View Story | 727 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
This Week With Barack Obama. Because you need to stay informed.
by icebergslim on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:17:59 AM PDT
they are on their way!
Do you think George Stephanopoulos loves America as much as you?
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:20:44 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
Barack Obama. President.
by Steven R on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:34:57 AM PDT
against Hillary Clinton. This is propaganda
by rigso on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:51:26 AM PDT
being indicted.
And while the case was dismissed in NY, I think there is another case pending in CA.
I'm not entirely clear on all of this, but that was my understanding.
This was about 2 million dollars in fundraising that was not reported to the FEC. This case has already been covered on Fox, and then they will trot out Hsu and all the fundraising issues from Bill.
Please. I really don't want to have to deal with the people who make these kinds of videos. They dissapeared under Bush, but the Clintons will bring them running...
Political Nexus is now at Heading Left, the official home of BlogTalkRadio's progressive lineup
by theKK on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:58:15 AM PDT
Bill Clinton, according to the wiki
Paul's suit against former President Clinton remains, as of December 2007, outstanding. He is seeking $41.9 million in damages.
McCain & Clinton = WAR Authorizers | Veep prefs for Obama: 1. Sebelius 2. Richardson
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:35:11 AM PDT
Good gravy.
The Republicans were right about one thing - The media is irresponsible.
by nightsweat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:13:59 AM PDT
=P
by Puffin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:33:37 AM PDT
... she told a bunch of supporters that she appreciates their work. Unheard of.
by EE Prof on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:33:52 AM PDT
seem to be there, as eg, the comment about soliciting Cher's help Paul's lawyer talks about in this video.
by NeuvoLiberal on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:32:49 AM PDT
HR 676 or California's SB-840 - the only health reform proposals worth my vote.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:30:00 AM PDT
Hillary's my last choice, and I don't like her or Bill at this point.
But this piece-of-shit video is a rightwing hit job that proves exavtly NOTHING.
The people who made it have been trying to get traction with it for a long time, and everyone has pretty much yawned at it, despite their silly ominous music.
It's insulting to post it here. Take it to FreeRepublic.com.
Hillary Clinton: champion of the downtrodden White Race!
by chumley on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:35:03 PM PDT
AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard Hillary Rodham Clinton. She used to be the head of the board of the Children's Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, "His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children." So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton? MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don’t -- and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need healthcare, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare. For the sake of looking tough on "welfare queens," Bill and Hillary (and they were indeed a team) sacrificed the well-being of millions, forced single mothers into underpaid, underinsured work and added further strain to many families.
AMY GOODMAN: Marian Wright Edelman, we just heard Hillary Rodham Clinton. She used to be the head of the board of the Children's Defense Fund, of the organization that you founded. But you were extremely critical of the Clintons. I mean, when President Clinton signed off on the, well, so-called welfare reform bill, you said, "His signature on this pernicious bill makes a mockery of his pledge not to hurt children." So what are your hopes right now for these Democrats? And what are your thoughts about Hillary Rodham Clinton?
MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN: Well, you know, Hillary Clinton is an old friend, but they are not friends in politics. We have to build a constituency, and you don’t -- and we profoundly disagreed with the forms of the welfare reform bill, and we said so. We were for welfare reform, I am for welfare reform, but we need good jobs, we need adequate work incentives, we need minimum wage to be decent wage and livable wage, we need healthcare, we need transportation, we need to invest preventively in all of our children to prevent them ever having to be on welfare. For the sake of looking tough on "welfare queens," Bill and Hillary (and they were indeed a team) sacrificed the well-being of millions, forced single mothers into underpaid, underinsured work and added further strain to many families.
http://boards.blackvoices.com/...
by leftinaerospace on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:36:08 AM PDT
Always was and could have ended up being eliminated altogether at the time.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:42:02 AM PDT
and Clinton signed welfare reform into law in 1996.
And moreover, it was Clinton who took credit for it throughout the 1996 campaign, just as he did for ending "the era of big government." You can't unwrite the memories I have of Bill, after he signed welfare reform, extolling the wonders of how many families were leaving the welfare rolls, without ever pausing to consider whether they were leaving the rolls because their situation was improving, or more likely, because they were being disqualified from the new state programs en masse.
Sorry, this is one dodge you just don't get.
by andydoubtless on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:03:06 AM PDT
True on the dates AND true that Bill took, and still takes, credit for Welfare Reform.
But RR was responsible for creating the movement against welfare (e.g., welfare queens) and building the Reagan Democrats constituencey that were foundational for NEWT to enact Reagan's plans. Of course, Bill made the best of it.
YOU need more history and it's not in the headlines...the real story here is more embedded in the text AND even more so between the lines...
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:16:04 AM PDT
He rode that horse all the way to a second term, and did so gleefully.
Welfare reform and its derivatives emphasizing the conditionality of social insurance schemes is perhaps the definitive characteristic of "third way" politics versus Great Society liberalism.
It may have been Reagan's device first, but Clinton seized it when he had a chance and actually brought it to fruition, which resulted in untold destitution and hardship for America's families.
Reagan's dream; Clinton's reality.
by andydoubtless on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:23:45 AM PDT
The presidency is not a tyranny, the president had to deal with an overly republican voting population and a republican congress and NEWT and his fucked up contract with America.
I explained what I saw...historical context counts.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:27:26 AM PDT
Clinton did not have to sign the Republican Welfare Reform Act. He could have vetoed it, as most of his advisor's, including some say, Hillary Clinton, wanted him to do. But he was working with Dick Morris at the time, and Morris advised him that the Republicans would attack him in the 96 election if he vetoed the bill. But at most, it would cost Bill a few percentage points in the polls, and Clinton was well ahead throughout 96.
This illustrates my main problem with the Clintons-both Bill and Hillary, they will abandon their core beliefs, they will abandon their loyal supporters, everytime when and if it suits them.
They threw millions of American families into insecurity and misery through signing the Welfare "Reform" Act of 1996. Because of this, there is now a time limit of 5 years, in many states 4 years, for families geting assistance. One can accuse adults of milking the system, not working hard, or laziness. But within those millions of families are millions of innocent children, many times infants. Bill was willing to add to their misery in order to win re-election, a re-election almost already assured.
In trashing Obama, we now see their willingess to cast aside their most loyal friends. They are willing to forgoe the affection of the black community, which had stuck with them through thick and thin, in order to play the racial card and a hoped white backlash in the Super Tuesday primaries. I am an Edwards supporter, but I see the writing on the wall all over again. The Clintons looking out for #1- that is themselves, over and over again.
by North Country Dem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:52:33 AM PDT
and to hell with the PEOPLE
It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the environment. Ansel Adams -6.5 -6.75
by Statusquomustgo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:58:11 AM PDT
They're not trashing Obama but attempting to create the picture of putting a younger, less experienced politician in his place. It's a fundamental of Hillary's campaign. And it has traction and is a valid position. She's never come out swinging, she seems to me to be taking Obama's lead.
Also, if this election seems dirty or trashy to you, then you should know that it isn't at all. Believe me, these folks are friends and will remain so after the Powder Puff Primary is over. Politics is their venue, their calling, and being crafty and moving large contingents against their will is not something one does wearing white gloves.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:15:26 AM PDT
he's challenging Bill Clinton, it's hard enough to run against Hillary and he's getting Bill more press. He has kiss of death Maureen Dowd on his side, encouraging him to whine about unfairness, really the way to show how to beat the Republicans, and it's clear he resembles young Bill more than Hillary does, she's clearly more herself and they're clearly more similar. He'd just rather run against Bill, is what I think, it annoys him that he can run against Bill, and has to run against a 'wife.' The worst for him is he's lost his message and he's behaving like a sore loser. And he hasn't even lost yet, he could wait until he really loses before saying it's not fair she has Bill on her side.
Hillary - Alternative Energy
by anna shane on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:38:41 PM PDT
...held her real fire for the blanks. Barack came out in the debate with an attack on her and she pushed back on him with the "present votes." Obama got more angry and made his WalMart jab - which of course is a complement for most Americans. She decided to raise the ante and nailed him with Rezko, but she never made the most incriminating claim on Rezko and still hasn't...Obama is up against his toughest challenge, no doubt about it.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:52:56 PM PDT
. . . they will abandon their core beliefs, they will abandon their loyal supporters, everytime when and if it suits them.
Bingo.
They were for the poor, until it suited them to go right-wing with welfare reform.
They were for choice, until it was convenient for them to distort the record of their 100% pro-choice opponent in NH linky
This from Mary Rauh in NH, who (among others) signed an anti-Obama letter after being deceived by the Clintons:
"We still have battles to fight in New Hampshire and we can't let dirty politics destroy the choice voice here. It's too important," Rauh said. "But for Clinton to do this to the choice community is so appalling. I can't tell you how it distresses me ... how devastating this and how horrified I am that the Clinton campaign would do this. I fear it will happen elsewhere and it's just appalling."
They were for Blacks. Bill the first Black prez, and all that, until Obama started to scare them in Iowa. Then they were happy to use racial code words for weeks though their surrogates.
Now I'm sure they've calculated that losing the AA votes doesn't matter, because they can overwhelm the AA vote with Hispanics.
Hispanics: wait for it. You know that as soon as Hillary's in a tough fight in the GE (if she gets there), she'll start bashing immigrants.
But then, anyone who actually believes a word the Clintons say at this stage probably deserves what they get.
May your entire existence be one sensuous, frolic-filled experience lived in defiance of care.
by Fonsia on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:15:39 AM PDT
has not been discussed enough. It, to me, represents a callous disregard of the issue in favor of a quick, cheap score. It misused the credibility of people who understand the seriousness of the antichoice movement.
They will govern precisely as they are campaigning should they God forbid, gain office, and it won't be pretty, mark my words.
by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:22:07 PM PDT
but once it was near re-election time he signed a near carbon copy of what he previously vetoed.
by leftinaerospace on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:51:59 PM PDT
the truth. Unfortunately for the Clintons, their campaign has seemed to remind many not of general feelings of well-being, but divisiveness and capitulation of core beliefs in order to save their own political skins.
They are willing to forgoe the affection of the black community, which had stuck with them through thick and thin, in order to play the racial card and a hoped white backlash in the Super Tuesday primaries.
Yes, and IMO, if the Clintons are rewarded for this type of maneuvering, they have just made things that more difficult for African Americans to attain higher office. Which is why for me personally, this is unforgiveable.
Excellent comment.
by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:16:03 PM PDT
are not voting against Obama therefore Obama is not losing the female vote.
Likewise, people who vote for Obama are not to be assume to be voting against Hillary.
I think you and the quote you posted are repeating a media meme not supported by any data.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:57:00 PM PDT
this is about my lack of confidence in the Clinton's ability to behave as Democratic party leaders, which should necessarily include making it easier, not harder, for African Americans to ascend to higher office. Their campaign has been antithetical to that concept.
by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:11:31 PM PDT
which I would take very seriously but only coming from other campaigns and not an authoritative source.
This is bullshit: "They are willing to forgoe the affection of the black community"
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 06:43:05 PM PDT
which I won't support them. I had no major issues with the Clintons before their disastrous campaign.
by GN1927 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 07:01:20 PM PDT
when all the senators and congressman rolled over on Iraq.
Obama had the nerve to vote against authorizing the war.
You expect too little of your elected officials, and in turn you will get it.
by theKK on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:22 AM PDT
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:08:18 AM PDT
senate then, I think you might be mistaken on this.
Don't sell out John! Damn, too late, lost another to the dark side!
by ichibon on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:14:50 PM PDT
seen as part of Bill's strategy during the '90s? Welfare reform, NAFTA, & the balanced budget (not that that's a bad thing) were all reThug initiatives. I'm actually surprized that Obama hasn't referenced that during this tit-for-tat he has going on with the Ex-Pres.
"I teach Sunday School Mutherf&@#er!"-S.Colbert
by Independant Man on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:49:57 AM PDT
I honestly saw Bill making the best of a rotten deal in DC with Newt being on the rise and the country changing fundamentally. The media seemed to be in charge and anti-Democratic as the takeover of the media was beginning.
Obama could use it against Bill, not Hill. Against Bill, it would be unfair but that's OK with me, it would be valid and may work.
But like when Obama complained, "See what I'm up against?" he's being triple teamed: Hill, Bill, and his own campaign. Bill's whole job is to distract Obama & push him off his game. I'm not sure if going after Bill is worth it...but that, tactics while dealing with the media message, is not my expertise.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:07:08 AM PDT
of course there are always compromises to be made in governance. My only point is that turnabout is fairplay, so if Bill wants to play attack dog, he can also be a target.
The Clinton campaigns' intentional misconstruing of what Obama said, making it seem that he "liked" the ideas of reThugs, opens them up for criticism about actually adopting reThug policies.
by Independant Man on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:53:55 AM PDT
fast, even dirty. He's fine with his elbows but not in those debate venues.
I wouldn't experiment here, with us, and waste people's time...
But if O can push Bill off his butt with that argument then he should. I don't think he can because...how do I put it...a zinger works on the target and the audience when its perfectly zinged, but it's not so much to do with the content, but the wholistic zinger moment.
For that matter, on Welfare, like the Walmart jab, the bulk of the country thinks differently than us. Many people thought welfare reform was a good thing, thus Bill will uses it. It works. Many people think Walmart is a good thing, to them, it's a family outing. I'm guessing there were plenty of people, even Democrats, who were confused why Obama brought up a part of Hillary's resume. I'm not saying he shouldn't say it but just questioning the zing.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:18:20 PM PDT
Wow, so Ronald Reagan created a movement and Bill Clinton was helpless except to follow it and even take credit for it. Now tell me which party was the "party of ideas" back then...?
Sim, a gente pode!
by SLKRR on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:42:53 AM PDT
No, Bill Clinton never "followed RR's movement." But reality has a way of influencing in real time...
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:58:32 AM PDT
capitalizing on the idea and pushing it through so he could brag about it.
by theKK on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:59:52 AM PDT
...any opponent like Richard Viguerie could frame it negatively.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:22:25 AM PDT
What you just said about Reagan is what Obama was flamed for saying. Reagan built the Reagan Democrats and pushed an agenda. And that's why we need Obama to undo it, to bring in Obama Republicans and repair the damage. Obama can do for the Left what Reagan did for the Right.
Hillary isn't about change and won't pull in a single Republican. And Edwards just won't get the broad support. Only Obama can get it done.
by Norm in Chicago on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:03:05 AM PDT
my goal. I must disagree with this:
Hillary isn't about change and won't pull in a single Republican.
I am much to the left of Hillary and I know her history.
I'm confident that it's her time now and Obama is so unready if I was in charge of the world I would give him mentors tailored for a presidential track.
If he wins now, which he has a very good chance of doing, he is NOT ready and the party will need to shore that up, somehow.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:21:15 AM PDT
Pimp your ride, KOS!
by DrMicro on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:19:37 PM PDT
I am voting for Clinton but I'm not supporting her. I will contribute and work for the nom. But I understand politics...no saints or heroes in politics.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 04:59:02 PM PDT
off welfare with no safety net is BILL CLINTON.
by icebergslim on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:04:45 AM PDT
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:11:03 AM PDT
PHUI
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:11:53 AM PDT
No yelling, we're standing right here.
What do you want me to do, to do for you to see you through... Lesh/Hunter
by Mannabass on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:18:07 AM PDT
might understand that better since s/he seems to yell a lot. I'll be quiet now...Thanks.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:20:28 AM PDT
The Clintons lie like matching rugs!
"We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution
by elwior on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:37:39 AM PDT
Who gets credit for that...
by RedStateDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:49:24 AM PDT
by MadAsHellMaddie on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:11:25 AM PDT
As noted here in the Washington Post, Clinton stretched the truth not once but twice in comments she made during the SC debate.
On an aside, I just managed to find time to watch the first 45 minutes of the debate, and I was flabbergasted to see how often she was on the attack! How are her supporters able to couch her constant feces-flinging as Obama attacking her?!?
I once thought I might be able to support her in the general. Now I'm not so sure. We need to get Obama the nomination!!!
Kenapa sih?
by Bule Betawi on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM PDT
and her little Bill, too.
Happy little moron, Lucky little man.I wish I was a moron, MY GOD, Perhaps I am!-Spike Milligan
by polecat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:23:34 AM PDT
especially this:
What we need to do, as a party, is move on. That means past The Clintons. Overall, as a party, they bring nothing new, nothing fresh, no new vision...
Supporting HRC is one thing, but I'm amazed anybody actually is enthused or energized by her.
The Clintons are like the couple at the party who just won't leave, and the Bushes are like the Sopranos. (Every tinfoil bone in my body suspects there's a reason Bill and George Senior have been bosom buddies these past few years, and it's not a good reason).
The dominance of the Clintons over the Democratic party is like the dominance of the Bushes over the Republican party: it's inherently anti-democratic.
I'm inclined to support an amendment that would extend the twenty-second amendment to spouses and family members, rather than keep the dynastic tendency of American presidential politics intact. What worked in the time of the Adamses and the Roosevelts does not necessarily work now.
by gnat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:41:50 AM PDT
by polecat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:06:48 AM PDT
2024.
Jeb's next in line 2016-2024.
Puh-leez!
by Tom0063 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:23:51 AM PDT
by Statusquomustgo on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:56:42 AM PDT
by Fonsia on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:22:17 AM PDT
Are you being sexist?
We need a Republican woman in the WH to show that feminism has truly won and is not just a one-trick pony!
Help! I can't tell the Republican trolls apart from the Democratic trolls, anymore!
by Bronxist on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:09:55 PM PDT
is that HRC wins the nomination, picks Gore as her running mate, and the Clinton/Gore ticket narrowly defeats McCain/Lieberman. Then HRC wins a second term, and Gore goes on to win the Dem nomination in 2016, picking Edwards as his running mate. Unfortunately, although Gore/Edwards win the 2016 popular vote, George Prescott Bush (Jeb's son), running as the first hispanic candidate, wins a controversial vote for in Florida (Cuba now part of Florida, the part that's not underwater due to global warming), and the SCOTUS steps in to claim Bush the winner. Gore grows his beard again.
by gnat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:20:31 AM PDT
another Clinton, he's been there done that, got the scars and no Presidency to prove it.
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 Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:33:13 AM PDT
does not need to align with the facts.
by gnat on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:37:03 AM PDT
ICan't type wortha famn.
by Krum on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:42:20 AM PDT
Revolutions never go backwards.
by sundancekid11 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:06:08 AM PDT
what Chuck Norris is to Huckabee and keep his f -ing piehole closed.
by Krum on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:09:17 AM PDT
I knew you had it in you to blog for Clinton. Just change the content and this diary will be great!
by BoringDem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:14:30 AM PDT
I have a lot of Clinton Photos.
by icebergslim on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:15:30 PM PDT
Respectfully, I don't like the title "The Clinton Twins". They are not twins.
What about this? "The Clinton Team Explained: a two-pronged study of a Machiavellian Janus"
"How can I tell you everything that is in my heart. Impossible to begin. Enough. No. Begin." Maira Kalman from The Principles of Uncertainty
by orphanpower on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:33:32 AM PDT
about proposed title. The Clintons have done some good things and both have some very good qualities, but these campaign tactics...damn! It is very unattractive. Also, Hillary would do well to remember that a great deal of her appeal comes from the fact that she would be the first woman to hold the office of POTUS. Having her husband co-campaign for her so aggressively and constantly suggest that he would be an integral part of her presidency, diminishes the process.
by orphanpower on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:15:05 AM PDT
be the first female President and yes my husband is fighting my fights for me? What happens during a Hillary Presidency? Does Bill have to call up the Generals to say stop being mean to Hillary? Will Bill have to call foreign leaders and chastise them for mistreating his wife? How would that work?
by Blogvirgin on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:36:45 AM PDT
a Dowd quote I know that they don't give a damn about the party and the way the media has slammed it. Might as well just use FOX and Big Pharma Limbaugh
It will be fun to watch your head explode when Dowd goes after Michelle Obama though. And you won't have a leg to stand on wheh the whining starts from you.
by Mike S on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:08:07 PM PDT
We need a party approved list of people that can be reliably quoted.
by Bronxist on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:12:46 PM PDT
Of course anyone who has paid attention to the "mean girl" Dowd doesn't need that list. At least those who are consistant in their demand for better media.
Those that are willing to accept anything that hurts their opponent don't care about lists like that. The ends always justify the means.
by Mike S on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:19:57 PM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 727 comments