “venom that is being spewed in his name.” If you think telling the truth about Hillary is “venom” then you are right, but I haven’t read much true spiteful venom, of the sort the right-wing unleashes, against Hillary here at CD.
As far as hate speech is concerned, comparing records, talking about a true thing someone has done or said, or even making rude jokes about a politician is not hate speech to me. I don’t wish Hillary Clinton harm of any kind, and I don’t viscerally hate her — I just don’t want her to be the next president or the Dem nominee. If you want to read real anti-Hillary hate speech that will curl your toes, go to Free Republic, Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler or other right-wing sites and then come back to CD. I think you’d then agree that what we’re practicing here is hardly hate speech.
Hey, Slimshady, speaking of hate speech, did you know that an anagram of ‘Slimshady’ is ‘Slimy Shad’? Just thought you might want to take that screen name out for a spin;)
RSJ, I don’t have time to completely answer your message, but I respect, but not agree with, how you view this. Know this: politics is not tiddliwinks! And if you think you’ve seen a Rovian campaign, wait until the general election, no matter who gets nominated on the Democrat side. If you have not read the “monster” and other choice words, phrases and negativity on this site about Hillary, then I cannot help that.
The one good person thing about Obama winning the nomination is that I no longer will feel responsible and can relax. Last time I spent numerous hours with MoveOn calling voters trying to get Kerry elected. This time the stress can be on the Obama supporters!
Sassysue (March 16th, 2008 12:32 pm), let’s allow the possibility that much of the Rovian slime won’t stick this time around, as it did in 2000 and 2004. The country is in much worse shape now and most people are feeling it.
Obama is not Kerry, and I don’t think he’ll fold the way Kerry did. I won’t be stressed out if I think he gave it his best shot and loses as I was when Kerry seemed to collapse the last few months before the election.
RSJ, if he wins, good luck! I, for one, will not be voting for him.
She aint doing anything that MEN havent done over countless millenium, to gain power. Examine where your bigotry comes from, its obscene and no diffenent from your attitudes of entitlement to destroy other cultures and peoples for material gain. What goes around comes around.
Sassysue said “I have a 23-year-old friend who is a supporter of Hillary Clinton who is getting turned off by the people like many of you who are so filled with hate.”
I doubt that. 18-29 are for Obama 2 to 1, including myself.
Randi Rhodes and Ed Shultz are not Clinton haters, they just don’t drink the Hillary Kool Aid. She is a monster. She will lose. It’s called democracy. I hope you take a chill pill and contemplate why you hate Obama.
All he did was raise more money in February than any candidate in American history, mobilize more Americans than any candidate in history, and promised to run against John McCain on the vote to invade and occupy Iraq in 2002.
It’s not because he’s black, it’s because he’s beautiful
Of course he are some solid factual arguments for having an Antiwar Candidate at the top of the Democratic Party’s ballot in 2008 too:
1. Clinton’s marginal victories in big states only shows what 16 years of saturating the media markets with the Clinton name can do to humanize her to the American public. And apparently not much in Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri, Virginia, Georgia, and Texas (where Obama won caucuses + primaries) or critical Mountain West swing states like Colorado.
Not to mention the fact that in Ohio she lost all three major cities: Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, not to mention Dayton. Do you really think the Reagan Democrats are going to vote for her against McCain? I wouldn’t bet on it.
2. Missouri + Virginia + Colorado are now all swing states with 33 electoral votes between them. Had Kerry won these three states he would have won.
Not to mention
Wyoming has a Democratic Governor, Kansas has a Democratic Governor, Montana has two Democratic Senators, North Dakota has two Democratic Senators, and Iowa, Nebraska and South Dakota each have a Democratic Senator. Add those states together and you got 30 electoral votes.
Great Plains + Mountain West + Virginia & Missouri = 63 electoral votes.
Ohio + Pennsylvania (48% registered Democrats to 40% registered Republicans, likely to go Democratic)= 41 electoral votes.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/electoral.college/
If we are serious about who has the best chance of defeating John McCain in a year when the Conservative base is likely to stay home, it is not the Democratic candidate that motivates them to get out and vote and who motivates Obama supporters to stay home.
RSJ- please continue to show us your true pompous self.