View Story | 727 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
I'm sorry that he's campaigning effectively for her. It's his wife. This is not a tea party.
by NY Writer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:19:39 AM PDT
The Clintons, of all people, should be able to distinguish between fair and misleading attacks.
Did you love NN08 in Austin? Join us in Pittsburgh in 2009!
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:21:44 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
I just don't see it.
Correct me if Bill was wrong about Obama's voting record on the Iraq war--because that's been the strongest and probably "most effective" one.
by NY Writer on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:22:44 AM PDT
Compilation. As ABC News said yesterday:
What's factually not accurate is what President Bill Clinton said. I know he wants his wife to beat Obama. And it seems that unleashing the Big Dog seems to be working for the Clinton campaign. Perhaps some voters are even touched by his passion. But let's be clear -- Bill Clinton is spreading demonstrably false information. There's winning ugly, and there's winning with honor. Does it matter? Or is all fair in politics and war?
What's factually not accurate is what President Bill Clinton said.
I know he wants his wife to beat Obama. And it seems that unleashing the Big Dog seems to be working for the Clinton campaign.
Perhaps some voters are even touched by his passion.
But let's be clear -- Bill Clinton is spreading demonstrably false information.
There's winning ugly, and there's winning with honor.
Does it matter? Or is all fair in politics and war?
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:29:46 AM PDT
is not a smart political move. And both Hillary AND Edwards pounced on him during the last debate for it. Regardless of what Obama meant, he left the opening.
And anyway, NY Writer was talking about Obama's Iraq War record. Your quote is in reference to the Reagan thing. So who is misleading who here?
The way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason. -Benjamin Franklin
by HairyTrueMan on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:50:32 AM PDT
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:54:31 AM PDT
And the link took me to Barack Obama's website, which I do not consider to be an unbiased source of information. LOL!
And of course, it doesn't say anything about his Senate voting record on Iraq.
by HairyTrueMan on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:40:06 AM PDT
Which you are free to peruse at your leisure.
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:57:06 AM PDT
Do you really think that the right thing to do, having been AGAINST THE WAR from the start, is to defund the troops on the ground without ensuring that there's adequate planning for the withdrawal?
Do you REALLY think that Obama's voting for war funding means that he wasn't and isn't against the war? Os is this another one of your "I KNOW what he meant, but I'll distort his record anyway, cus it's politics"??
by dsinha on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:03:25 AM PDT
even to CRITICISE him, 'cause then the Lie Machine (Clinton or Republican) will trash the heck out of you! (snark)
Unless you're Bill or Hillary, then you can praise Reagan in books or on TV because you're being 'non-partisan'.
Hillary's attacks on Obama lately seem to be "Don't vote for Barrack, he's too much like me!"
Pardon my bitterness, but, as I supported Paul Tsongas when he was running for President, I still feel the bitter sting of Clinton truth-twisting. And I'm starting to get flashbacks lately.
by Send Rahm a Cheesecake on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM PDT
It's a deliberate misinterpretation. ;-)
That happens in political campaigns. And Obama could have handled it much better.
by HairyTrueMan on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:54:55 AM PDT
sparring partner, and toughening up BHO for the general.
But, as I said, having been on the other side of 'good lying' (or 'deliberate misinterpretation'), I don't ever think that it's the right thing to do.
by Send Rahm a Cheesecake on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:27:35 AM PDT
is goddamn ridiculous. Obama opposed it publicly from the beginning. Hillary did not, and voted to authorize it. Snarking about "what would Obama have done if he were in the Senate", etc is the purest BS. This is classic Rove - attack the opponent's strength. Since Hillary voted to authorize the invasion, and Obama opposed the invasion, Hillary's supporters must try and fudge the situation.
Sickening.
by Hiraga on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:09:16 AM PDT
Or an unthinking ideologue would interpret what Obama said about Reagan as being supportive of his policies.
Reagan won 49 states in 84. He lead a political realignment that has shaped politics for the last 30 years. Bill Clinton's entire presidency was deeply immersed in the day-to-day reality of that political realignment. GW Bush is the crowning achievement of the alignment.
This is reality. This reality could not have been built without appeal across party lines. Reagan could not have won 49 states unless he appealed to both Democrats and Republicans.
Were the policies vile? From our perspective, yes. But that does not diminish his achievement.
Sponge Bob, Mandrake, Cartoons. That's how your hard-core islamahomocommienazis work.
by Benito on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:16:54 AM PDT
every time I see someone else write this it helps me feel a little less crazy.
i can't believe that people are deliberately pretending not to understand (or deliberately misunderstanding) what O said about Reagan. it seems so obvious.
I will never forgive the Clinton twins for this.
Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:01:56 AM PDT
They are literally either idiots or are willfully not understanding.
The Reagan revolution occurred because you had 'the moment' and you had 'the man'. Put them together and history happens. We've the same, or at least the potential for the same, with Obama.
I've heard REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI say they like him.
30 years ago the equivalent would have been a Union member from Michigan saying he liked Reagan.
by Benito on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:15:18 AM PDT
I am so distressed at the thought that Clinton entitlement and ego might make this moment pass us by!
by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:18:06 AM PDT
it will be handed to a republican on a silver platter. I had thought Ron Paul was the most destructive but Huckabee has now jumped ahead, he not only wants to change the constitution to reflect HIS ideology, now he wants to abolish all taxes. This country is screwed 8 ways to Sunday if Clinton is allowed to push Edwards and Obama out of the race. I would rather see Edwards in office, he was right about the economy and what we need to change, but Obama is acceptable, too. Clinton, if she made it at all, would be implementing the same sort of half-assed patches to problems, instead of real progressive solutions.
by pgm 01 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:10:43 PM PDT
But do you really think that most people follow politics closely? You use the word idiot to describe them. I wouldn't go that far. Uninformed is more like it.
by HairyTrueMan on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 03:39:13 PM PDT
Their ignorance is their problem, not mine.
by Benito on Thu Jan 24, 2008 at 01:43:27 PM PDT
That goes to the heart of the HUGE problem I have with the Clintons and their supporters. You KNOW what he meant. You KNOW he's right. But you'll still defend the establishment's lying, conniving and twisting their words, because "it's politics"?
That's the sort of mindset that allowed Bush to get away with 935 lies about Iraq and get us into this bloody mess. People with your mindset. You KNOW what's right, but you'll still support your 'guy' because it's politics.
This mindset must change, before good happens in this country again.
by dsinha on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:59:00 AM PDT
To the Democratic and Republican Hillary haters, the only time the MSM is trustworthy is when they are talking about the Clintons. Very sad.
by nascardem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:08:03 AM PDT
I just don't trust them very much. Are you suggesting Bill is telling the truth?
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:11:00 AM PDT
Stating.
by nascardem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:21:09 AM PDT
stating is more like it.
The true Ben Franklin quote from Poor Richard's Almanack is "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."
by Andy30tx on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:23:48 AM PDT
"Her principal opponent said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas." -- Bill Clinton, Pahrump, NV
When did Obama say this?
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:31:54 AM PDT
... just put her husband in Al Gore's famous lock box, and lock him up for the remainder of the year? The Big Dog is humilliating his wife (let alone himself), and I say this as someone who intends to vote for her in the Massachusetts primary in two weeks.
No complacency. Donate. Contribute. Volunteer.
by jim bow on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:54:03 AM PDT
I saw the complete 45 minute video and people don't walk away with court recordings in their brains. They walk away with memories and impressions.
Besides, he was pandering to a group of known conservatives and it backfired.
Just because the Clintons will now use his error against him is part of the process.
You're right, Adam, based on one generous interpretation on the meeting notes. But that's not how life goes...
HR 676 is the best health reform proposal worth my vote.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:55:09 AM PDT
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:56:23 AM PDT
the meeting notes. So?
He's being decent and fair enough, he hasn't misquoted because he's not quoting...to interpret a person is real life. And the interpretation is valid. I believe Obama about what he meant. So?
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:09:51 AM PDT
that the Clintons killed Vince Foster but my "impression" is that they did. That's just my "interpretation". So that's real life hu?
John McCain defends Bush's Iraq strategy.
by recusancy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:22:21 AM PDT
When a person speaks the listener hears what THEY hear. Public speaking is not court testimony. It's shared with people with their own valid, honest interpretations.
Hey, right now I'm seeing the first Obama commercial on TV here in Ca...
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:55:24 AM PDT
but I would guess there is only one candidate we could nominate who they would trot that crap out for.
Who wants to live in a glass house!?!
Political Nexus is now at Heading Left, the official home of BlogTalkRadio's progressive lineup
by theKK on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:10:02 AM PDT
Sometimes more felicitiously than others. You've found a few statements of his critique of Obama that are indeed flat-out wrong. That's not going to make us less irked by what Obama was up to, nor any more reassured by his inability to clarify effectively.
On the Reno paper, btw, they endorse in both primaries, no? He was playing them for the general.
by Ottoe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:10:42 AM PDT
anation of the Illinois legislature "present" votes was perfectly fine, although commentators trashed it.
What you guys don't like about Obama is that he is an egghead, an academic, who is careful what he says and speaks in nuanced fashion.
Hasn't anti-intellectualism gone far enough in this country at the end of the Bush years? Or do we have to keep picking candidates based on their simple-minded attachment to set talking points or their ability to project a false image of "folksiness"?
by Hiraga on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:14:54 AM PDT
I think he's terrific.
I don't know what you're talking about but it has nothing to do with me or my comment.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:18:45 AM PDT
... "I admire the hell out of Hillary" post?
by jim bow on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:39:35 AM PDT
There are plenty of people whom I admire but don't necessarily support. I admire John McCain for his courage as a POW, but don't like his politics. I admire Elizabeth Edwards for her public battles, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for her husband. Etc.
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:45:28 AM PDT
spending years praising and building up hillary and then trying to nock her down during the las weeks, just to make it a horse race.
but that doens't have anything to do with bill clinton swooshing around the country telling lies and smearing Obama in a quite disgusting way.
by Zagatzz on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:37:01 AM PDT
me to despise Hillary. Her going negative after Iowa only sealed my opinion. For you Hillary supporters who are proud of your candidate winning at any cost, with any means, all I have to say is, he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword. There will be a backlash, it has already begun. The Clintons will not be remembered well.
by Hiraga on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:12:11 AM PDT
We don't need the MSM to tell us that. We see it with our own eyes.
Especially those of us who have been on the ground in this campaign and seen it in person.
by theKK on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:08:10 AM PDT
One guy's opinion. Don't mischaracterize.
by Montague on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:12:43 AM PDT
ah yes, the good folks who brought us the '9-1-1' docudrama that was also a hit piece on the Clinton Presidency.
Real unimpeahachable source there.
There's crap being slung, and not all of it is being slung from the Clinton side. That's a fact not made by ABC.
"Hillary Hate" is a disease that will not be cured until after the primaries.
by emsprater on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:14:18 AM PDT
It was ABC Entertainment, and regardless, I don't see any factual rebuttal here. You just don't like the message.
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:21:19 AM PDT
folks who were real progressives were completely 'done' with ABC during that dust up. I seem to remember lots of folks here pledging never to watch ABC again, not even for their favorties shows.
I guess the smell is off the stink when the stink suits your purpose.
by emsprater on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:23:28 PM PDT
...war position with a link about the Reagan comments? The best defense is a good offense, but Obama supporters are supposed to be above all that. Did Obama mislead people about his war position? Was Bill Clinton right?
by dianem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:32:00 AM PDT
.
by Adam B on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:32:30 AM PDT
The Obama website piece that you link to doesn't refute the Clinton claim that he didn't consistently maintain his stance on the war, and the Tapper piece confuses the reduction of Obama's remarks on Reagan with their distortion.
I think Digby's been pretty much right on on how unfortunate those remarks were. I don't know why Obama supporters can't just admit that, point to the Clintons' own histories as triangulators, and move on.
And on the theme of the overall diary; folks should know they're on treacherous ground in an argument when they're rushing to embrace Maureen Dowd as a big truthteller. As if.
by Ottoe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:07:30 AM PDT
and move on, to be out-triangulated by the master triangulators? Dream on!
Obama's opposition to the war was real and courageous. His later attempts to deal with the reality of the war that Hillary helped Bush to unleash are in no way triagulation or wavering.
And nothing the Clinton's assert will change that plain truth.
You probably thought that Dowd's attacks on Bush and Cheney were BS too. Dowd is ugly, but she has an uncanny nose for falsehood.
by Tom0063 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:29:24 AM PDT
Obama is triangulating, and y'all are embracing Dowd.
You realize of course that if Obama becomes president you'll be cringing weekly at the insane caricatures of him that she conjures up.
And yep, I do think that Dowd on Bush and Cheney has been pretty much BS. She embodies the MSM; loves to tweak the personalities, has no patience or imagination for critiquing actual positions on actual issues, which is where the real evil lurks.
by Ottoe on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:25:37 PM PDT
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:23:27 AM PDT
trading by HRC way back when. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, isn't it? Eliz Edwards can start talking about those Rose Law Firm billing records, too.
I've been a political junkie since 1972, and I have some recollection of 1968. I can't ever recall a prez candidate in either party whose spouse served as an attack dog for them. Hell, I can't recall a Senate or gov candidate whose spouse served in that capacity.
Bob Dole's wife has (successfully) run for Senate, and (unsuccessfully) run for prez. Dole was always known for his sharp political elbows. I don't ever recall him serving as his wife's attack dog like WJC has here.
I agree 100% w/ MoDo and w/ Marian Wright Edelman.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I see things that never were and ask why not?
by RFK Lives on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:39:44 AM PDT
bring up vince foster, travelgate, her cackle ad hominen while at it?
by swissffun on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:56:28 AM PDT
by Empower Ink on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:10:48 AM PDT
I did not have sex with that woman.
Pathetic. He smoked dope and cheated on his wife. I don't care about that. I do care about the insult to my intelligence that these statements represent. If the Clinton's can't tell the truth about that then what can they ever tell the truth on?
by Benito on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:22:26 AM PDT
if he will do it to her....
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 11:37:59 AM PDT
...being recycled on a supposedly progressive web site?
That said, no candidate has ever had a charismatic husband campaigning for them. Politicians spouses tend to be quiet and well-behaved. I find the change refreshing. It's annoying to see all of those accomplished women sharing tips on how to care for your children on the campaign trail and the occasional cookie recipe while they simper about how wonderful their husbands are. It may suit right-wing wives, but I think that Michelle Obama and Elizabethe Edwards could be far more vocal - if we would let women actually speak instead of expecting them to mteaphorically walk quietly 2 steps behind their husbands.
by dianem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:36:09 AM PDT
below the belt*, I think that the lines I cited above are below the belt. I was being a little snarky in my opening to make a point.
If you think that Eliz Edwards spent her time talking about cookie recipes, I guess you and I saw her at very different times. I saw her in several joint interviews w/ JRE, and she displayed a keen understanding of policy issues in those interviews.
The point that you apparently missed is that spouses (male or female), as a rule, have never been attack dogs in American politics. As my 3d para noted in detail, Dole, whom Ford specifically chose to be his attack dog in '76, stayed above the fray in his wife's various campaigns. What we're seeing from WJC here is unprecedented on many levels.
*At least HRC uttered the smear herself instead of letting WJC do the dirty work there.
by RFK Lives on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:24:40 AM PDT
line was below the belt? It's true. Rezko was a slumlord. It's one of the many things he's been indicted for. And Obama's letters of recommendation for him are mind-boggling. Why don't you try reading the Chicago newspapers on the Rezko dirty dealings instead of getting using kos as your source of information? Or this diary which tries to justify Maureen Dowd as some sort of truthsayer?
Most scientists believe human brains aren't fully formed until the early 20s. -AMA
by miriam on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:58:22 AM PDT
I don't care that he cheated on Hillary. I do care that he insults my intelligence by trying to wiggle out of admitting it.
Admitting you screwed up and owning up to your own moral failings takes courage. He didn't show it.
by Benito on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:24:59 AM PDT
"Outright lying" is the problem.
John McCain: Like Hope, But Different.
by malharden on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:26:27 AM PDT
because being an independent, intelligent woman went over really well for Teresa Heinz. And Mrs. Carter as well.
Although props do go Barbara Bush for saying whatever the heck she felt like and getting away with it. (Not that I agree with her.)
by robroy on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:47:13 AM PDT
t'would be only fair!
All aboard the O train!
by xyz on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:39:28 AM PDT
I have seen nothing of the dirty primaries of the past. This is like the Powder Puff Primary.
And there is nothing unfair about using your own advantages.
Politics is a craft of being crafty.
Being in the WH will be a Katrina every day, in a world filled with people who don't give a rat's ass about Obama or his valus as a person. He needs to win IN the world, IN the trench. He can desire to be above trench warfare all he wants but while he's doing that someone will stab him in the back. That's life at the top.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:49:50 AM PDT
Hillary, though, doesn't fight in the trenches. Nor did Bill. They commanded the troops fighting in the trenches and led them to slaughter. They couldn't see an alternative to trench warfare. Maybe there was no possibility for it at the time. But, there are new ways to get at the opponent now. New opportunities than the tired tactics of the past.
Old politicians are like generals - they are always fighting the last war and not preparing to for the new one. Nominating Hillary will be like building the Maginot Line.
by Benito on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:29:10 AM PDT
What is Obama competing for? Eagle Scout?
Read The Art of War. Read a book on executive leadership. I know what I'm talking about experientially....
Btw, where are the bodies of the slaughtered?
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:34:18 AM PDT
They tried their best to kill them, but he is slowly stitching them back together with the 50 state strategy....
Or do you mean the bodies, literally, since she voted for the war and has done nothing to end it but mouth empty promises she will only fulfill if we elect her to the highest office in the land?
by theKK on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:15:52 AM PDT
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:23:34 AM PDT
A book on executive leadership? Are you serious? Why don't you just cite Redbook or Weekly Reader? Wasn't Bush the 'MBA' president?
by Benito on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:18:21 AM PDT
...given you seem to display a very naive view.
by kck on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:25:36 AM PDT
That's why so many of her fans think the real quibble with the dirty tactics is that they work, and why they are actually thrilled to see her do them. They've confused "willing to do anything to win" with "able to win".
Offshore Oil/NatGas is our Strategic Reserve. Save it for when the rest of the world runs out.
by Inland on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:09:27 AM PDT
thinks that Bill is the one running for president:
Screw It: I'm Running for President
by Yoshimi on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:32:31 AM PDT
How credible the news is!
by francoto on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:49:09 AM PDT
by Yoshimi on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 08:52:27 AM PDT
Never give up! Never surrender!
by oscarsmom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:07:23 AM PDT
I believed it for five whole minutes! LMFAO!
by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:06:12 AM PDT
I'm sorry that Clinton is using his rhetorical skills and campaigning abilitites solely to attack Democrats.
Where was he during the past seven years?
How can he now attack a fellow democrat so persistently, while that Democrat's supporters fought tooth and nail for him, stood by him through his many mistakes as president?
Why did he treat the Bush presidency like a "tea party" but treats his campaign against Obama like Sherman's march to the sea?
Obama 2008
by cato on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:01:04 AM PDT
"Where was he during the past seven years?"
Getting ready to run for president.
Once the faintest stirring of hope became possible, the dominion of the plague was ended. ~Camus
by ayawisgi on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:10:19 AM PDT
But this is ridiculous. Hillary Clinton is running for president. Hillary Clinton. Hillary Fucking Clinton - with a vagina not a penis. If that is so hard for you to comprehend, then you can wander over to Free Republic and hang out with all of the other misogynists who can't believe that a woman can be anything more than an extension of her husband.
Criticize he campaign all you want, criticize her strategy, her ideas, even her hair. I don't give a damn. I'll give back if I feel inclined. But do NOT pretend that this isn't real. A woman is running for the position of President of the United States of America, and you will NOT diminish that by suggesting that she is running as proxy for her husband.
by dianem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:39:53 AM PDT
vaginas are known as vajayjays and penises are known as e-peens. Please get it right.
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." - Mark Twain
by Casey on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 09:43:27 AM PDT
...heard. But it's in the top 50.
by dianem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:03:03 AM PDT
What I find equally as stupid is the lot of attack diaries that have permeated this site regardless of your sex, race, age, or whatever limiter that the entirety of DKos is pulling out of their collective hats.
Unity. Bridging the divide. Working together.
Yeah, thats what I want to see. Not one candidate or the other destroying the characters of their Democratic brethren.
So, I add a bit of silliness, or the occasional non sequitur.
Hey, at the very least, I can stand by my remarks full well knowing that I didn't add to the flames.
Best regards!
by Casey on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:36:28 AM PDT
Before I'm progressive, or a Democrat, or a kossack. I'm a woman who has dealt with people trying to diminish me my entire life. I can live with attacks on Clinton. People have a right to their opinions, and I have a right to counter them. I can't accept people just dismissing her as a surrogate for her husband. Everybody has limits. I found mind.
But cute names for body part are still dumb. I got over feeling odd about the word "vagina" a long time ago. "Penis" is okay, too.
by dianem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:27:33 AM PDT
but yeah, I don't agree that people can dismiss Hillary as a surrogate for her husband. Hillary is incredibly bright and she can hold her own just fine. Even though I don't want her to be the nominee ;)
Netroots Director for Oregon Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley
by sarahlane on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:39:20 PM PDT
I can live with that.
You won't see me accuse her of being a surrogate for her husband. I actually liked the guy way back when. Unfortunately, his tone in this race and his past indiscretions have tempered my appreciation for him.
That being said, you and my wife agree on my use of the terms vajayjay and e-peen. So, you're in good company (and I truly mean that!). Anyway, I can't say I fully understand the female sex as much as I would like to say I do.
On that note, I do empathize and fully support the equality of all people in this country, regardless of sex, religion, color, you name it.
by Casey on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:41:25 PM PDT
by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:07:24 AM PDT
we see silly flamewars. Harkening back to the silly idea that you can only measure up if your e-peen is big enough.
I didn't originate the term, I just use it. Hey now!
Anyway, the point refers to the "my candidate is better than your candidate" flame wars that have been occuring as of late.
I guess my odd sense of humor and levity doesn't translate very well.
by Casey on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 12:51:00 PM PDT
Before he shreds his legacy and kills his wife's campaign. He's a liar! A convicted liar! He lied under oath, lied to his family, lied to the American people! Now he lies on the campaign trail! And he won't stop! And the Clinton campaign started running hit ads on Obama in South Carolina! They need to reign Bubba in, and they need to put down the stones, as they live in a great big glass house, and we've got a WHOLE lot of stones to throw at it! To wit: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky..." and, "My husband is merely the victim of this vast right-wing conspiracy..." and, "I have always been opposed to the war in Iraq" "he (Obama) is telling fairy tails" Can we trust ANYTHING these people have to say? Nobody wants to approve THAT message or many others like it, but unless they stop, there gonna get hit hard, and I would say deservedly so!
"We the People of the United States..." -U.S.Constitution
by elwior on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:14:22 AM PDT
Attack the campaign. I have no problem with that. None. I will defend or agree based on the comment. But we didn't exactly come out and say "Kerry really needs to rein in his wife, she's too assertive". The media said that, because they are idiots.
Just take it seriously. It's real. And it's important, to a lot of people in America, that a woman can run for president and be taken seriously.
by dianem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:25:23 AM PDT
You ever hear of Whitewater? Have you heard the one about the missing documents from the Rose Law Firm that somehow ended up in the living quarters at the White House? Hillary's amazing good fortune in the Futures market? Travelgate? Paula Jones? Bill's Law License? Presidential pardons anyone? Mark Rich? The Rodham brothers role in said pardons? And who exactly are the sponsers of the Clinton Library, and what's the connection to the current campaign? Goldwater Girl anyone? In 1964, when Goldwater joined the Dixiecrats to FILIBUSTER the Civil Rights Act of 1964? So much for her admiration of LBJ?
And on and on and on! Not nice stuff, but it's the price for the gloves coming off, and your girl will lose. Why not stop instead before this gets out of hand which it will.
by elwior on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 01:01:21 PM PDT
"enjoy music you already know, and to help you discover new music you'll love."
by red 83 on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:29:30 AM PDT
that should tell you something.
by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:10:44 AM PDT
i don;t know how HRC will get the black vote back in November if she allows Bill to trash Obama with these lies Rovian campaign tactics.
by TrueBlueMajority on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 11:08:57 AM PDT
You troll rated my comment.
But that's your choice.
I am a woman. I am not diminishing Hillary.
Hillary is diminishing herself.
If she found her voice, she should be using it. Send Bill home or at least tell him to act like a spouse not like her attack dog.
by ayawisgi on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:16:44 AM PDT
...you were willing to diminish this run for the presidency by suggesting that it's just another Bill Clinton run. I also can't believe that so many people are willing to support this idea. It's like saying "Obama is only being taken seriously as a candidate because he's black". Or "Obama is just a token black candidate, the real power is elsewhere". This kind of statement doesn't just insult Hillary Clinton - it is an insult to every woman who is trying to achieve power in America. Sadly, women are not immune from believing nonsense like this. I'm only recently becomeing really aware of how sexist our society is, and a lot of the sexism comes from women themselves.
by dianem on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:23:16 AM PDT
about my life and what I've done to support women and young girls, I don't think you would feel very good about leveling a sexist charge against me.
Think rationally for just one minute, and you'll see your argument doesn't hold up. Obama is not facing those accusations because he's not doing anything to portray himself in that light.
Hillary should take notice and stand up for women everywhere by standing up for herself instead of letting her husband bail her out in a tough race.
by ayawisgi on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:29:35 AM PDT
And am appreciative that she has the patience to make it. The idea that letting Bill campaign on her behalf constitutes "bailing" her out is preposterous. It amounts to saying that all of piles and piles of her hard work and achievement can be canceled out by a few casual words from her husband. It is insulting.
by heartofblue on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:54:34 AM PDT
You need to get a clue, and stop insulting everyone's intelligence here.
John Kerry: "The rubber stamp Republicans have now become the Roadblock Republicans"
by beachmom on Wed Jan 23, 2008 at 10:45:29 AM PDT
Have you forgotten that in all the attempts to elevate her to the position of first woman president? She voted for slaughter, while championing herself as a defender of women and children . Was complicit in killing hundreds of thousands of them who never had a chance. Not to mention the near 4000 Americans who died for the lies of George Bush--lies which she herself supported.
Bush and his minions told 935 lies about the invasion of Iraq. She supported it for at least two years.
How the hell can anyone ignore that vote? What? A bunch of deaf zombies are willing to just put those deaths on the back burner in favor of letting Hillary and Bill continue their dirty politics, continue to lie about a formidable opponent?
Feh--the party is indeed divided and Hillary and the real presidentia