View Story | 420 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
That's why I support Barack Obama.
The two things go hand in hand. One can't win without the other.
Barack Obama gets that.
I hope I've helped dispel a noxious myth about his campaign.
I wonder why nobody much talks about 2006 when they discuss Barack Obama?
It was right there in that interview for all to see.
He is the candidate who best embodies the 50 State Strategy.
Get involved...VOLUNTEER...yes.we.can.
by kid oakland on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:45:16 PM PDT
Excellent diary, as always.
Yes We Can.
by turnnoblindeye on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:48:52 PM PDT
[ Parent ]
The guy has a track record of putting progressive values into law, and doing in a way that doesn't alienate half the country. That's what we all should want.
The Clintons want power again. Period. They will say whatever they can to accumulate it or maintain it, and the angrier Bill seems, the more likely it is that he's lying again.
More and Better Democrats: Help Build An Obamajority.
by Adam B on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:49:38 PM PDT
What does it say about the Clintons that Bill was basically silent for the last seven years--while we rushed into an immoral war, while our Constitution was being shredded, while the Justice Department was politicized, while torture was legalized--and only found his voice again for the purpose of impugning the most promising, charismatic Democratic candidate in a generation? Just because that candidate had the unmitigated gall to run against his wife and the Clintons' perception of inevitability?
Where was his voice--his leadership--when we needed it? And what does it say about the Clintons' priorities--country, party, candidate--now?
by ReEnergizer on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 06:56:46 PM PDT
Apparently just making speeches against the war isn't good enough, it doesn't count. Only votes against the war count. At least that's what the Clintons tell me about Obama in 2003.
Oh, wait. Too bad Hillary didn't vote against it. Move along, nothing to see here.
"Not just with words, but with deeds." -- Barack Obama
by kath25 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:04:45 PM PDT
didn't work too well for that Gore fella, either.
Oh, wait. He had a PowerPoint presentation to go with his speeches. That's the difference.
by ReEnergizer on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:16:33 PM PDT
by maxnyc on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:18:09 PM PDT
was merely war or torture or stealing elections or whatever.
Only when something really important came along would he spend the enormous capital of being an ex-president.
And then its three a days to church basement size crowds and being HRC's hit man.
Last November, HRC was Inevitably the nominee. So clearly she didn't lose because of pre-judgment or sexism. She lost in the campaign.
by Inland on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:06:49 PM PDT
Won't risk tarnishing his legacy for a righteous cause, but when it comes to moving back into the White House he's a real tiger. I've been waiting years for him to speak out, the thing that made him finally do it says a lot about his character.
The weak in courage is strong in cunning-William Blake
by beltane on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:12:41 PM PDT
guilt combined with megalomania. He feels he owes it to Hillary because he humiliated her on the world stage with the Lewinsky scandal. He also feels that it is within his power to deliver the presidency to her.
Hey, I took Psych 101.
Actually, I didn't but what the heck.
by LisainNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:39:26 PM PDT
a little bit too much, methinks.
AAPI Wellesley grad in Austin for Obama! Travis County delegate, Pct. 277 - 3/29
by lirtydies on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:04:51 PM PDT
"I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."
Bill Clinton, 5-18-03
by Adam B on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:07:44 PM PDT
A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood
by tmo on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:44:51 PM PDT
... like the Clinton Foundation's website?
by Adam B on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:19:49 PM PDT
by LisainNYC on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:40:07 PM PDT
What's the matter with Hillary?
by chicago jeff on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:13:25 PM PDT
by lirtydies on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 10:27:39 PM PDT
He's always been aware of what the truth is. He just doesn't like being tethered to it.
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:08:39 AM PDT
2008: The year the intelligent half of the country takes over.
by Castine on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:17:58 PM PDT
always has been - we just didn't know because it was not exposed for us to see . . .
by alba on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:19:51 PM PDT
one of the rules of being part of the most exclusive club in the world (ex-presidents), that says you don't criticize Presidents that follow you.
Only Carter has had the guts to break that idiotic rule if my memory serves me correctly.
I don't mind straight people as long as they act gay in public.
by internationaljock on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:21:16 PM PDT
That he kept a relatively low profile after leaving office didn't bother me too much--I understood the general principal at hand to let one's successors (in the WH and in one's own party) take charge and have center stage.
However, when Bush finally got so out-of-hand that Carter felt it was necessary to speak up, I wish Clinton had done so also.
Clinton's passivity included not reacting to the blame being laid on the Clinton Administration by right wingers for the 9/11 attacks--except for his rebuke of Chris Wallace's attempt to carry the water for those critics.
In this context, what does upset me was Clinton's recent assertions that he was opposed to the war early on. Very disappointing; that assertion serious hurt his credibility for me.
We're in a culture that increasingly holds that science is just another belief. - Alan Alda
by sawgrass727 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:56:02 PM PDT
though he asked that the interview not be published until after his death since it was so critical of Bush's entry into Iraq. I'm not sure if this "counts" or not.
-5.50, -4.62
by blzabub8 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:06:53 AM PDT
Right on !
And isn't it amazing to realize that President Clinton was still president during that fiasco in Florida in 2000 - and to anyone's knowledge did he say a single word about it at the time - or since ?
7 yrs of lies and mismanagement, death and destruction, negligence and nefariousness by the Bush Administration and the best Bill Clinton can do is hang out with Dubya's daddy and make nice with the Bush Clan ?
The abysmal response to Katrina, the lies told to start a war with Iraq, the outing of an undercover CIA agent, torture, fearmongering - and the list goes on - and Bill never got red-faced once.
He only gets red-faced when an electrifying Senator has the audacity to run for the office that his wife was supposed to have been coronated into by now.
Ridiculous, really.
Get your Democracy Bond and help build a 50-state Democratic Party!
by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:31:43 PM PDT
by fhcec on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:48:23 AM PDT
Obama's positive effect on the down ticket races cannot be overstated. By the same token, to pretend that Hillary at the top of the ticket will not be devastating down ticket, especially in more conservative districts, would be living in a, ahem, fairy tale.
But Clinton is a fighter I guess.
She has experience running dirty campaigns,so that's something I guess.
Her campaign may very well destroy the Democratic coalition, and cost us the White House, but that's a small price to pay I guess.
Obama 2008
by cato on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:02:22 PM PDT
Clinton at the top of the ticket will seriously hurt all Dems underneath.
GOBAMA!
by internationaljock on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:22:42 PM PDT
How do you think he should respond to the Clinton's, who are trying their damnest to castrate him.
Is it fair that an ex-President hits the stump in one state, while she flies off in another.
I am fearful that the Clinton machine has scored some big hits against Barack, and that he is rattled.
Overthrow the Government ~Vote~
by missliberties on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:05:29 PM PDT
high powered surrogates out there mirroring Clinton (um, Bill, the one not running for President. I think) to hit back on his more heated rhetoric.
Kerry maybe? I don't know if he has the chops to do it, but someone needs to get down in the gutter with Billy so that Obama can stick to the issues.
Also, where's Oprah? I feel like she gave him a huge boost hen they were out on the trail together.
by cato on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:12:48 PM PDT
I was hoping Kennedy would endorse this week.
I heard somewhere that he called Bill Clinton and gave him a dressing down over his behavior in Nevada. Anyone else hear that?
"It's the bottom of the ninth and the rookie is pointing at the bleachers in center field.' --Stroszek, Dkos
by kpardue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:48:08 PM PDT
It was an article in Newsweek:
Leading Democrats to Bill Clinton: Pipe Down
I was also heartened to see Kerry's e-mail this evening. He probably didn't think he'd have to address swiftboating from other Democrats.
by lirtydies on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:55:41 PM PDT
the info.
I know the Kennedys have been involved with the Clintons, but not so much Teddy, I think. I realllllyI think it would be great if Senator K. would endorse before S.C.
Maybe next week.
by kpardue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:17:14 PM PDT
by lirtydies on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:18:39 PM PDT
by CeeusBeeus on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:29:15 PM PDT
Are you lurking, Mr vice president?
by kpardue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:23:04 PM PDT
and not Oprah.
Someone less controversial. OH like we get to pick. :)
How about Bob Johnson!!!!
by missliberties on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:52:50 PM PDT
Al Gore who told Bill to butt out and shut his big mouth.
by RobertInWisconsin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:33:27 PM PDT
It's not specific to Clinton, and mentions front groups, the chain mails, but does include push polling.
This year, the attacks are already starting. Some of you may have heard about the disgusting lies about Barack Obama that are being circulated by email. These attacks smear Barack's Christian faith and deep patriotism, and they distort his record of more than two decades of public service. They are nothing short of "Swiftboat" style anonymous attacks. These are the same tactics the right has used again and again, and as we've learned, these attacks, no matter how bogus, can spread and take root if they go unchecked. But not this time -- we're fighting back. And when I say "we," I mean that literally. I know Barack is committed to fighting every smear every time. He'll fight hard and stand up for the truth. But he can't do it alone. We need you to email the truth to your address books. Print it out and post it at work. Talk to your neighbors. Call your local radio station. Write a letter to the editor. If lies can be spread virally, let's prove to the cynics that the truth can be every bit as persuasive as it is powerful.
This year, the attacks are already starting. Some of you may have heard about the disgusting lies about Barack Obama that are being circulated by email. These attacks smear Barack's Christian faith and deep patriotism, and they distort his record of more than two decades of public service. They are nothing short of "Swiftboat" style anonymous attacks.
These are the same tactics the right has used again and again, and as we've learned, these attacks, no matter how bogus, can spread and take root if they go unchecked.
But not this time -- we're fighting back.
And when I say "we," I mean that literally. I know Barack is committed to fighting every smear every time. He'll fight hard and stand up for the truth. But he can't do it alone.
We need you to email the truth to your address books. Print it out and post it at work. Talk to your neighbors. Call your local radio station. Write a letter to the editor. If lies can be spread virally, let's prove to the cynics that the truth can be every bit as persuasive as it is powerful.
"Our time has come, our movement is real, and change is coming to America."
by lizah on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:58:37 PM PDT
And when I first saw the subject line, I was hoping that Kerry would come out firing about the Clintons. I was somewhat disappointed that he limited it to the muslim/pledge e-mails, instead of the more damaging (at least in my mind) Clinton assault.
by sand805 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:24:50 PM PDT
talking about the swiftboating of Obama. He was talking about those loopy emails, not the Clinton stuff (well, not officially but who knows - look who stands to gain and all that), but it was a good start.
Totally agree that Obama needs other people out there getting into it for him, while he remains the candidate, above all that stuff, talking about issues. Bush did it, now Hillary is doing it (except for at the debate). It's necessary or you're just defending yourself all the time.
And where is Oprah?
by DrJeremy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:35:50 PM PDT
Seriously. Her forum apparently was overrun by fans accusing her of being a traitor to women to vote her race.
Also, she's busy setting up her own TV station.
Both reasons are probably behind her leaving the stump trail. Pity, she gave some great speeches introducing Obama in NH.
by plum on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:56:52 PM PDT
There is plenty of grumbling about the Clintons. Obama keeps going back to his message, but the media loves to pick up on any little barb.
we'll tough it out. And we've all got his back. There is strength and courage in the hope of many people. We are also HIS source of inspiration.
truth, kindness, endurance, Obama '08
by CupofTea on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:13:35 PM PDT
But I have to say that he must be mystified by the Clinton dirty politics.
As for me, I'm just plain out disgusted and outraged by the Clintons.
I've waited for 40, forty long years, for a genuine progressive to have a decent shot at the nomination, and I am, and continue to be, appalled at the new HillBill roll-in-the-mud show.
by Empower Ink on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:16:18 PM PDT
I used to defend Bill Clinton against attacks from friends, family and co-workers. It's going to be impossible for me to do after the way he has behaved. I'm really disapointed in him.
by JTA on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:55:04 PM PDT
at all costs. CNN had a story up on their ticker yesterday about the push polls they are conducting down in South Carolina. Calling people's home and asking for the woman in the home. Then the call precedes to tout Hillary and bad mouth Obama.
One of Obama's supporters got one of the calls and reported it. They also played a tape from Nevada with people referring to Obama by his full name and say some other stuff.
I expected this kind of ugliness from the Republicans, not the Democrats. But then again, the Clinton campaing, as I have always said, never saw Obama coming. No plans to take him on.
The only other way was to fight dirty.
And when he tries to redeem his good name, the media turns it into something else.
They are no better than the Clintons.
by africa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:06:08 PM PDT
He's from Chicago politics, where they don't even bother to bury the bodies.
May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.
by Fonsia on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:10:04 PM PDT
Because the current frontrunner is the biggest magnet for the Republican Party to rise up like a phoenix from the ashes, and elect a President McCain to office. And its possible we might even see under him a Vice-President Lieberman. And face a possible losses in the already slim Senate majority. There goes Roe v. Wade.
And we're asking to do it AGAIN?
Someone slipped the crazy pill in the Democrats' water.
STOP. WATCHING. CABLE. NEWS.
by Fe Bongolan on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:23:44 PM PDT
is what makes me sick to my stomach--that we might let someone like Obama fade away, and end up with McCain because of the Clinton's slimy tactics.
by kpardue on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:50:31 PM PDT
sacrificed a Democratic Congress that could have been a firewall between Geo W. Bush and the American public.
She started out with 120 million dollars, 200 Supers, 100% name recognition, a former President and Rupert Murdoch. Why can't Hillary close the deal?
by Blogvirgin on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:36:30 PM PDT
which probably means President Lieberman in 4 or 8 years.
Yikes.
by DrJeremy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:37:34 PM PDT
...once again.
by james risser on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 07:44:03 PM PDT
Sorry i missed helping out. had to work. but i am working on my co-workers. i have to get the info and they said they will volunteer with me. thanks for your work. i really believe that Obama can bring the best out in american's.
by allie123 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:23:00 PM PDT
why is Hillary pulling in the Latinos and poor under poverty women, those who will be disenfranchised by another corporate rule. Why would they vote: NAFTA, China, welfare reform, deregulation, union busting, the corporate candidate who will continue screwing workers,she has Mark Penn as her adviser, and thinks middle class = 100,000+.
When she says affordable I think How? Add to this endless war, why are these blocks supporting her. We need to reach these communities and somehow give them information about Obama. Communities that have basic misinformation about where these candidates stand on issues other then she can start day one! This really worries me.
"And if my thought-dreams could be seen They'd probably put my head in a guillotine" Bob Dylan
by shaharazade on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:48:01 PM PDT
It is very difficult to reach people. it seems like many people have been complete brainwashed by msm and Hillary's propaganda.
by allie123 on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:01:37 PM PDT
poor white men? It's aspirational voting, not voting for your interest.
by DrJeremy on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:39:15 PM PDT
are starting to wake up. at my office, the younger white guys who supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 are not supporting Edwards. I guess they can't get over their racism and sexism, but they finally see that their pocketbooks have been decimated by voting on so-called values issues: abortion, gay rights, etc. I say welcome to the light! And eat some shit for 2004 because they should have known by then that Bush was an incompetent dumbf_ck.
by blzabub8 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:17:09 AM PDT
not supporting Edwards = now supporting Edwards
by blzabub8 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:17:49 AM PDT
spot on... i remember an article in Harper's from maybe 6 or 7 months ago wherein the writer examines the issue of anti-intellectualism in America, specifically with regards to electoral politics.
Unfortunately, both the author's name and the article's title escape me now, but the basic point was that while Americans can certainly imagine being rich at some indeterminate point in the future, there is no way in hell they can imagine becoming smart.
goodluck/badluck
by overturned turtle on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:47:05 PM PDT
me. The same people voted for Bush. People who were hurting chose to vote for Bush. We are seeing a repeat. Only this time, they may vote for her in the primaries, but McCain will be president for the next four to eight years.
On this path, the Democratic Party is cutting its nose to spite its face. They will come to rue this day if the party establishment continue to sit by.
This fight by the other side is not about party or country. It is about hanging on to POWER!!
by africa on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:10:49 PM PDT
You're the best. Keep it up k/o!
Donate to the Obamathon Netroots Fundraising Drive
by Populista on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:43:57 PM PDT
Obama would put states like SC, georgia, Missipi and Alabama in play. Unlike some other candidates he'll show up and campaign in those states. And it's not just about the presidential race, it also about building the Democratic party in those states. I can attest to the stae of the democratic party in SC. They barely had enough money to hold their primary 4 years ago. For democratic candidates to surrender this state is ludicris. Clyburn fought hard to retain SC's prominance in the primary schedule to help rebuild the party in this state, at the cost of remaining neutral in this primary season. Thats's the reason he hasn't endorsed Obama. It's the reason I supported Dean. YTF would you write off a large portion of the country. I'm all about a 50 state stradegy.
Because I won't trade humanity for patriotism!
by Drewid on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 08:57:42 PM PDT
Your posts have been brilliant and I love reading them. I can't imagine how long it takes you to put these together. BO is lucky to have you and so are we.
::
We are here to take it back. 01-03-08
by IL dac on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 09:37:00 PM PDT
It took awhile to find it. Keep up the good work, dude. I just sent you an email because I didn't see you tip jar. I also awarded a Gold Star.
2008 Save Our Wild Salmon Road Show. Act now or lose them forever.
by Fantastic on Tue Jan 22, 2008 at 11:26:37 PM PDT
i so appreciate this diary. i feel that this whole aspect of "crashing the gate" has been lost so far in the primary season. this is about remaking our chances in every district, in every state, and obama's the one who can do it...who can BUILD the movement, not just achieve party power.
by emartin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 05:58:32 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 420 comments