Skip to main content

Look guys, I’ve already got a lot on my plate... I work full time (and NOT as a blogger), I’m raising two WONDERFUL young children, and I already spend about 4 or 5 hours an evening on sites like this fighting the good fight for Hillary.

But you’ve really dropped the ball when it comes to vetting the candidates and asking the tough questions re policy and experience.  The thing is... Bill Clinton said something the other day that rang true for a lot of us, and I hear tell folks are twisting the HELL out of his words and calling him – of all things – a racist

Here’s what President Clinton said last weekend at a campaign stop in New Hampshire after Saturday’s debate...
 

Make the jump, there’s more...

Now I’m sorry but did ANYbody hear anything about race or ethnicity, or Obama’s overall campaign in that segment?  Because that reference to fairy tales is what Obama’s camp is trying to use in playing the race card today.  

Look I’ll admit there’s plenty of reason for minorities to be sensitive to racism in our society.  But in the case of the above video, there’s simply no there, there.  They saw how women responded to Hillary’s show of vulnerability and they’re playing the race card now - at a well-chosen point in this campaign to try to drum up support in the lead-up to the South Carolina primaries.  President Clinton was not referring to Sen. Obama’s campaign as a fairy tale.  He in no way implied that a black man can’t make it to the White House.  

Simply put – his comments had nothing to do with race.

What he was talking about (and you’ll see this in the video if you actually take a look at it) is how the MSM have given him a pass when it comes to looking at his record on Iraq over the years.  This issue is the coernerstone of Obama’s campaign – he’s used it time and time again to bash Hillary over the head in his attempt to climb up and over her in the polls.

So if you guys in the MSM won’t do your job, I guess I’ll have to.  Sigh... as if I didn’t already have enough to do today...

Obama’s been making an awful lot of noise over a speech he gave on October 26, 2002 at an anti-war rally.  But what I don’t hear you asking about is what he’s done since giving that speech – showing us that he’s truly our champion when it comes to ending the war in Iraq, and bringing our troops home in the swiftest and safest manner possible.

And before you jump down my throat for having the temerity to ask this question... he IS making that speech a cornerstone in his campaign, so I think it’s a fair thing to ask.

Take a look at the whole speech.  He gave this speech about 2 weeks after the vote on the Iraq resolution – and yet nowhere in that speech do we see even a word about the vote, the resolution, nor does he decry those who voted for that resolution.

And let’s face it... he hasn’t done much since.  At least until he decided to run for president.

Now in that speech he said the following (which seemed to be pretty accurate back then)...

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.

In other words, this thing could have gone on for a looooooooooong time and cost us who knows how much in blood and treasure.  Again, a pretty justified assumption back then.  At any rate, that was then, this is now.  From his appearance on CNN this week...

It was not clear that President Bush was going to drag this out over several years.

Take a look at a clip from that CNN interview...

Hmmmmmmmmm... I’ll let that little bit of backpeddling speak for itself.

One more quote from that speech 5 years ago...

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

Yeah... until you get to the Senate and start voting to pay for those wars.

Since joining the Senate, he’s voted in lockstep with Hillary on Iraq to provide whatever funding was requested, so he must have known that (given the kind of money they were asking for and that it was being used to take in resources and build things that were going to be in Iraq for years to come) that we were going to be there for "several years".  Right?  I mean he is a pretty sharp guy after all.

Now for someone who’s so proud of that speech from 2002, he wasn’t so proud of it when he ran for the senate the next year.  APPARENTLY, he scrubbed any record of this speech from his campaign’s website during that senate race...

Source - In Search of the Real Barack Obama: Can a Black Senate Candidate Resist the DLC? Originally published in Black Commentator June 5, 2003.

Somebody else's brand of politics appears to have intruded on Obama's campaign. For a while the whole speech could be found on Obama's campaign web site, a key statement of principle for a serious US Senate candidate in an election season when the President's party threatens the world with permanent war and pre-emptive invasion, and cows US citizens with fear mongering, color coded alerts, secret detentions and the abrogation of constitutional liberties. Although Obama may have appeared at meetings of other citizens opposed to the war or let them use his name, no further public statements from the candidate on these important issues have appeared.

Then, a few weeks ago, Barack Obama's heartfelt statement of principled opposition to lawless militarism and the rule of fear was stricken without explanation from his campaign web site, and replaced with mild expressions of "anxiety".

A diary up on MyDD today called Where Was Obama?, by Artificial Intelligence notes that Obama also took a pass on several opportunities to jump on board the anti-war bandwagon once he got to the Senate.  He reminds us that since joining the Senate, Obama’s had ample opportunity to continue where his speech left off, and failed miserably in taking the lead in a cause he now claims as his own.  Take a look...

In his three years in the Senate he has kept his head safely below the parapet, leaving two congressional colleagues - Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Representative John Murtha of Pennsylvania - to spearhead opposition to the war on Capitol Hill. In 2006 he voted against a Senate resolution calling for the withdrawal of troops and has also voted to continue funding the war.

What jumped out at me here was the reference to Rep. John Murtha (D-Penn.). On November 17, 2005, Murtha made a statement to the press in which he called for the immediate redeployment of U.S. troops in Iraq and to bring the troops home.

Here was the perfect time for Sen. Obama to jump on board. He did not.

Almost immediately, swiftboating attacks were launched against Murtha by several of the same individuals involved in the 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). Again, this was the perfect time for Sen. Obama to jump on board, particularly since it was Sen. Kerry who had given him the opportunity to speak at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, a speech by the way which helped launch his own presidential campaign.

He’d just given the keynote speech at his party’s convention where John Kerry was officially chosen as our nominee for President, and he remained silent when the Swiftobaters attacked him relentlessly after the convention and right through to the November election.

All those opportunities to stand up for what he now says he’s believed in all along, and he took a pass each and every time.

He didn’t mention the war in Iraq (except for the speech 5 years ago) until he realized he could use this issue against his opponents in his bid to become our next president.  

I found some more interesting information on the FactHub guys - take a look...

Fact Check : Sen. Obama’s Iraq War Record
1/9/2008 2:50:08 PM

This morning, Sen. Barack Obama claimed that President Clinton "made several misleading statements about my record" on Iraq. Actually, everything President Clinton said was true:

It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he has been against the war every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time -- not once -- well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there is no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since.

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he didn’t know how he would have voted on the Iraq War resolution.

‘When asked about Senators Kerry and Edwards' votes on the Iraq war, Obama said, "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.’

In 2004, Sen. Obama also said there was little difference between his position and George Bush’s position on Iraq -

In a meeting with Chicago Tribune reporters at the Democratic National Convention, Obama said, "On Iraq, on paper, there's not as much difference, I think, between the Bush administration and a Kerry administration as there would have been a year ago. [...] There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." (Chicago Tribune, 07/27/04)

While running for Senate, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it "dated" -

Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because "the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips."

Finally, Sen. Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq -

In fact, Obama's Senate voting record on Iraq is nearly identical to Clinton's. Over the two years Obama has been in the Senate, the only Iraq-related vote on which they differed was the confirmation earlier this year of General George Casey to be Chief of Staff of the Army, which Obama voted for and Clinton voted against. (ABC News, 5/17/07)

Now for if you want to find a great point by point rebuttal of the rest of those ridiculous charges of racism which have been leveled against the Clintons, you might want to check out something just posted by Taylor Marsh, who does a great job of knocking this BS down.  She closes with the following...

The Obama campaign started playing the race card immediately after Obama lost New Hampshire with Jackson Jr., then upped the dialogue with Dyson, going further with the above press release. Playing the race card before South Carolina? It fits right in with the ugly politics that is regularly seen in that state every time the presidential primaries roll around.

So there you have it MSM... all tied up in a neat little package for you.  And you didn’t have to lift a finger.

Now if you don’t mind... I’ve got to go tuck my kids in and give them a kiss goodnight.  And feed the cat and throw in a load of laundry and unload the dishwasher...

But you keep your feet up on yer desk there and finish that 8th cup of coffee, ok?

Cross-posted at MyDD

Originally posted to Alegre on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:30 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Hear, hear! (25+ / 0-)
      It's just too bad the MSM doesn't listen when we ask them to stop shoving propaganda down our throats and start reporting the news for once.

      Get to know The Hillary I Know... And come see me at The Liberal OC! :-)

      by atdnext on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:50:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hit the REC Button OK? (20+ / 0-)

        I want to make sure this info gets out to as many folks as possible.

        Thanks!

        •  So let me get this straight. (26+ / 0-)
          1. Obama used better judgment than Hillary in 2002, but we won't talk about that in this diary.
          1. Since they've both been in the Senate, neither Obama nor Hillary has led on ending the war in Iraq.
          1. Unlike Edwards, Hillary's never acknowledged her vote in favor of the AUMF in 2002 was a mistake , but again we won't talk about that in this diary.

          So, why should I support Hillary over either Edwards or Obama if Iraq is the central issue for me?

          "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

          by machopicasso on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:05:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  how about (20+ / 0-)

            just getting a straight record?  If Iraq is the central issue for you, support who you think will get us out fastest and safest. they're all politicians.  But do remember that this is bush's war, even if Edwards co-wrote the authorization bill with Lieberman and wrote an embarrassing op ed promoting war. Hillary said at the time she was voting not to go to war but to give Bush the ammo he claimed he needed to make Saddam open his palaces. right up to bombing he also said Saddam could stop it by agreeing to go into exile. Guess what, he agreed and Bush bombed anyway. I'd suggest you vote for the Dem who gets the nom, all the Republics  want to stay there a hundred years, and all of ours say we're out of there.  Hillary was the first to jump on George Bush when he said he planned to keep permanent bases.  She said no occupation, no permanent bases, and then the others also said the same thing, I think.  

            •  Iraq is about more than what happens tomorrow. (9+ / 0-)

              If Iraq is the central issue for you, support who you think will get us out fastest and safest.

              Certainly, what measures are taken for ending the war are of extreme significance. But, unlike Republicans and most Hillary supporters, I also care about how we got into this mess. In October of 2002, I opposed the AUMF. So did both of my Senators. Unfortunately, both Hillary and Edwards thought it was OK to give the keys for war to the drunk driver in the White House. I thought that was horrible judgment. Edwards, at least, acknowledged it was a mistake. Hillary however appears to stand by that decision and still refuses to acknowledge her mistake from 2002, ostensibly because Mark Penn thought doing so would make her look weak.

              As I've always said, I'll support our nominee in the general. But Hillary used poor judgment on what is arguably the single most important vote of the past six years. In the absence of any acknowledgment of a mistake on her part, I'm not interested in giving her a pass on this issue, so long as there's a viable alternative.

              "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

              by machopicasso on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:27:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  We will never know how Obama would have.... (9+ / 0-)

                ..voted on the AUMF. We do know how he has voted on FUND for the war.

                "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

                by Bensdad on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:36:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  which is an entirely different question... (9+ / 0-)

                  given that we had already invaded Iraq and destroyed every entity that could have maintained its stability after our departure.

                  The conflation of these two issues is completely nonsensical.

                  For lack of any superior evidence, it's rather likely that he would have voted against the AUMF, given that at the time he was speaking out against it, those who supported it (i.e. Hillary) were talking up Saddam Hussein's Al Qaeda credentials.

                  •  No conflation.... (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Larry Bailey, cpresley, Lena, santh

                    ..he wasn't here to vote on the AUMF. We will never know how he would have voted. He spoke against it from a place of relative comfort.

                    "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

                    by Bensdad on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:59:23 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  that's why we need to look at (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      auapplemac, hestal, Larry Bailey, Lena

                      his entire record. From what i've seen he would have voted for it at the time, out of political expediency. but, i agree, none of them should have. but she's not the only one to blame, we're all to blame, those of us who didn't march to DC anyway and demand that bush resign.  Not that he would have, not that anything would have stopped him, but I'm guilty, and maybe you are too.  I was against it but sat on my butt.  I'll never forgive myself.  

                      •  Even Clinton doesn't question Obama's opposition (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Viceroy, Kimball, Unseen majority

                        to the war in 2002. If the video clip above is any indication, the best Bill Clinton can do is raise objections based on things Obama did in 2004. And presumably that's because, when it comes to who had better judgment in 2002, Bill knows he doesn't have a compelling argument.

                        "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

                        by machopicasso on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:35:39 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  he doesn't (0+ / 0-)

                          but that shouldn't stop of from thinking for ourselves and drawing our own conclusions about what motivates.  I was against the war, and I spoke out and it cost me nothing, and I paid nothing,  only our troops and Iraqi citizens and future generations who will pay for this a long time are paying anything.  

                      •  Don't feel guilty--marches made no difference... (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        anna shane

                        I was in massive marches in NY that got 2 paragraphs in section B of the NY Times. What if they gave a march and no one covered it...The massive marches around the world were duplicated here...it made no difference at all. Where media co-option was most obvious--that, and NO pictures of the carnage of the war on TV...there is a lack of reality to both...

                        OBAMA, HILLARY...aieeee, as TinTin would've said. Some days I want one, then the other. I think I'm leaning to Obama again. Both campaigns have said nasty crap or had their surrogates say it. Since Obama went out of his way to make a speech against the war way back when it was being declared, instead of just sitting back (when you were called unpatriotic for just saying I'm not sure...), I give him the benefit of the doubt about whether he'd've voted for it. And HRC hasn't apologized, fear of looking weak, but it worries me that this fear of looking weak will result in more hawkish shit than is necessary. Like Angela Merkel can't be as out there on this stuff as her predecessor was (Schmidt?).

                        This may be a serious conundrum for women leaders at this point in history...

                        I think both O and HRC have merit, but since the MSM got taught a lesson in NH (and I think they did...) my outrage over their double standards for HRC has lessened and I am remembering again what my most powerful issue is--peace, and lack of murderous imperialism--and who I think most likely to forward that.  I think domestically they'd be about the same...

                        Anyone else having this issue? I hate the cherrypicking of "your guy did this, but your gal did that" stuff. All are flawed because all are human and no one thinks exactly like me! (unflawed...)

                    •  all the evidence we have... (5+ / 0-)

                      speaks to him NOT voting for the AUMF. That trumps your speculation, and even the uncertainty of his stance outside the Senate trumps making the wrong decision.

                      •  The fact that Obama took no action to back up (0+ / 0-)

                        his current story means there is no action to take.  The fact is that there is no evidence to support his story, and the fact is that he took the speech, the only evidence of his brilliance, off his website, and the fact is that removal was no accident, and the fact is that his explanation for the removal of that speech is weak to the point of being bogus:  his "staff" wanted new stuff, well his "staff" could find plenty of disk space to store that speech and make it available to anyone who wanted to see it, and the fact is that if the speech is the real thing and contains indusputable evidence of Obama's prescient wisdom then he and his "staff" would naturally want it up and would have put a big headline link to it on their front page, and the fact is that if there was any real evidence of Obama's claim then you would have used it in your comment here instead of trumping speculation with nothing, and the fact is that I was stupid to believe Obama in the first place, and the fact is that because he is rookie and inexperienced I guess I instinctively thought that he had not yet been contaminated by the rules of the political game, and the fact is however that he is apparently a quick study, and the fact is that Bill Clinton did not say what he is accused of saying, and the fact is that Hillary did not say what she is accused of saying about MKL, and the fact is that something really stinks here.

                        If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

                        by hestal on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:50:04 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kimball

                    we blew up the Iraqi's nation. What else could you do but try and fix it afterwards? There were many democrats calling for this war? Sen Edwards co-sponsored the AUMF. Didnt Sen Clinton vote against the resolution that would require the president come back to Congress to get explicit authorization for war?

                    But you can attack someone who spoke out with what power he had? There are other senators who voted against the war, they havent been able to force the president to withdraw either.

                    Would Hillary support cutting funding of the troops and exiting in a Vietnam-style withdrawal? I dont think so.

                    I think saying anything different is a Republican Talking Point from Fox News.

                    by Unseen majority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:02:08 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  There are known knowns (0+ / 0-)

                    known unknowns, unknown unknowns, and then there are unkown knowns. The latter is the denial of the obvious. e.g. suggesting a vote to send our country to war and votes regarding the prosecution of the war, once engaged, are equal when they are clearly not.

                    Just ignore the known with a meme that contradicts the obvious over and over again until you think someone else believes it and you've fooled your self into thinking you've created an unkown known.

                    •  The votes are different but Obama passed up (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      flatford39

                      an opportunity to show real leadership, to differentiate himself from Hillary, but instead he followed her lead.  I guess he realized she could never criticize him if he did exactly what she did, well except for the vote on Casey, that certainly differentiated him from the pack.  So if we come down to the situation where Hillary and Obama were both wrong on the war then we have to see how well they each stood behind what the did.  Hillary has certainly done that but now it appears that Obama has tried to twist his record and then hide it.  I have had enough of the twisters for one lifetime.

                      If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

                      by hestal on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:54:33 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Wasn't Hillary talking about (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jw2008

              staying in Iraq another 10 years? I seem to remember that until she changed her tune in New Hampshire. There's no politician out there that flips and flops with the winds and the polls better than Hillary. Not even Mitt Romney. I don't why I should trust her to do anything. She's not in the race to help anybody. The Clintons want to hold onto power - pure and simple. And they're immersed in the politics of divisiveness and partisanship of the 90's. They have no ability to lead us into the future. They're so beholden to special interest groups, it's ridiculous. If you can't win on the strength of you own argument, then just tear Obama down. That's Clintonian, all right. The politics of personal destruction. Wow. Eight more years of that shit. I can hardly wait.

            •  Still pretending like that vote didn't matter? (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DelRPCV, flatford39, Viceroy, pathgirl

              To be honest, I'm not happy with Obama's performance in the Senate with respect to ending the war. And I've expressed my dissatisfaction to his campaign. But Hillary's performance hasn't been any better. And if one considers her recent position on Iran, combined with her unwillingness to acknowledge her mistake on the most important Senate vote of the past six years, Hillary just doesn't look like the most promising of the Democratic candidates.

              "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

              by machopicasso on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:16:28 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nobody, including Hillary said the vote (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                flatford39

                doesn't matter, what was said in this diary is that Obama has not been telling the whole story about his record.  Does that matter?  You bet it does.

                If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

                by hestal on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:56:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  How about not playing the race card. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            auapplemac, Larry Bailey, santh

            The Clintons have worked their butts off for over 30 years for the AA comunity. If this community is ready to throw him under the bus so quickly why should any other politican even try to reach out?

            •  How is this relevant to my comment? (0+ / 0-)

              I never claimed the Clintons are racist, nor do I think Bill's "fairytale" remark was of a racist nature. I do however think Hillary was wrong on Iraq, and I don't think she should get a free pass on that issue.

              "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

              by machopicasso on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:19:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nobody is giving her a free pass (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coral, Larry Bailey

                I am not giving Edwards a free pass nor am I giving Obama a free pass. I know some of you have heard this before but my son went to this god forsaken war. How about you machopicasso, can you give me the date where you put your child on the plane for war? I can. The first time was March 13, 2002, my husbands birthday. Fort Campbell KY. The second time was March 9, 2003, missed the birthday by 2 days this time. What dog do you have in this show and how dare you tell me who I can vote for on war votes?

                •  First things first. (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm very sorry your son was sent to fight this war. I opposed the war in 2002 so that things like that would not happen.

                  I care about Iraq because I care about my country; the lives and well-being of the soldiers who are there; the families who care for them from afar; the exorbitant waste of money which could have been used for so many better things; the list of reasons goes on and on. And I'll confess to caring about those who aren't part of my country; innocent Iraqis who've died since the first bombs were dropped.

                  The decision to go to war in the first place was monumental, and I think those most responsible should be held accountable.  Some of Hillary's supporters, including the author of this diary, seem willing to give her a pass on Hillary's responsibility for this state of affairs, and I object to that.

                  "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

                  by machopicasso on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:16:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So you accept Obama's claim about his (0+ / 0-)

                    record, but you don't accept Hillary's?  Obama said that he didn't know how he would have voted when Hillary voted to give Bush the authority, and she has explained why she did what she did.  But you choose now to reject her story and yet accept Obama's story which the diarist has shown to be bogus.  

                    If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

                    by hestal on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:58:38 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The diarist has not "shown" that. (0+ / 0-)

                      And I assume you're appealing to this statement? If so, you should acknowledge you're enlisting evidence from 2004. That was an election year in which the war was already well in progress and how one talked about the decision to go to war was itself politically significant for the potential success of our candidate. That's a significant difference, to my mind.

                      "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

                      by machopicasso on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:32:13 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

            •  Really true. They've worked hard and don't (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              auapplemac, Larry Bailey

              deserve this treatment.  

              But it's certainly not everyone, I'm glad to see.

              Same topic, different players:

              Olbermann is so much the opposite of Matthews.  He's been trying his best to tamp down crazy talk on this issue and the fact that nobody lied to pollsters.  Just straight showing of videotape and numbers.

              A few outsider MSM'ers are trying to keep things clean, and do their job but not many.    

              •  About the polling. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coral, Lena

                I don't understand why a person would lie in this particular instance.

                Let's see. I get a call and they ask me who I'm supporting in the Dem race. In NH there were several candidates to choose from.

                So I hate fact that there's an AF running. Why wouldn't I just name one of the other candidates. Why do I need to lie?

                Can someone explain why anyone would feel they needed to say they would vote for Obama when they really would never consider doing so? What's the rational?

                If the question was would I vote for an African American, then that's a different situation and I can understand someone lying.

                Dubya: often wrong, but never in doubt.

                by auapplemac on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:51:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Judis resoundingly refutes Bradley effect charge (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  auapplemac, Larry Bailey, Lena

                  Here's the link.

                  He makes a convincing argument that the reason the polls were off is that they underestimated the turnout by women. Models projected a 53-47% women-men turnout, but it was actually 57-43% women. And women, especially college-educated women voted heavily in favor of Clinton.

                  What bothers me about the charge of the Bradley effect, especially as argued by Kohut, is the assumption that lower-income, less-educated whites are voting along racial lines rather than voting pocket-book, kitchen-table issues. Obama has not made a compelling appeal on economic issues, especially to help the lower middle class.

                  "Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise." David Mamet

                  by coral on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:05:39 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Obama admits to being boneheaded in a real estate (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            flatford39, santh

            deal involving his house.  I'd say that goes to judgement.

            Winning without Delay.

            by ljm on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:22:51 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  How many people are dead as a result? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              DelRPCV

              Not all instances of bad judgment are on a par.

              "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

              by machopicasso on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:25:40 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  How many people have (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hestal

                died since he has been in the senate and could have voted different. This is becoming a copout.

                •  It's not a cop out. (0+ / 0-)

                  And I am dissatisfied with Obama's performance in the Senate with respect to Iraq; the same applies to Hillary.

                  But I also think it's harder to stop a war which is in progress than it is to prevent one from taking place. Understandably, people become invested emotionally in the sacrifices they've made, and they don't want to hear that those sacrifices were unnecessary. And still others don't wish to admit they're wrong about the decision to go to war in the first place.

                  "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

                  by machopicasso on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:33:54 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It is a cop out. Leadership means acting (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    flatford39

                    like a leader, which as far as I can tell, is Obama's only recommendation -- he claims he is a leader, but has not yet demonstrated any leadership.  How long will this story go?  A long time because the MSM wants conflict and they know that people will fall for charisma, they know people will be blinded by it.  It is exactly like being in love.  The objection of your affections can do no wrong.  

                    If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

                    by hestal on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:03:13 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Yes and no. (0+ / 0-)

                      I agree with you that Obama's performance in the Senate regarding Iraq has been unsatisfactory. But it's a false inference from that to the idea that Hillary is somehow better; she decidedly is not. From her vote in favor of the AUMF in 2002 to her vote on the Iran resolution in 2007, she has a substantive history of casting the wrong vote on matters of grave significance.

                      But there is a difference between 1) what one does in response to the prospect of war and 2) what one does once that war is underway. I may disagree with Obama (and Hillary) regarding the latter, but I can only agree with Obama on the former. Hillary's supporters continually seem willing to either conflate 1) and 2) or simply pretend like 1) didn't matter.

                      "You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound

                      by machopicasso on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:49:50 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

        •  I did that... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          flatford39

          .......... and i've moved Senator 'Hope' to Senator 'All Hat No Cattle'. Hope he and his 'followers' get the message.

          Choose Senator 'All Hat and No Cattle' in the primary and we're lookin' at 4 years of.....

          McCain/HuckaBee!

          After all why accept a 'Defeatocrat' substitute for the very manly real thing.

          'I'm writing as Nestor since scoop in it's awesome wisdom won't let me use my real screen name: A.Citizen'

          by Nestor Makhnow on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:24:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Bill spin is not information (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          onanyes

          it's nothing more than what the 'msm' scapegoat is accused of above.

        •  No, DON'T hit the button (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          dugjxn

          I've never seen so much skewed BS in my life. The Clintons are so divisive that they're turning this wonderful board into alienating, internecine warfare.

          First, stop saying that the Obama campaign is "playing the race card." Damn it all to hell! It burns my ass to hear that shit. We can't have a decent conversation about race in this country because then we're "playing the race card." How about "playing the little woman card?" We better not critize Hillary because we might hurt her feelings because, after all, she is "the little woman." Crap.

          Obama has been exceptional in his efforts to bring people of all backgrounds and political persuasions together - even Republicans. I know many people on this board would rather fight than heal. Some of us would rather heal the country and move into the future. How are we going to do that with the divisive, partisan, failed politics of the Clinton era? More lobbyists? More backroom deals? More saying one thing and doing another? More effort to determine just what the meaning of "is" is?

          Oh, and about the racism thing. I don't think anyone is saying that Bill or Hillary are racists because of one comment, however obnoxious. I don't think they're saying they are racist probably the way you mean it. No one thinks they ran out and secretly joined the KKK or the Aryan Nation. What's being said is that when the chips are down, they don't hesitate to stoop to playing with the undercurrent of racial fears and distrust in this country. The same shit that the Republicans have been doing for years. Remember Willie Horton? Remember "Harold, call me?" What people are saying is that there has been an overall tone that is arrogant, dismissive, insulting and very much employing "code" words over the past few weeks, once it looked like Obama might offer some real competition. It's not one thing - it's a collection of things. It's Bill and his use of "boy" or "kid" in referring to Obama. It's Hillary and her dismissing of MLK and all the thousands of people who put their lives on the line to effect civil rights in this country - giving the honor to LBJ (a racist jackass himself, truth be told) who was forced into signing legislation (created by congress, by the way). That is so insulting, it's beyone words to express.

          Then there are the Clinton surrogates who have been talking about "madrassas" and "Hussein" and "drug use" and "shuck and jive." The list goes on. So, it's not one thing, it's a whole bunch of things that are starting to stink up the joint.

          Plus, it's a right-wing Republican meme to claim that "hope" is a fairy tale, and it's "false hope." That's a way to stay in power and keep things the same. Make people believe there is no hope. I think they've been using that since the Eqyptian pharaohs. The Clintons aren't above using right wing memes when it suits them. Even the "vote for me or there'll be a mushroom cloud at your door" meme. And I never thought a Dem would stoop so low to use a Karl Rove meme. But Hillary managed to do it.

          I used to like and admire the Clintons. But the last few weeks have taught me a bitter lesson. The Democratic leadership is just as willing to pander to racial fears (and terrorism fears) as the Republicans, maybe more so. I won't vote for Hillary in the general election. Right now, I prefer John McCain or Mike Huckabee. I don't necessarily agree with them. But at least I know where they're coming from.

          Also, I thought we fought a war way back in 1776 to get rid of royalty. What's going on now? Are we going to have a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for the forseeable future? After Hillary, we'll have the other Bush brother. Then it will be time for the crown princes and princesses to run. Why don't we just have a coronation ceremony for the two families and be done with it?

          And no, I not a Republican from red state visiting this board. I've been a member since 2004. I'm the kind who walks into a voting booth, pulls the Democratic ticket lever, and walks out again. I've never voted Republican in my life. Til now.

          Just shows how bitterly betrayed I feel, not just by Clintons but by people like you, skewing the facts and supporting her just to show female solidarity. Willing to toss me under the bus at the first opportunity. Can't even describe just how disgusted I am.

          •  You're a great writer, and indifferent reader. (0+ / 0-)

            There is substance to the racism stuff, period.

            "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

            by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:59:50 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I mean, NO substance :) (0+ / 0-)

              It was such a brief idea that I made it too brief!  Good thing nobody's reading!

              "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

              by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:06:17 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks for the compliment (0+ / 0-)

                on my writing. I just happen to disagree about the use of racial memes by the Clintons and their surrogates. Perhaps "racism" is the wrong word as there are many definitions and we could argue about the correct definition for weeks. But I do feel that pandering to racial fears and anxieties is definitely part of the Clinton machine. So, in my opinon, they would do anything to win. And I'm beyond disappointed in them.

      •  Ridiculous (25+ / 1-)

        Once the war was underway it would have been irresponsible not to fund it and not funding it would put the men in uniform at risk.

        The fact remains - and a fact that no amount of Clinton half-truths can get around - that Obama opposed the war from the start while Hillary voted to authorize it.

        He showed the judgment that she never had.

        Obama didn't rip into the democrats who voted for the war because we had the 2004 election to worry about.  He backed Kerry/Edwards and wasn't going to undermine their candidacies.  That the context under which he stated that he didn't have all the information Kerry did.  Now, willing to do literally anything to secure the primary the Clintons are willing to throw him under the bus for supporting the previous democratic candidate for president.

        This is very similar to the way in which Clinton is willing to try to throw Obama under the bus ****for supporting planned parenthood and a woman's right to chose**** something she also believes in.  Still, she's willing to the present vote tactic of planned parenthood against Obama.

        Doesn't this make the Clinton supporters at least a little ashamed?

        It ought to.

        •  don't facts matter (6+ / 0-)

          can't we all interpret facts for ourselves? We're given the spin, what's so bad about looking at the records? I don't get it?  I've heard Hilary misrepresented on this blog, and when facts come out I don't hear apologies.  What gives?  This is a real record, it's, like, reporting....

          •  But how in the world is (12+ / 0-)

            Hillary's record better?

            She's trying to make the case that her record is just the same as Obama's when it comes to a lot of issues, including Iraq.

            On the other hand, she says, "Just look at my record" when saying she'd make a better president.

            What f'n record???  Seriously, she needs to tell us why her record is so impressive.  What, exactly, has she done that is so much more impressive than any other presidential candidate.

            What?

            And, no, she cannot claim Bill's accomplishments as her own.

            Honest to god, I'm sick of her talking about her experience.  What the hell has she done so much better than any other candidate.  What?  Name one thing.

            Sorry, this is a rant.  But I seriously want to know.

            •  No kidding (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              jw2008

              You could bet that if Biden and Dodd were frontrunners the "experience" meme would be way way back on the backburner.

              When the trout are lost, smash the state.

              by frankzappatista on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:12:55 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Name one thing? (6+ / 0-)

              How about being instrumental in providing health insurance for millions of children from low-income families?  SCHIP.

              "The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue," Kennedy told The Associated Press.

              President Clinton signed the bill in August 1997.

              While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial.

              "She wasn't a legislator, she didn't write the law, and she wasn't the president, so she didn't make the decisions," says Nick Littlefield, then a senior health adviser to Kennedy. "But we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."

              Did you really believe she was drinking tea and washing dishes for 8 years?

              •  1997 (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                DelRPCV, pathgirl

                You have to go back that far to show something she actually had a hand in influencing, even though she  wasn't the driving force behind it?

                And how effective would she have been in being crucial to getting this legislation singed into to law by the President if she hand't been married to the President?

                Seriously, what has she done lately?  Without the power of the Presidency behind her back?

                And, please, don't accuse me of being sexist.  I'm a 44 year old woman (no longer a law student, btw, but a praticing attorney) and I would never claim my husband's accomplishments or power/influence as my own.

                •  I don't have to go back that far (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coral, auapplemac, Lena

                  I just named one thing, as the commenter asked.

                  Here's something from 2006:

                  Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton today delivered remarks on the Senate floor announcing approval of an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization bill passed by the Senate today that will improve retirement and TRICARE benefits for National Guard members and Reservists. Senator Clinton authored the amendment with Senators Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), colleagues of Senator Clinton on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Today’s victory builds on Senator Clinton’s longstanding commitment to ensuring that members of our National Guard and Reserve and their families have access to the retirement and health care benefits they need and deserve.

                  If you want more, just ask.  Keep in mind, however, that Bush has been President for her entire Senate career.  Has he signed a single progressive bill?

              •  That's what Ted says now (0+ / 0-)

                He's very gracious.  But where are the contemporaneous statements when SCHIP was being passed about her role?  Back in the 90s, the commmon consensus was that Kennedy and Hatch had gotten this done.  If she was so instrumental, why didn't Bill go public with that information?  For that matter, where was she when it came up for reauthorization?

                I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

                by DelRPCV on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:50:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Ha! Where was she? (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  auapplemac, Lena

                  She was introducing the damn bill with John Dingell.

                  WASHINGTON, March 13 — Two of the most influential voices on health policy, Representative John D. Dingell and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, offered a bill Tuesday to expand the Children’s Health Insurance Program, as Democratic leaders in both houses said they would try to triple spending on the program over the next five years.

                  The bill will be the basis for House efforts to reshape the program, which expires Sept. 30, and will be a building block of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign platform. Mr. Dingell’s priorities are important because he is chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, which has authority over the program.

                  Any more questions?

                  •  That was in 2007 (0+ / 0-)

                    when she knew she was going to run for president.

                    Why wasn't she a cosponsor of this?

                    If she had been the driving force behind SCHIP back in 1997, rather than Senators Kerry and Hatch, you'd think she would have been all over that.

                    I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

                    by DelRPCV on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:46:13 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You must be joking. (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coral, auapplemac, Lena

                      She did cosponsor it.

                      Sen. Lincoln Chafee [R-RI]
                      Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
                      Sen. Orrin Hatch [R-UT]
                      Sen. Edward Kennedy [D-MA]
                      Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
                      Sen. Robert Torricelli [D-NJ]
                      Sen. Paul Wellstone [D-MN]

                      No other candidate compares to Clinton when it comes to children's health.  You clearly have no knowledge of the topic.

                      Where was she for reauthorization, you ask.  She sponsored it, I respond.

                      Why didn't she cosponsor the 2002 SCHIP bill, you ask.  She did, I respond.

                      Any more questions?

                      •  Don't you find it odd (0+ / 0-)

                        that as soon as she got into the Senate, she didn't get her name on the thing?  Considering that it's supposed to be the crowning achievement of her life?

                        I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

                        by DelRPCV on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:05:20 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

              •  No they don't believe that. They believe (0+ / 0-)

                she was making and serving the tea.

                If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

                by hestal on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:08:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Then talk about your candidates impressive record (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cpresley

              at his highschool yearbook.

              Unless, his record is short and doesn't jibe with anything he has said running for President.

            •  well universal healthcare (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coral, auapplemac

              You dont agree that she:

              1. advocated for universal healthcare when no one else was advocating it, not even nader to my best knowledge?

              Isnt that one of the holygrails of progressivism. and just for that they were both pounded as extreme liberals and we lost the majorityin congress in 1994.

              1. Did you not know what was well reported on, that she actually architected and did know a heck a lot of details of the healthcare policy including giving detailed congressional testimonies on the policies? does that no impress you then?

              virtually you can find no one who will tell you that she was a traditional first lady who didnt do policy. In fact the right wing was fuming that she was interfering in the presidency instead of doing the usual first lady things.

              Even today you can see her policy commands on various topics. Her years in the whitehouse sure gave her a command on policy apparatus.

              Now I will say this. There are more experienced candidates with executive experience than Hillary. Barak is certainly not one of them. But then again people dont give a chance to those more experienced candidates like Biden or Richardson. Thats just the way it is. and is a pity. But Hillary sure has way more command of running the white house and policy apparatus than Barack has.

              •  Her record is sealed (0+ / 0-)

                She failed to get universal health care passed and there is no evidence she did anything else besides travel with Chelsea and write "It Takes a Village".  

                •  inform yourself. I provide some help below (0+ / 0-)

                  here you go. Just read up the timeline and the formation of the taskforce and the activities that followed and her congressional testimony and other activities. If you are going to suggest that something failed and therefore somebody who worked on it doesnt deserve credit, then 99% of the population will lose credit for half the things they do. Because these kind of endeavors are inherently risky and enormous challenges. If you take failure into account, there isnt much at all that Obama has succeeded in any worthwhile progressive cause as big as universal health care.

                  Another thing you should note is that, the guts she even had in taking up the universal healthcare at a time when the conservatives very strong.

                  there are two pages. take a look at both. YOu may have to alter the link to point to page 2. I dont know how to get both pages in one link

                  Hillary's healthcare taskforce timeline and activities

                  It is sad that in your fervor for your candidate you would deny the Clintons (who have fought for some of the most progressive of causes) taking up with guts some of the holygrail of progressive causes such as universal healthcare, when no other democrat would touch it with a bargepole. But I guess revisiting is history is fairgame when you have messiahnic candidate

          •  No, it's spin. And bad spin. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            DelRPCV, Viceroy, Kimball, Unseen majority

            Voting to authorize a war (to get in) is a different vote from voting to defund a war or withdraw troops (to get out).  

            The reason for an "Exit Strategy" is that it is much easier to get INTO a war than it is to GET OUT of a war.

          •  You can interpret motives but not facts (0+ / 0-)

            Leave the fact interpretations to the Republicans. They have much more experience at distorting them anyway.

        •  So he had no principle like Murtha? Or Feingold? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coral, cpresley, Lena

          He just went along to get along?  That's why he said what he said at the convention? And what sort of judgment did he have since he wasn't in the Senate and had no access to what was being said or presented to Senators?  If my next door neighbor was against the war, does that qualify him as President?  Everything is about context.  We do know there were other members of Congress who took more principled stands.  Obama was not one of them.  So he has no business attacking Hillary for the exact positions that he took. That's called hypocrisy.  And I thought some of the change we were looking for was less hypocrisy.

        •  Holy Hell (4+ / 0-)

          Once the war was underway it would have been irresponsible not to fund it and not funding it would put the men in uniform at risk.

          Right Wing Talking Point #1

          And patent bullshit.

          I finally put in a signature!

          by Boris Godunov on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:54:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Calling out the RW talking point (0+ / 0-)

          Once the war was underway it would have been irresponsible not to fund it and not funding it would put the men in uniform at risk.

          It's like Apple and Microsoft. Without Apple, Microsoft wouldn't have anything to copy. Edwards is the idea factory. -demwords

          by Jiminy Cricket on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:42:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  TRed (0+ / 0-)

          for a right wing talking point that was old three years ago:

          Once the war was underway it would have been irresponsible not to fund it and not funding it would put the men in uniform at risk.

        •  I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, (0+ / 0-)

          but Hillary opposed the war, any war in fact, from the start.  But it would have been irresponsible for her to deny the president the authority he asked for in order to show the world that America was united.  Furthermore, even your hero, Obama, said that he was not privy to the intelligence reports at the time and therefore did not know how he would have voted, and you are privy to that data either.  So before you condemn Hillary you need to know all the facts and you don't.  But you accept Obama's weak reed that he opposed the war, hell, I opposed the war everybody I knew opposed the war, but we weren't seeing intelligence reports and we didn't have to vote on it.  

          The other thing you are ignoring is that Hillary said that if she had been President she would not have taken the nation to war.  I believe her.  Why don't you?

          If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

          by hestal on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:07:43 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks for all you do. (23+ / 0-)

      I am really amazed at the creativity with which they have twisted Bill Clinton's words.  

      Even if he referred to Obama's campaign, so what?? Obama's campaign is all about creating buzz, they aggressively ask people for their rallies, play the press, do so much to give the look of a movement.  Really?  What is this movement supposed to do? Compare with the past: Women's Right movement, Civil Rights Movement.  

      They say his movement is about 'change', a word so ambiguous and so bland anybody can make whatever they want of it.  I am sure a marketing person came up with that. Is this change about World Peace, or is it about changing drapes at the WH, or is it about spare change?  YOU choose.  Because, after all, the movement is all about YOU.  

      As Bill Clinton said, give me a break.

      Sometimes, a cackle is the best medicine!

      by ghost2 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:56:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They Never Offer Up Details on How They'll Change (13+ / 0-)

        anything here in DC.

        And sadly, the MSM never ask him for those details.

        •  It's almost like you don't listen to anything (10+ / 0-)

          Obama says.  Not that surprising really...

          •  So Enlighten Me Then (5+ / 0-)

            What's he saying about how he'll force everyone to get along and play nice here in DC?

            Oh I get it... he's got dirt on all the republicans right?

            /snark

            Sorry - Couldn't resist.

            Back to the issues - so how exactly will he bring about all that change then?

            •  the same way Bush got "bipartisan" support (6+ / 0-)

              from Democrats: by being so goddamn popular and making his enemies so afraid to oppose him that they stand down or get swept aside.

              Head to Heading Left, BlogTalkRadio's progressive radio site!

              by thereisnospoon on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:46:36 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  i think the idea (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority, Osiris, Settembrini

              is to appeal to moderate voters by not using harsh partisan language, which gets some of their votes in november.  many of those voters don't vote b/c they are disgusted with politics.
              that brings about a larger congressional majority.

              it is widely known that most ppl agree with the left on most issues.
              i think the idea is that by showing that you are not going to demonize opponents, and that you are willing to work across the aisle, moderates (not the tom delay types), will be more likely to support common sense reforms, like some global warming targets, or ethics reform, or SCHIP, or a better energy bill, or some steps toward universal health care.

              •  Well gee (7+ / 0-)

                that was Bill Clinton's whole schtick in his administration, trying to compromise and get along.  According to the Obamaites, that was selling out and triangulationg and making deals.  

                You cannot have it both ways.

                •  no it wasn't (6+ / 0-)

                  his schtick was to always run to the right, adopting R positions on issues.  that's called triangulating.
                  he was a centrist.
                  he encouraged kerry to support banning gay marriage.

                  obama isn't adopting R positions.  he's just using moderate language.  different approach.

                  fortunately, i think hillary isn't as much of a triangulating centrist as bill.

                  •  You believe your spin (4+ / 0-)

                    as much as you want.  It won't convince me.

                    Kissing up to the right is Obama's game...another uniter.  No thanks....been there, done that since 2000.

                    •  he kisses Lieberman too? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Alegre

                      What is LIeberman but a sore loser and a warmonger.  I'd like Obama to turn the love off there.  

                      •  You'd think you'd let that go (0+ / 0-)

                        Since Clinton also supported Lieberman in the primary (and Bill effectively killed his candidacy by telling Connecticut Democrats there was no difference between the two), and since Lamont maxed out to and endorsed . . . wait for it  . . . Obama.

                        With all the glass walls surrounding Clinton's background, you'd think you'd be more careful with those rocks.

                        I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

                        by DelRPCV on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:58:28 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                  •  Run To the Right? (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coral, Larry Bailey, cpresley, Uberbah

                    You mean the way Obama's used right wing talking points on social security?

                    Or in the way he's stopped short of proposing universal healthcare and then attacking those who do for pointing out his shortcoming?

                    Or the way he's gone after Pual Krugman for pointing out that failure?

                    Or the way he's attacked labor unions and EMILY's List as "special interests from DC"?

                    Or the way he totally dissed Al Gore and John Kerry (????) for losing their respective elections (they did't by the way).

                    Come off it - if anyone's running to the right it's Obama.

                    •  Uh, did you see what Moody's did today? (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DelRPCV, jw2008

                      Threatening to downgrade the US on social security underfunding?

                      It's not a right-wing talking point.  Hillary admits that there is an actuarial deficit which now might have real-world consequences.

                      •  there is a lot wrong with our economy (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coral, ljm
                        the dollar is sinking, we're in debt to the chinese up to our eyeballs and moddy is blaming it on social security? It's not underfunded, it hasn't been put into Gore's 'lockbox' they're borrowing on it, it's just IOU's, but it is not underfunded.  And enough money is coming in to cover us for the next thirty years.  Someone needs to pay it back, not just up our payments so they can borrow more.  
                      •  It's not about SS that is causing the dollar (0+ / 0-)

                        to lose it's triple AAA rating.  It's our inability to save money as Americans and relying on so much foreign debt.  They are concerned the dollar could become a fiat currency, which is to say it's not worth the paper it's printed on and that's not at all the fault of social security.  There was something like $4 trillion in SS trust fund when Clinton left office.  Guess who raided it?  It went to pay for tax cuts for the rich and Bush's crazy wars.  You can scream about the situation, but you can't blame it on social security.

                        Winning without Delay.

                        by ljm on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:28:01 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Moody's blames it on Social Security & Medicare (0+ / 0-)

                          Do you understand the significance of Moody's opinion when it comes to our credit rating as a nation?!?

                          Maybe Moody's is wrong.   Maybe you are right.  It doesn't matter at this point.  If Moody's thinks the problem is Social Security and Medicare, well, those are "real" problems because if our credit rating drops...  well, you've seen what happened in the subprime market!

                          But feel free to write Moody's a letter explaining why you are right and they are wrong.  I'm sure their economists will take it under consideration.

                    •  Nope (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bawbie, dadafountain

                      No right wing talking points on SS - shouldn't have brought it up at all, but he said the program was great and just needed a few tweaks to remain solvent for the next 50 years.  He is and always has been firmly against privatization, which is the real right wing talking point.

                      His healthcare plan isn't corporate welfare for the insurance industry.  Any "attacks" were simply quoting Krugman's positive words back to him. I think Krugman can handle it.  He's recently said that he's content with Obama's approach, by the way.

                      He's criticized interest groups in instances where their conduct was probably illegal.  Do you defend illegal behavior?

                      Yeah, right.  He dissed Kerry so badly the guy wound up endorsing him.  Are you happy with how the 2000 and 2004 elections played out?  Do you think those campaigns were perfect?  Do you think it's a winning strategy to go into DC with a bare majority and no mandate?  Do you want to go back to the days of campaigning in six states?

                      If anyone's running to the right, it's Cluster Bomb Clinton, the single largest recipient of lobbyist money of anyone in this race, and the most hawkish Democrat.

                      I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

                      by DelRPCV on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:06:53 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Jesus Christ (0+ / 0-)

                      it's like you just published a greatest hits of stupid ass Obama smear diaries you've posted over the last 6 months that have all been thoroughly debunked.

                  •  And what is Obama doing? (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coral

                    SS Crisis, right wing talking point. Mandated isurance bad, right wing talking point.

              •  Didn't Work in NH (8+ / 0-)

                Obama only got about one-third of the unaffiliated voters who partook of the Demcratic slice of the pie.

                That means two-thirds of the unaffiliateds were split among the rest of the Democratic field, of whom Hillary Clinton got the bulk.

                Oh, and Dems overwhelmingly voted for her.  They know a Democrat when they see one.  They don't want an Appeaser in the White House; the want a Fighter.

                And so do I.

                They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

                by Limelite on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:09:21 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  worked in IL, worked in IA, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DelRPCV, TrueBlueMajority

                  it was working in NH until the sexism from the media.

                •  no, a chunk of the unaffiliated (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  auapplemac

                  voted for McCain.

                  Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                  IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

                  by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:21:13 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Reading Comprehension Not Your Forte? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    auapplemac, santh

                    It says the unaffiliateds who voted in the Dem primary.

                    If you do the NH math you will see that Sen. Obama, the so-called "basin of attraction for the Independents," only garnered about 14% of the total unaffiliated vote.  Not so hot for a "darling," now is it?  14% of Indies wouldn't amount to a hill of husks in the GE.

                    If I recall correctly the Indy vote split Dem/Repub by a margin of 10-15 pts. more to the Repub.  65-35, I believe.  Someone help me on this?

                    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

                    by Limelite on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:00:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  you might want to hold off on the snippy comments (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      bawbie

                      when you are so clearly wrong on the facts.

                      I admit I misinterpreted what you meant by "two-thirds of the unaffiliateds were split among the rest of the Democratic field, of whom Hillary Clinton got the bulk."

                      however, now that you have clarified for me what you did mean, your numbers are still wrong, according to the CNN exit poll.

                      44% of the people who voted in the Dem primary called themselves independent.

                      of that group, 41% went to Obama, 31% went to Hillary, 18% to Edwards and the rest split among the other Ds.

                      You state that Obama got 33% of the independent voters who voted in the Dem primary.  Your number is low, since the real number was 41%.  You also state that HRC got "the bulk" of the remaining 2/3 (which one might interpret to mean more than 1/3 if your original Obama number had been correct, which it wasn't) but that number is high, since the real number was 31%.  31% is not a third of the total Dem/independent vote.  it is just about half of the Dem/independent vote that did not go to Obama.

                      as for the Republican side:

                      34% of the people who voted in the R primary called themselves independent.

                      of that group, 38% went to Mc Cain, 30% went to Romney, and the rest split among the other Rs.

                      since more people voted in the Dem primary than in the R primary, Obama got more independent votes than any other candidate.  And I want the nominee who can draw the most votes from that pool in a close general election.

                      If my math/statistical interpretation is in error, I'm sure you'll correct me.

                      Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                      IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

                      by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:47:54 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  If how you're stating the numbers are (0+ / 0-)

                        accurate:

                        44% of the people who voted in the Dem primary called themselves independent.

                        That does not mean that the Dems got 44% of the entire Independent vote. It just means of all those who voted D, 44% were I.

                        I don't know the whole universe of Independent voters, but I've read that McCann got a big chunk of them. More went Republican than Dem.

                        Is this a wrong interpretation of the numbers?

                        Dubya: often wrong, but never in doubt.

                        by auapplemac on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:19:45 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  you are partly right (0+ / 0-)

                          the total number of people who voted D is greater than the total number who voted R.

                          44% of all those who voted D were independent.

                          34% of all those who voted R were independent.

                          44% of all those who voted D is a larger number than

                          34% of all those who voted R.

                          Obama got 41 percent of the 44% who voted D.

                          McCain got 38 percent of the 34% who voted R.

                          Obama got more independent votes than any other candidate.

                          I don't see any other way to calculate it, but I got very little sleep last night so if someone wants to enlighten me, please be my guest.

                          Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                          IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

                          by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:35:50 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  how does that change anything? (6+ / 0-)

                After the election is over, you mean the republican base will suddenly allow their legislators to compromise in the senate, if democrats dont have 60 votes. Even if the democrats do have 60 votes in the senate, you mean all the bluedog democrats who are afraid to take even moderately liberal positions with a fairly liberal Nancy Pelosi as our speaker, will suddenly cower before Obama and start taking those positions?

                Look, answer these:

                1. what specifically will obama change to get republican legislators (not just get repub votes in the election time for him to get elected) to work with him that hasnt been tried before, without compromising on the progressive positions?
                1. Why is this a fresh/new thing or a good thing when Obama says it, while we rejected the same platform from Joe Leiberman 4 years ago when he ran for president calling for unity and bipartisanship. Many here called it a sell out. WHy is this a virtue now?
                1. Even if Obama manages to charm repub legislators and blue dog dems, you think the repub base and conservative voters in their districts will suddenly go, OK since the messiah says that we should all change our positions on abortion, taxes, immigration, we will change starting today?

                This is what Bill clinton was calling a fairy tale. I have to agree. Obama makes a great speech on these things and it is truly inspiring to hear the guy. BUt how does he plan to achieve sudden unity, when we have had partisanship for about 100 years or more. If you want us to believe he can fly when no other humans can, you have to produce some evidence he has the wings or apparatus to fly.

                •  R base is less powerful than it used to be (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority

                  and constituents aren't just members of the base.  if the R base was so powerful, senators like specter, collins, snowe, voinovich, jeffords, chaffee, etc, never would have been elected.

                  if we see the same turnout that we saw in IA and NH, the D majority will be bigger.
                  in the house, it's not as important, b/c a simple majority wins.
                  if obama gets elected, the media will go on and on about how ppl want an end to partisan trench warfare, and want some action on the big issues.
                  some R's did in fact support SCHIP before it was vetoed.

                  1. i expect it would just have to be public pressure.  the best way to beat the R's is to threaten their reelection.  maybe that works, maybe it doesn't.  W got quite a bit through with a very small majority.  reagan got what he wanted from a D congress.
                  1. lieberman is much farther to the right than obama.  lieberman's idea of bipartisanship is moving to the right, not trying to move the center to the left.
                  1. who cares about the R base?  i already said you can't work with the tom delay types.

                  don't confuse working majority with universal agreement.

                  bill clinton, himself a lieberman D, was calling obama's position on the war a fairy tale, and being deceitful in doing so.

                  PS: you should stop using BS language like messiah, believing he can fly, etc.  no one is saying that.

                  •  false premise (0+ / 0-)

                    The R base is powerful enough in districts dominated by them. Unless you correct the gerrymandering that happened in all those years, they have a ton of districts. On top of that, forget R base, what about blue dog democrats, the ones you get your D majority with. You think they will stop being afraid, if they couldnt be bold after the landslide democratic vitory and the clarion call from the people for ending Iraq War? You are quoting senators in moderate districts or constituencies. With those in play we still cant get our own blue dogs to side with us. Obama will change that just like that, because TV will keep repeating his message? come on, this is not specifics. this is leap of faith.

                    In addition, if we do have a larger D majority, and our president can actually force Rs and blue dogs to with him/her, what stops hillary or edwards from doing that? How is obama the only one capable of doing that then? Again plain leap of faith to suggest obama is only one who can get bipartisanship under those conditions.

                    Also, if I grant you every leap of faith that you want here, how are the basic positions on abortion, immigration, taxes, education, healthcare on and on suddenly get reconciled after 100 years of disagreement on these between conservatives, moderates and liberals? Just because obama says "we are one america and not blue states and red states" I have actully heard a dozen candidates running for office say the same thing. Heck, Bill clinton said that in so many words when he was running. How did that change the country. Things got worse after universal healthcare from hillary and republicans pounded clintons as extreme liberals and we lost the majority in 1994. So pls be specific on how these problems get resolved when obama gets elected

                    •  in those districts (0+ / 0-)

                      where the R base is so powerful, you can't really expect much.

                      blue dogs are not against improvements in health care or environmental laws, or ethics reform, etc.  they should have less power anyway, since D's will probably pick up seats in the fall.

                      i never said obama would be the only 1 who could use bipartisanship this way.  you shouldn't put words in my mouth.
                      hillary would have a harder time b/c the R's are consumed with a bizarre hatred for her.  media are biased against her also.  edwards' fiery rhetoric may be polarizing.

                      there is almost agreement on many of those issues.  the kennedy-mccain bill will probably be the basis of an immigration deal.
                      the boxer-sanders bill or mccain-liberman bill will probably be the basis for some global warming act.
                      abortion will be left to SCOTUS.
                      health care is the big one.  D's have been trying that since 1948.  in polls, most R voters support an expansion of health care, but it will be very hard to get through.

                      none of the points you are raising are candidate specific.  whoever is prez will have to deal with them.  they are leaps of faith for HRC or JRE as much as BHO.
                      how would HRC or edwards get anything done?

                      •  so what changes then? (0+ / 0-)

                        Im not disputing your last point that these issues are the same for all presidents. Question is obama says he is going to change washington. how so? thats what is not clear.

                        For how hillary or edwards can do, see my reply above. Do what Bill C did. find common ground and work on it in a bipartisan way. Now that  may not get the progressive positions that we want. But that is doable. we may need to compromise. If obama achieves more than that by getting all our desired progressive positions, somehow by preaching bipartisanship to republicans and blue dogs, then that would be change. This is what we need to hear how he will do, if this is indeed what he claims he will do. Otherwise we know how to do the above type of bipartisanship in a partisan world. Obama cant claim credit for that .

                        •  well (0+ / 0-)

                          populista has a few diaries about obama's record and proposals on changing washington.  very substantive.
                          i think obama has the best record of the candidates on ethics, transparency and campaign finance reform.
                          very important issue to me, b/c money corrupts the ability to get the big issues solved.  if not for various lobbies, the clintons would have enacted universal health care long ago.

                          the other main reason i prefer obama is b/c he has broader appeal and will probably bring in a larger congressional majority.
                          i think too much emphasis is placed on the prez, especially since the differences on issues aren't very big.  realistically, it will be almost the entire D party working on solutions.

                          •  I will continue looking for how he will change (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            auapplemac

                            Sure, if somebody knows how he will do it, I will take a look at it. I havent seen one yet. But I certainly will continue looking for that critical answer. Otherwise it is hard to fathom how he will change washington.

                          •  one person (0+ / 0-)

                            doesn't change washington.  it's a team effort.

                          •  how does that address my question (0+ / 0-)
                            1. the question really is what that change is not how many people need to change it.
                            1. besides I heard obama in a campaign stump speech, that he wants to go to washington and change washington. He didnt say it requires all sorts of other people to change it. He says he will be the guy that changes and others are establishment. Guess when if he wants others to help him, heck when he gets there they are all establishment, unless he can influence the congressional races the country and elect brand new senators and congressman. If he intends that, he needs to tell us how he achieves that.
                      •  Actually HRC knows how to work across the isle (0+ / 0-)

                        She has done it during her terms in the Senate.

                        She also has more experience and probably knowledge garnered by her years in the White House and in the Senate on the ins and outs of getting legislation passed. Hopefully she learned a lot from her trying to get health care passed as First Lady.

                        She may even know where a few "bodies are buried" not unlike LBJ.

                        Dubya: often wrong, but never in doubt.

                        by auapplemac on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:26:23 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                •  Well if Republicans won't cooperate (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority

                  with a hypothetical Obama administration, how exactly are Hillary and Edwards planning on accomplishing anything?

                  This is the question their supporters never seem equipped to answer.

                  "They'll fight."  What does that mean exactly?  Talk about mindless platitudes.

                  •  the way bill clinton did (0+ / 0-)

                    find areas where you have common ground and at least do something about those. But Obama cant claim credit for that. Since we already know how to do that in a partisan environment, without any revolutionary changes that Obama is claiming. If Obama is saying that he is going to do what Bill C did to get legislations passed, then fine. that is not change of any kind. It is his big get us out of partisan politics of today claim that needs to be substantiated.

                    •  You're kidding, right? (0+ / 0-)

                      Obama was famous in Illinois for being able to form alliances with sympathetic Republicans to get his legislation passed.

                      One of them was even featured in an Obama campaign ad.

                      The first ad focuses on Obama’s decision to turn down lucrative offers from law firms after graduating from Harvard Law. Instead, he moved to Chicago to work as a civil rights attorney. The second focuses on his work in the Illinois state Senate. Both ads feature Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe and Republican Illinois state Sen. Kirk Dillard.

                      "Senator Obama worked on some of the deepest issues we had and was successful in a bipartisan way," Dillard says in the second ad.

                      State Sen. Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale), a friend of Obama's from his days in Springfield, tells viewers that Obama was respected on both sides of the political aisle during his time in the Illinois General Assembly.

                      "His negotiation skills and an ability to understand both sides would serve the country very well," he says in one of two advertisements Obama's campaign will start airing statewide on Tuesday in Iowa.

                      "Spoken like a true smartass."

                      by ChiGirl88 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:39:49 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  what has that got to do with my question? (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        auapplemac

                        Forming alliances is not something barak invented like I said earlier. Bill C has done that. so has hillary and a whole lot of others in the senate and congress. That happens with compromise on both progressive and conservative positions. It happens in the state and at federal level as well. That is not new or change. The question how do you form alliances with repubs and blue dogs in conservative districts on progressive policies without compromising on the progressive side of things? If Obama has a solution to this then that would be change. otherwise it is the bipartisanship we already know and which happens on a whole lot of bills. If you go dig into the health bill he did in Illinois with repubs and insurance lobbyists, he watered down the health bill so they can get passable compromise bill. That is nothing new and nor is it change. Many Many have done that been there. Obama cant claim credit for that or cite that as change. He has to be able to move repubs and blue dogs to more progressive positions, in order to claim he can change washington. Otherwise the compromise bipartisanship is not news.

                  •  Republicans (0+ / 0-)

                    with a hypothetical Obama administration, how exactly are Hillary and Edwards planning on accomplishing anything?

                    Force the issue, and if it doesn't pass, make the next election about tossing out the dead wood Republicans who put corporations and the GOP before the American people and push them into an even smaller minority.  Rinse, wash, repeat.

              •  yes (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coral, Alegre, cpresley

                I thought that too, but then the hate against Hillary and misrepresenting her comes out, from his supporters but not from him personally, and I start to wonder, can this work if it doesn't sink in with his own supporters?  

                •  this is a very partisan website (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  jw2008

                  of course ppl are going to be hyper-partisan and dishonest.
                  obama basically publically repudiated it for that reason.

                  hillary is unpopular b/c she supports the war, and b/c the clintons are DLC.

                  •  bizarre (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    cpresley

                    she supports the war, news to Obama, he says they're on the same page, and the only difference is that he won't make personal enemies and he's a pleasant fellow. He's pretty pleasant, I think.  But he says they're the same on most of the issues, including the war.  

                  •  Obama repudiated the Dkos? (0+ / 0-)

                    I didn't know that. Elaborate please.

                    'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

                    by Psychotronicman on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:36:05 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Wouldn't you? This site is a Joke. (0+ / 0-)

                      8 Edwards recommended diaries a day.  Hillary trolls roaming about.  No correlation between DKOS support and real world support.  Now, DKos supports Romney.

                      This site jumped the shark a WHILE ago.

                    •  Obama has 2 posts (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      DelRPCV, anna shane, Psychotronicman

                      Search BarackObama username to read.  I think its up to interpretation whether he "repudiated" Dkos or politiely, thoughtfully, and articulately disagreed on certain issues/tactics.  I encourage you to read his diaries and judge for yourself.

                      •  yes (0+ / 0-)

                        think for yourself. and, for some, read this diary before you call it partisan.  

                      •  obama was very polite and thoughtful (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        DelRPCV

                        he voted the right way, but defended other D's who didn't, and was harshly attacked for it.

                        he doesn't seem to like the viciousness of this site.  so he said he didn't like it and didn't come back.
                        i don't blame him.

                        •  I just finished the Barak Post about dkos (0+ / 0-)

                          Interesting and well-said but I'll admit I don't agree with him. I think it is good for Democracy to have heated debate. I doubt our founding fathers would have outlawed dueling on the senate floor if they could see these idiots now. I want people to disagree with me vehemently.

                          Why? Because their passion is what gives me pause to hear them over the din of the madding crowd. And listening is what changes perceptions.

                          'I don't want any commies in my car. Christians either!' Repo Man

                          by Psychotronicman on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:13:45 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

              •  That's it they "think" it's "the idea" -- they (0+ / 0-)

                "believe in" their candidate (like magic) and they have a lot of "hope."

                This is the dustcloud you can look into, squint, and see whatever you really, really want to see.

                --and with audio they wet themselves.

            •  Enlighten you?? (8+ / 0-)

              People have been attempting that for several weeks now. You IGNORE what you don't want to read.

              You know what's really great - that you think you get to tell people what they can and can't be offended by.

              Newsflash: If people are offended by MLK comments, or fairy tale comments, and we're talking a large group here - I'm hardly alone...then contrary to your desire and opinion, they're "allowed" to be offended and there's not a goddamned thing you can do about that.

              I'm a hopemonger.

              by Elise on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:02:15 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  But then don't claim he is a uniter (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coral, cpresley

                Because playing  the victim when you are not a victim
                and spinning perfectly reasonable comments into some race baiting is vile.  It is following a right wing playbook.  And if that is the only way Obama can beat Hillary in the primaries...to deliberately misrepresent legitimate criticism...then any victory  attained is tainted.  Most importantly, this behavior belies the change narrative, belies the new politics narrative...and falsifies the evidence..to say nothing of the long term damage it does to the Democratic Party.  For what?  Because a state senator from Illinois, with no significant accomplishments and a history of avoiding a vote on tough issues...decides he should be the first African American President?  Is yelling race race race often enough all it takes to silence your critics and avoid scutiny and vetting?   And you call that progressive?

                Clearly, since the campaign is all about the cult of Obama rather than the record of Obama, what happens to the Democratic Party is of little consequence to Obama's supporters.  To imply either of the Clintons is racist, given their records, is disgusting, disingenuous, and despicable...And it says more about Obama and the type of campaign he is running...than anything else. And if the Democratic party is fractured along these lines, there will be no policy to implement because Rethugs will control the White House again.  

                •  Never said he was a Uniter. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority, Elise

                  He knows how to work with the other side, cajole them to our side.  He's not the kumbaya candidate.

                  •  Says Kumbayer who knows he claims 2 B "a healer" (0+ / 0-)

                    He says he's a uniter alright, substituting the weird culty language of "healing."

                    It's gauzy speak in a year of magical thinking.

                    •  Healing? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      dadafountain

                      He doesn't say that either.

                      He's the exact opposite of a magical thinker.  You should listen to his speeches sometime - he admits that talking isn't how to get it done, you have to organize.  It's the Alinksy way of effecting social change.  

                      To fight organized money you need organized people.   To organize a movement, we need an inspirational leader who understands how to empower organized groups of people.  Obama has a very practical plan to do this.

              •  did you read this diary? (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TrueBlueMajority, Alegre, cpresley

                the fairy tale is made up, fake, meant to discredit Bill in the eyes of African Americans, who thankfully are least vulnerable to manipulation.  I think anyone compared to MLK, white or black, would simply be honored.  It took both MLK and LBJ to pass civil rights legislation and the party you're so dismissive of sunk it's own ship with it, we were out of power until Bill Clinton, and ever since.  Don't know much about history?  

              •  Yeah and this from someone who said that (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Alegre, cpresley, santh

                so many in New Hampshire were so fed up with Hillary.  I guess not enough ;-).  Bring it on in South Carolina! Rasmussen has her 10% behind, so I smell a 3-point victory ;-)

                I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

                by Norwegian Chef on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:40:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Not Quite Elise (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coral, cpresley, santh

                I may have missed a few posts but for the most part, any time I post questions like these I get nothing but abuse from your fellow supporters here.

                Look around.  The few people who've attempted to actually address the questions I've raised have had their points refuted right left & center tonight.

                No - people have offered up few if any facts or answers here and the MSM have been just as silent in their job of asking questions themselves.

                Dammit it shouldn't take some office rat in MD to ask these questions - get them out there.  We've got thousands of people working for news organizations around this country and yet here I am - one of the few who's actually demanding answers.

                I'm sick of the silence and the personal attacks.  It's time for some answers.

              •  And If I'm Offended at the Way Bill's Words Were (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coral, cpresley, Uberbah

                distored and twisted - I HAVE THE RIGHT to express that here.

                Nobody's forcing you to read this btw.

              •  Your right their isn't a damn thing (0+ / 0-)

                we can do about it. Keep playing the race card Elise and it might get you SC but it is going to blow up on you in the rest of the country. I have fought against the racial bullshit my whole life, but if you are going to tell me that if I don't like what Obama is saying or stands for that I am a racist than you can go to hell.

                •  Somebody didn't read what I said. (0+ / 0-)

                  but if you are going to tell me that if I don't like what Obama is saying or stands for that I am a racist than you can go to hell.

                  Go show me where I said that.

                  oops. You can't. I didn't say that. Try reading it again...and if you can't get anything else out of it - come back and read it after you've cooled off.

                  And suggesting that my being offended by racist remarks is some trick to win South Carolina - well that's just fucking sick. I have been fighting against racism as long as I've been at DKos. You can go through my comment history and see it.

                  I'm a hopemonger.

                  by Elise on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:34:59 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The tried and true dKos formula here: (0+ / 0-)
                    1. Take a pimple,
                    1. blow it up into a volcano,
                    1. so you can feign outrage,
                    1. to justify an attack.

                    I suggest that you are actually perpetuating racism for partisan interests wether you're aware of it or not. Alot of progress has been made to overcome it, and it wasn't accomplished by promoting the idea that black people are thin skinned and we must therefore learn to walk on eggs in their presence.

                    I think a better idea is for people to grow up, get over their pettiness, and join the human race, or find a cave to live in.

                    •  You don't overcome racism by sweeping it (0+ / 0-)
                      under a rug and pretending that it isn't happening right in front of you. You shine a light on it and attempt to make people realize their problem with racism - whatever it is. And you help them change it or stop doing it. And if they won't stop...well, then they aren't worth talking to.

                      I'm a hopemonger.

                      by Elise on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:31:54 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I repeat that to take a pimple (0+ / 0-)

                        and blow it inot a volcano is counter productive and actually promotes racism, or any other problem you're trying to rectify. You strike me as being either too wrapped up in your causes to think clearly/rationally, or too partisan to care. I don't buy it.

            •  Anything is better than DLC-style capitulation. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Settembrini

              The "third-way" didn't work at all, the results of which are currently cowering as a "majority" in the Capitol building.

              I do not trust Hillary Clinton.

              by The Dead Man on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:23:43 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I *do* listen (4+ / 0-)

            I'll probably vote for Obama in the New Jersey primary. But Alegre's right. His speeches are getting more and more vacuous. If I were to judge only on recent speeches, without reference to Obama's past record and positions that don't make it into his stump speech, he'd be my thrid choice.

            Lobbyists are just the piano players in the whorehouse; you could abolish them and the girls upstairs would still be doing business.--al Fubar -6.50 -5.69

            by Dvd Avins on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:33:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's Hard To Bring on Specifics (5+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coral, Bensdad, Alegre, cpresley, santh

              when your generalities are so amorphous.

              Give me a Democrat with a solid Decocrat's platform, where every plank is firm and who drives them home with straight and true nails of detail.

              I've been to all the candidates' websites.  What a distinct and telling difference can be found on their policy pages.

              No contest.  Clinton's is head and shoulders above the others'.

              They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

              by Limelite on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:12:37 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  There are speeches and speeches (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority

              stump speeches, professional speeches, political speeches etc.

              Looks as if you just heard the stump speeches of Obama and it's clear that after you have heard those more than twice, you don't want to hear them anymore.

              But whose fault is it that the candidates have to campaign in the way they do, city hopping and jump speeching all over the map like an energizer bunny.
              It's a cruel and unreasonable way to campaign to me.

              The first thing I want the next democratic President to do, is changing the electoral college, campaign finance laws and the primary process.

              •  she gets specific (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coral, Dvd Avins, Alegre, cpresley

                and now, thanks to being behind, she's taken the chance of being herself, not hiding her femininity and taking questions until the audience runs out of them. That's the good thing that came out of all of this, she was trying to look so tough to keep Americans from fearing a wussy girl president that she wasn't herself in public. Now she is, and she's better than ever. So, thanks for that.  I've heard Obama suggest he'll get specific too, now that he's in a closer race.  That's great, I'll be waiting to hear from him.  

                •  oh well, I don't think so at all, but (0+ / 0-)

                  I really have no appetite at all to get into a she is better than he kind of discussion.

                  See, bottom line, I am not really impressed by both of their platforms as of yet, but one I feel is the lesser worse platform ... if that helps.

                  Bottom line, I don't want to vote for Bill Clinton again, that's my problem.

                  •  Neither do I. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coral, santh

                    I think Hillary would be a MUCH better president than Bill.  

                    I'd rather vote for a candidate who doesn't get tongue baths from Chris Matthews.

                    by SaneSoutherner on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:18:36 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  no, her national security platform makes me sick (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Dvd Avins, jw2008

                      and will anger lots of people around the world. She isn't better, she is more dangerous than Bill. And if she seems to be on the losing end, Bill will show his not so nice sides as well.

                      •  Bill wasn't dangerous (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coral

                        he knew how to end at least one genocide and prosecute a war without casualties, and get rid of a dictator without the lives of 3,000 Americans.  

                        Read up, Bill's kind of popular around the world and foreign policy record was spectacular.  Ask Ireland.

                        •  Bill was an absolute COWARD on genocide (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Dvd Avins

                          Dragged his feet on Bosnia. Sat there and let Rwanda happen because Bush Sr. had made things seem SO HARD in Somalia, boo hoo. Only managed to prevent Kosovo because it was Milosevic going at it AGAIN after he'd finally been goaded into action. I'm a yellow-dog democrat and Bob Dole put him to shame on this.

                          AND the way he treated Bosnia, preventing weapons shipments from getting in, strengthened radical Islamist groups since the only people with weapons already were the Serb army who used them to commit genocide. Bosnian Muslims turned to the people who would smuggle them through: Al-Qaeda and the like.

                          He gets some credit for finally doing something after Srebrenica, and for being smart enough to realize the "fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me" effect when Milosevic wanted to start murdering ethnic Albanians en masse in Kosovo as well. But don't try to claim Bill Clinton's presidency as any kind of a model of great foreign policy.

                          Read Samantha Powers' "A Problem From Hell" and learn a thing or two. Note that she ended up for Obama.

                          •  remember the GOP were isolationists under Clinton (0+ / 0-)

                            Anytime he used the military, it was a case of "wagging the dog".  Given how much of a fit they threw over the painless peacekeeping operation in Haiti and over the casualties in Somalia, I doubt they would have let Clinton try to intervene in a civil war.

                        •  yes, but times have changed around the world (0+ / 0-)

                          and the generation who remembers Bill Clinton's foreign policies sympathetically will be out of power pretty soon, as he might be. Generational change is going on everywhere.

                    •  Kudos-- (0+ / 0-)

                      Hillary 08.

                      The tongue bath image is too wickedly accurate, that hurt my imagination.

                •  Her new theme is: "It's about people" (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  DelRPCV, TrueBlueMajority

                  Well no shit, Hillary.

                  Thanks for figuring that out in 2008.

                  By the way - how much more non-specific can you get?

              •  Good luck on changing the electoral college (0+ / 0-)

                I'd be delighted to get rid of that anachronism. But it will take a constitutional amendment to get rid of it.

                "Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise." David Mamet

                by coral on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:43:45 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Then tell us that past record that is so great (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              cpresley

              and how it differs from Hillary...such that you have decided to vote Obama.

          •  if we just listened to what each of them said (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Alegre

            we could simply give up thinking.  Haven't we had enough of that under bush? It's our turn, we get to select who we want and we get to decide for ourselves who to vote for, we don't only have to accept their words.  We're not robots, we're citizens.  

          •  I've been listening (0+ / 0-)

            Early on, with all the excitement about him, I paid very close attention to the debates and his speeches. I was eager to support him. But I found that his speeches and presentations are long on rhetoric and short on specifics.

            And when you ask Obama supporters about the details, they start attacking Clinton. Sometimes her positions -- fair enough; but very often on very sexist terms. If one objects, one is accused of resorting to the "gender card."

            When one criticizes Obama, one is suddenly being called a racist. What's that all about?

            Obama could easily have won me over with some substantive policy proposals. However, instead he is relying on supporters to bash the candidate I've come to support as a result of reading her policy proposals and listening to her in debates. This is not a winning argument.

            If his supporters continue on in this way they are going to hurt his chances. It is a losing tactic to insult the people you are trying to convince to vote for you.

            "Control of the initiative is control of the battle. In the alley, at the poker table or in politics. One must raise." David Mamet

            by coral on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:22:26 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Read my diary today. (0+ / 0-)
      •  So much for the hope. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coral, Alegre

        How the hell is he going to bring the country together if he is going to race baite over every comment?

    •  Please add bleach to the laundry (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sara seattle, Elise

      This bilge water dairy needs disinfectant.

      "It's the planet, stupid."

      by FishOutofWater on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:57:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your Words (5+ / 0-)

      Look guys, I’ve already got a lot on my plate... I work full time (and NOT as a blogger), I’m raising two WONDERFUL young children, and I already spend about 4 or 5 hours an evening on sites like this fighting the good fight for Hillary.

      You know in the Midwest they used to hate the sound of people tootin their own horn.  But I guess enough of that in both parties of our national leadership trickles down... I always find this offensive.

      I myself have a lot at @#$%ing stake. I'm now under poverty, barely making rent, never had credit so I can't even have most poor Americans' privilege to be in debt, medically uninsured with a pre-existing auto-immune disease and unable to complete my education.

      Back in the day they couldn't stand whining, either.

      Point is, however, that there are a lot of things that are at stake.  I don't question that others have a lot at stake.  I don't question that other people give committment or precious time in busy days to this site.  

      Normally, I think most of us don't make a big deal
      of it.

      We just see our best interests in candidates, or the best interests of what we perceive is the country, and root there.

      And your candidate does not represent mine, incidentally.  I have serious doubts as to both the effective ability and the genuine intent of your candidate to take care of my concerns and those of my brothers and sisters, compared to the current crop. But that's besides the prompting issue.  I don't have to twist Bill Clinton's "fairy tale" comment into anything besides the obnoxious, hypocritical point it is, like he usually makes.

      Like him backtracking on the experience speech he made in 1992, when we had less candidates beholden to triangulation and corporatism.

      Interesting how little changes, other than the continual downslide of manners.

      Benazir Bhutto was the real Hugo Chavez.

      by Nulwee on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:03:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have a theory as to why the race card now (13+ / 0-)

      I think they want to peel off the African American vote and Hispanic vote in SC and NV. So this is just the perfect timing for attacking the clintons on race so they can win NV and SC. What better way to do this than twist any available comment as a racist comment and put it out on TV, radio with large minority participation?

      I just finished writing a diary about this race baiting and blackmail

      •  it just fosters hate (8+ / 0-)

        I don't get Obama, I like his message, but some of his supporters just seem filled with hate, and ready to twist anything into what they want to believe, that we all share their hate? i don't, I think all our candidates are fine and ought to run on records. Hillary's record is great, you don't need to trust her promises you can see what she's done where she's at. I doubt Obama thinks Bill is race baiting, but if he's got a message of stopping this partisan lying and bickering, it isn't getting through.  His supporters need to listen to him, and cut it out, that's what I think.  He'll need us all if he's our candidate, and of course he'll get Hillary's supporters, we want a dem, but he ain't making it easy. I heard someone on NPR claiming that Bill's fairy tale remark meant it was a fairy tale to think an biracial man could be president, and that's soooo hateful, and not at all what Bill said. It's okay with me if Obama flip flops on his war thoughts, he's a politician, it's his supporter who get upset if he's not squeaky clean.  Will they jump ship if they have to admit he's just a man?  I hope not.  But then I don't believe in perfection, although I'd like to believe that the hate can end and we can go back to thinking.  

        •  Sure No One's Perfect (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cpresley, anna shane

          I'm living proof of that! ;o)

        •  I agree. Obama's great..... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alegre, cpresley, lily15

          ...but his supporters scare the hell out of me. So outrageous are there comments that I am drifting toward the belief that these are operatives, not Obama supporters, here to cause a schism in this site.

          It does not take place among the Edwards supporters, who for the most part, politely make their case. But then, no operatives would be needed to torpedo his campaign (I hope for the best for him).

          "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

          by Bensdad on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:41:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  this is just sad, but I'll give it a whirl (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Crestingwave

          I don't hate Hillary and don't know anyone who does.  But I strongly dislike some of the things she does and says, which is not the same thing.

          Aren't you trusting Hillary's promises?  What has she done exactly?  Besides trust in a president that anyone with three brain cells knew was untrustworthy?  Where did Obama flip flop on his war thoughts?  Obama did not want to criticize the Kerry-Edwards ticket, which was appropriate for party unity.  If HRC showed any sign that she realizes the IWR vote was poor judgment, I'd think a lot more highly of her.

          Bill fairy tale remark (and I saw the video before this diary was posted) clearly asserts that it's a fairy tale that Obama opposed the war before Hillary did.  That may not be race baiting, but it is in fact a lie, unless someone can show me where Hillary made any speeches against the war before it started.  Any speeches.  Anywhere.  No, she was busy trying to prove how tough she was because she thought that was the politically viable thing to do.

          For the last frakking time, we know he's just a man.  Talk about right wing talking points!  No one on the O team is saying he can fly or walk on water or that he's perfect or he's a messiah--those ridiculous claims have all come from supporters of other candidates.

          I'm tired of being accused of hate when I don;t hate anyone.  But I hate being accused of believing in false hope.  And I'm tired of people belittling the importance of inspiring people to work for challenging political ideas.  I'm tired of people complaining that my candidate doesn;t give enough policy wonk speeches when that strategy worked so badly for Kerry and Gore and Dukakis and Mondale.  Most people don;'t vote the issues.  They want to vote for someone they identify with and believe in and trust, and I cannot say any of those things about HRC.

          I want a candidate who inspires me, and inspires others.  I want a candidate who is reaching beyond the way things have always been done.  I want a candidate who does not start the race being irrationally despised by a large chunk of the electorate.  That's why I don't support HRC, and the recent dogwhistle comments have only solidified my desire to vote for someone else.

          this isn;t all about you, anna shane, but you did pull out a whole bunch of the usual points in one post so that';s why I'm responding to you.

          Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
          IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:43:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  pls see my other comments in myriad diaries (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coral

            I have made various comments addressing your questions in different diaries. I dont know if you can see my comments in one page or not. Im not too well versed with posting here yet. I have only been posting for a few days, simply because the Obama crowd really drove me nuts with their hillary hatred. Prior to that I wasnt enthused for any top-tier candidate. Now I firmly support Hillary and heck for the first time I might even do some activist work for her campaign. Thanks all to obama crowd.

            IF you dont find answers to your questions, pls let me know. I can answer them.

            •  yes I went to your comments page (0+ / 0-)

              I also read your diary.

              i humbly submit that there is a lot you do not know about race relations and politics in America.

              All I can say is this.  Obama's supporters did not just start "accusing everyone other than Obama and his dog a racist".  Obama's supporters responded to things that had been said about them.  It is not only his daily kos supporters who called these comments racist in tone.  ordinary people in the outside world who don't know anything about blogs are responding the same way.

              Andrew Cuomo is not Hillary Clinton's mailman's half brother's sister-in law's HairStylist.  He is the Attorney General of the state where Clinton is a Senator.  He publicly endorsed her.  Major political figures who endorse a candidate are thereafter connected to the candidate and are assumed to be in line with a candidate's basic campaign message.

              Because it is late and I have to get up early I cannot educate you any more at this point.  perhaps we will encounter each other again in the days to come.

              I applaud you for working for a candidate, although I am sorry your support is based on so many irrelevant and erroneous assumptions.

              Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
              IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

              by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:02:54 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  when do we get out of the past? (0+ / 0-)

                here your candidate saying we shouldnt look at the past and look into the futre. But you constantly want to hold the majority race hostage to the past. How do current generation of majority race members prove to you that they are not racists. Because you seem to start with the premise since race relations have been bad in the past, it is bad now and everyone is suspect. If so, how will the race relations improve.

                On another point, how is race relations anyway connected to a specific incident. So we judge every incident now in the context of slavery? that doesnt make any sense. You sense statements and actions on their own merit, not hold everything in the world hostage to slavery and racial history.

                If you want to connect some unaffiliated political leader talking on his own behalf and not on behalf of hillary, back to hillary campaign,

                1. it is plain wrong, because this is worse than guilt by association, since there is no association other than the guy supports HRC. anyone can support HRC, because this is a free country and find an audience on a radio. HRC cant control that.
                1. then how do you address Mclurkin talking directly in an Obama event against GLBT community in vicious terms. THis is not even guilt by association. This was a guy directly invited by Obama campaign to speak in an obama event

                Be consistent with your candidate and other candidates.

      •  nevada (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Alegre, cpresley

        i was watching CSPAN this morning and they had an excellent reporter on there from Las Vegas and the graphic came up that there is about 7.8% African American Population in Nevada...  6% Asian.

        There aren't the black votes to peel off there

        •  But there are a lot of Latinos (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Alegre, cpresley

          that he could piss off. I don't get it. He seems to be going low, and betting everything on SC.

          •  did you watch obama tonight? (0+ / 0-)

            In Nevada he repeated Si Se Puede over and over again.  

            He is actively courting the Hispanic vote, which according to the same graph I believe was maybe 18% or so of the population, with Unions being about 14%.

            Nevada is such a wildcard, turnout could be between 15,000 and 100,000, no telling. They're not even trying to poll it.

            Some people are saying that Hispanics are naturally inclined away from Obama, some people say HIspanic votes in a primary are less relevant because proporationally they're less engaged by the candidates, and some people say that Nevada (Chuck Todd) will decide who gets the leg up in Feb 5th because S. Carolina is Obama's and only Nevada is a "fair" contest up ahead

            The debate on Tuesday should be interesting.  

            •  what's the matter with si se puede? (0+ / 0-)

              people have said that at every demonstration I've ever been to.

              Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
              IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

              by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:45:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nothing is wrong with it at all (0+ / 0-)

                To my ears, it's alot, ALOT better than Guacamole and Chips...  Doesn't she know it's Chips and Salsa among real Mexicans?  I never hear my Hispanic Houston Friends call it Guacamole and when my Mexican-American Girlfriend cooks occasionally, it's not Guacamole, it's Salsa...  but white people call it guacamole because we're ignorant i believe...

                •  guacamole is made from avocados (0+ / 0-)

                  salsa is made from tomatoes.

                  i don't know why we're talking about this but it's a nice change of pace from the insults on this thread.

                  Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                  IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

                  by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:49:06 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  Bingo (0+ / 0-)

        It's called the "freak show" and you can bet there are Republican spinmeisters working this.  Why else would it be pushed on Drudge, Politico, FOX, Tweety and the others?  Then there's rightwing radio.  They have hated the Clintons and Hillary as a woman for years.  

        Winning without Delay.

        by ljm on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:32:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  AWESOME diary. And THANK YOU for (8+ / 0-)

      doing not only all the hard work of putting this all together for people to see plain as the noses on their faces, but also all the life work that always has to get done to keep the world going in our homes and communities.  Get some sleep tonight, and thanks again.

    •  I thank you Alegre (8+ / 0-)

      for all of your hard work.

      You deserve a medal from us Hillary supporters here for the way you come through, your wonderful researched and documented diaries.  

      Unfortunately the media narrative of racism pushed by the Obama campaign is being played over and over and over.  Doesn't matter if it is lies and spin.  The media loves it.  But the sexism from their own...that is ignored.

      And besides, don't you know, young women today don't really believe sexism is a problem and don't really think gender matters.  I know you are younger but obviously an exception HERE.  Fortunately I met many younger women on Tuesday night working for Hillary who truly get it.  Facts don't seem to matter.  

      While these things are not being stated outright, more than a few here are implying these things:
      **Hillary and Bill are racists.(despite their years of work with and for the minority communities....I guess those people are just not all that bright for loving and embracing those two racists).
      **Sexism is all in the minds of a bunch of old feminists (apparently those old broads Jong and Steinem need to go hide under rocks as sexism is not an issue and neither is ageism).
      **Affirmative action is not necessary for women (since the fact don't matter I guess there is no wage gap, reproductive rights are guaranteed and will never be changed, and women do not need to fear their abusive spouses any more).

      So it is quite distressing here at times.  But I always get a smile on my face when I see you have a diary up.

      •  You know, HRC's record isn't so great, either. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority, Dumbo

        You Clinton supporters are acting like she's got a great voting record.  I'm not happy with Obama's record but HRC voted for the AUMF and for the ING Terrorist designation.  Obama didn't vote on the designation bill because Harry Reid insured that Obama would be away when the vote was cast.  She voted for the Patriot Act and against same sex marriage.  

        Being bipolar means that I sometimes lose control and speak in generalities. Sorry if I offended anyone. Most is just snark, anyway.

        by rainmanjr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:32:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Younger May Be Relative - I'm 45! (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coral, Larry Bailey, cpresley

        Must be my youthful attitude :)

        Seroiusly - I think young women take for granted everything their moms and grandmothers went through to get us as far as we are today - which btw ain't all that far in my opinion.  We still have a lot of work ahead of us.

        The working women get it though.  Women who're working two jobs and STILL struggling to make ends meet and raise their kids.  THEY get it and are supporting Hillary by a large percentage.

        •  When one is 62 years and counting (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coral, Larry Bailey, cpresley

          45 sounds really, really young.

          But I think women who have lived through the "No, dear, you can't do this or play that; no dear, driving is for men (my mother heard that); no dear, math is not a good career choice for women, there are no jobs for women mathematicians" know the battles that were won, were not won easily and frankly they were not even the most important ones.  

          Pay equity has always been an issue and still is; so is sexual harrassment.  And ageism is always bad but ageism is also sexist....an older man is sophisticated, smart and viable in many industries where women are thrown out by forty.

          Anyway, you do a great job.

    •  True! (0+ / 0-)

      Remember, there is no higher calling in a Republic than voting for family dynasties! Turn you brain off, and vote for a bloodline!

    •  Well done. (0+ / 0-)

      Sen. Obama and Hillary have almost identical voting records on Iraq

      I think the identical voting records are bad, but your point is correct.  I have said it in the past, and been viciously attacked for it.  

      Obama and Clinton voted against Kerry-Feingold in 2006. They voted for the Gregg Resolution in march 2007.  They voted to fund the war repeatedly, until May 2007.

      Once elected, Obama did nothing for the antiwar movement.  When he announced for president, he came out with a plan.  

      I am not favoring Senator Clinton on this.  She also has been poor in my view.

      To me, though, Obama's antiwar credentials are phony.  

      And this reveals so much:

      While running for Senate, Sen. Obama acknowledged that he took his anti-war speech off his campaign website, calling it "dated" -

      Specifically, State Senator Obama maintains that an October 2002 anti-war speech was removed from his campaign web site because "the speech was dated once the formal phase of the war was over, and my staff's desire to continually provide fresh news clips."

      Had Obama fought with all he had to save our troops by bringing them home AFTER HE WAS ELECTED TO THE SENATE, I might well have supported him.

      That he put his own, self-perceived political interests above opposition to the war revealed way too much about him that I just do not like.

      On the war, neither Clinton nor Obama have acted as they should have in office.

      Obama is the greater disapointment, for he arrogantly claims to have greater moral clarity and foreign policy judgment, when he failed to act as a Senator. It took Cindy Sheehan in 2005 to reinvigorate the antiwar movement.  Where was Barack?  

      Real antiwar people see the truth.  Code Pink may attack Senator Clinton, but they are no fans of Obama either.  I have no doubt of that.

      "They're going to give their power away when we take their power away." John Edwards

      by TomP on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:26:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •   I suspect Hillary's most effective moment of the (0+ / 0-)

      last debate may have been where she pointed out that Obama had voted for the war, despite being against it as a candidate. I think that segment should be U-tubed.

    •  Right Girls, If You Won’t Do Your Job I Wi (0+ / 0-)

      Here is a full rebuttal I just posted.

    •  Quite right ... all of the candidates in the ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... race except Kucinich have blood on their hands, and with respect to what Senator Obama has done in the Senate when he had the opportunity, its been every bit as bad as Senator Clinton.

      SupportTheTroopsEndTheWar.com and Energize America

      by BruceMcF on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 08:26:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  heh! the magical disappearing speech. (17+ / 0-)

    interesting. and he didn't even mention the AUMF in it.  the black commentator article doesn't sound like his local constituents were too happy with him, but he was looking down the road by then.

    there's a pattern of expediency here. i'm not surprised that he made himself scarce when murtha stood up against the war.

    Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

    by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:36:56 PM PST

  •  Hopefully the divided outcome in IA and NH (18+ / 0-)

    will produce a real race based on real substance. BRING IT!

    Nice diary, Alegre.

  •  I don't know why ... (15+ / 0-)

    The Obama campaign is going there.

    The whole dog-whistle argument is bizarre - Obama carried the white male vote in both Iowa and NH. Are a whole bunch of white guys gonna hear the dog whistle, prick up their ears, and go "My God, that guy's black!?"

    My sneaking suspicion is that Obama's playing the race card is all about internal politics and crosscurrents in the African American community. Since I'm white, this is a mere guess, but maybe not all African Americans are up for being assimilated by the Oborg, and this is about pressure to get them on board.

    The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

    by al Fubar on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:37:13 PM PST

    •  Oborg! Can I Use That One Some Time? :) (7+ / 0-)

      Agreed.  I can't really understand why they're doing this now either other than they figure they might gain some ground in SC.

    •  Obama is not playing the race card. (30+ / 0-)

      He just isn't. I predict that he will have something to say on that issue shortly.

      Nor are the chracterizations Alegre makes in the above diary about Barack Obama, a candidate who has helped generate record turnout and participation, especially  among young people, in Iowa and New Hampshire, and, if we are going to be honest about it, more likely than not will be on the ticket come November, particularly true or fair.

      Here's what I would ask.

      I would ask folks who have not already made up their minds about voting for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama to watch that video of President Clinton and ask themselves this question.

      What is President Clinton trying to do in that clip? Why did he say what he said in the way that he said it? What were his intentions?

      He's a master politician. He knows exactly what he's doing and saying at all times.

      In that light, what do you think of Clinton's statement? What's your opinion?

      That's the important and relevant thing here.

      k/o: politics and culture

      by kid oakland on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:58:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You're Kidding Right? (15+ / 0-)

        He's pissed at the way Obama's gotten a pass on this issue.

        Period.

        And he was calling out the MSM to ask some freakin' questions.

        And I'm sorry but if here that masterful he wouldn't have been bankrupted fighting back assholes like Ken Starr and those sad fucks in Congress who went after him.

        •  No. You're the one that has to be kidding here. (11+ / 0-)

          Because if you aren't kidding, then yes, you've actually dropped to a new low. I didn't think that was quite possible.

          The racist comments are coming from Clinton's surrogates. No one in Obama's camp has said a word about race.

          Shuck and Jive?
          Boy?
          Naive?
          Part Time?
          It's not his time?

          He's a SITTING U.S. Senator and the Clintons are trying to paint him as an ignorant and inexperienced young black man who doesn't know his place. It couldn't be more ignorant and more racially coded.

          I'm a hopemonger.

          by Elise on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:05:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you really think these innuendos are going to (5+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            al Fubar, coral, Alegre, bently, cpresley

            play well with white moderates? Even if they were true, you'd self destruct.

            And, um, I think I just discovered the GOP's Obama strategy. If you will squeal about minor and imaginary insults, how easy will it be to play you when they really are pushing your buttons?

            •  I don't think it's really ... (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coral, Pacific John, Montague, cpresley

              About whites at all - it's a tussle over African-American support. At least by conventional wisdom, blacks have been holding back a bit from Obama to see how he played with the white audience, and after Iowa are more ready to get on board. But I doubt it's unanimous, and likely there are some of the same age and class divides as with white support. So the Obama message is that if you support Hillary you're a Tom. (Does anyone even speak that way anymore?)

              But you hit an important blowback point. This nasty tussle over black votes spills out, and does not exactly reinforce the soft fuzzy glow that is supposed to envelop us all.

              The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

              by al Fubar on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:08:23 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  The Clintons Never Said the Shit She's Claiming (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              daria g, cpresley, SaneSoutherner

              above John.  She's taking things OTHER PEOPLE have supposedly said, and is trying to paint hte Clintons as being racists because of it.

              Thank goddess we're here to set the record straight.  Otherwise, the MSM would latch on to shite like this and think it were the truth!

          •  We Flying Monkeys stand by our girl!! (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cpresley

            I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

            by Norwegian Chef on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:42:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  His campaign is (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            cpresley

            playing the race card:
            http://www.mydd.com/...

            The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

            by mikepridmore on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:44:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Elise.... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Larry Bailey, Alegre, cpresley

            ...no time to refute each of your assertions point by point. But could you please not adopt the Republican phraseology: "The Clintons". Only one Clinton is running for President. You are tarring two very different people with the same brush. If you must tar, and apparently you must, please tar only one at at time.

            "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

            by Bensdad on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:49:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  They are both running as co-presidents (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority, Elise

              Hillary is running on Bill's resume (35 years of experience) and bringing BIll on the trail.  Her supporters wax nostalgic about the Clintons' years.

              •  Bill is... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Alegre, cpresley

                ...her husband. And things were better when President Clinton was in office.

                "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

                by Bensdad on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:03:30 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Yes, they were better because (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority

                  we weren't losing soldiers every day in a pointless war and spending a gazillion dollars a minute to pay for it.

                  •  Thanks to Bill and Hill (0+ / 0-)

                    Bill:  Signed the Iraq Liberation Act, calling for regime change

                    Hill:  AUMF

                    •  And i'll never forget (0+ / 0-)

                      Bill bombing the crap out of Iraq on December 16, 1998, the day before the House was scheduled to hold the impeachment vote.

                      http://query.nytimes.com/...

                      IMPEACHMENT: THE OVERVIEW; IMPEACHMENT VOTE IN HOUSE DELAYED AS CLINTON LAUNCHES IRAQ AIR STRIKE, CITING MILITARY NEED TO MOVE SWIFTLY

                      By ALISON MITCHELL
                      Published: December 17, 1998

                      Furious and fractured, House Republicans tonight postponed the impeachment vote against President Clinton for perhaps a few days because of the bombing campaign against Iraq, even as the odds against the President began to look insurmountable.

                      Republican after Republican announced new support for impeachment as the lame-duck 105th Congress returned to the Capitol for evening party caucuses on the issue. But the House was soon left reeling at the clash of crises. The first wave of bombs fell in Iraq just minutes before the Republicans began their own closed-door strategy session.

                      After three hours of raucous, angry and passionate debate, the Republicans, despite expressing deep suspicions of Mr. Clinton's motive for ordering the bombing, finally heeded the call from their incoming Speaker, Robert L. Livingston of Louisiana, that the impeachment debate, which had been scheduled for Thursday, be postponed.

                      [...]
                      As the day wore on, at least nine more Republicans declared they would vote to impeach Mr. Clinton, many of them the moderates whom Mr. Clinton most desperately needed to bring to his side. Their defection left any White House strategy to protect the President in a shambles.

                      Democrats said that even though it was still mathematically possible, they could no longer see how the President could avoid impeachment -- the indictment by the House that would be followed by trial in the Senate -- unless military action somehow shifted the mood of the House.

                      ''Unless this action has an unexpected effect, he's done,'' said a Democrat close to the effort to spare Mr. Clinton impeachment. [...]

                      You know where I was, that week?  Out on Wilshire Blvd in a huge protest, carrying a sign, demonstrating AGAINST impeachment.  So I've earned the right to complain about the Clintons.  I paid my dues, unlike some of you, and I'm unhappy.

                      Bill might have been a good president for the 90's, when we were at peace and weren't hemorrhaging money to the Middle East, but these are different times, and the Clintons have shown an immense propensity to both start wag the dog wars and to ENABLE wag the dog wars by other presidents.  They have no scruples at all when it comes to the use of our armed forces.

              •  wrong. (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                coral, Alegre, cpresley, SaneSoutherner

                hillary's 35 years of experience are hers, not bill's. bill didn't work on children's issues like she did. bill didn't run for, and win, her senate seat. you are intentionally misrepresenting her record, and saying her husband is responsible for all of her accomplishments. your attitude that women cannot have accomplishments independent from their spouses is not found among progressive democrats

                Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

                by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:03:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Hillary has her own 35 years of experience (0+ / 0-)

                As the co-president meme goes, I actually wouldn't mind if they could be co-president.  BushCO is going to leave such a mess, they may have to clone themselves just to have enough of them to help dig us out of the mess we're in right now.  How fabulous to have a resource like Bill right there in the WH to help the next president whenever something comes up and no matter what comes up?

                Winning without Delay.

                by ljm on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:38:13 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  um, dad... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dumbo, Elise

              both Clintons are campaigning and are responsible for their respective statements on the trail.

            •  I adopted calling them the Clintons, (0+ / 0-)

              on my own, to avoid this phony "first female president us girls gotta stick together otherwise its sexism" bullshit.

              The Clintons were a team, 1992 to 2000.  Hillary may be the face of the team, if/when she wins in 2008, but the fact remains, it's NOT the huge leap forward that any of you make it out to be.  It's the same family in the same white house, the same power structure, the same lobbyists, the same hangers-on.  

              But one thing will be different: the war.  The lovely, lovely war.  But don't despair.  Hillary will win it for us!  

          •  Take A Deep Breath Elise (3+ / 0-)

            Shuck & jive was Cuomo's - not Bill's or Hillary's.  He has no official position with the campaign and Hillary's no more responsible for his comments than Obam is for some of the HATEFUL SHITE posted on sites like this.

            Who called him a "boy"? Bill or Hillary?

            Look I don't know where you grabbed the rest of your words here but as far as I know, neither Hillary or Bill has ever uttered them.

            Now, care to address any of the things I've posted in my diary?

            Go ahead - I'll give you a few minutes to go back up top and read it.  Take a look at those videos - they're an important part of what I posted ;o)

      •  I Predict He'll Have Nothing To Say (12+ / 0-)

        any more than he did when his gay-bashing gospel-singing compadre appeared on the stage during one of his earlier campaign rallies.

        This race tempest in a "piss pot" is just another example of the Obama version of a "Southern Strategy."  Call it "reaching across the aisle" to our Republicans of good faith in order to borrow one of their tried and true divisive campaign tactics.

        Oh, pardon me, Obama's gonna unite us -- all us gays and crypto-racists.

        They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

        by Limelite on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:21:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Er, trying to beat Obama in the primary? (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        al Fubar, coral, Alegre, cpresley, Matisyahu

        Could that be it?

        For those who came in late, we're not claiming that "fairy tale" is racist, are we?

        [snark]
        Sure, fairy's a gay slur, but the primary wars haven't moved on to homophobia, right?
        [/snark]

        [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

        by lambertstrether on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:33:46 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, flip it (6+ / 0-)

          like Alegre did in her diary. (gender baiting as a humorous way to make a point about supposed race baiting.)

          Let's say I attacked the Clinton Campaign's account of her vote on the AUMF, accused Senator Clinton of being overly ambitious, not up for the job, of dissembling about her real motivations in regards to Iraq, let's say I also accused her of being a "negative campaigner" and paused to say that I was hurt by her "blistering" attacks on me.

          And then...to bring the point home...I said that "this whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen."

          Would that statement be perceived as a neutral, focused statement by Clinton supporters in regards to her AUMF vote...with no overtones about her campaign overall?

          k/o: politics and culture

          by kid oakland on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:43:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  This makes just the opposite point ... (8+ / 0-)

            That this is absolutely standard campaign tussling. Of course it's not a neutral comment. It's a slap. That doesn't make it racial. "Fairy tale" would go flat against Hillary, because she does not have the big, sweeping style, but it is a natural bash to take to Obama's thematic style.

            Come on, KO, it's hard for me to believe that you're really buying into this. When Andrew Cuomo shoots off his mouth with shuck 'n' jive, that's embarrassingly insensitive, but not racist - no one would think twice if you described a white politician's line of BS that way. (And every candidate has a line of BS.)

            But fairy tale? I would not use that expression about a gay politician's BS because it could be taken wrong, but "fairy tale" has no cultural connection at all to race, beyond that the princesses were always white and usually blonde.

            The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

            by al Fubar on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:02:29 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Where do I say it's racist? (6+ / 0-)

              I don't. It's not.

              However, why did Congressman Clyburn take offense at it? Wouldn't that be worth looking at?

              Mr. Clyburn, reached for a telephone interview Wednesday during an overseas inspection of port facilities, also voiced frustration with former President Clinton, who described Mr. Obama’s campaign narrative as a fairy tale. While Mr. Clinton was not discussing civil rights at the time and seemed to be referring mainly to Mr. Obama’s stance at the Iraq war, Mr. Clyburn saw the remark as a slap at the image of a black candidate running on a theme of unity and optimism.

              "To call that dream a fairy tale, which Bill Clinton seemed to be doing, could very well be insulting to some of us," said Mr. Clyburn, who said he and others took significant risks more than 40 years ago to produce such opportunities for future black Americans.

              That's a nuanced statement. It's not calling Bill Clinton "racist" or "race baiting"...it's saying that Congressman Clyburn found the comment insulting and racially hurtful.

              I know that may seem a fine distinction but it's where we are at right now.

              The diarist doesn't really address Congressman Clyburn as far as I can see...I guess because that doesn't really fit her narrative.

              k/o: politics and culture

              by kid oakland on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:13:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  By Clyburn's Rule ... (6+ / 0-)

                Mr. Clyburn saw the remark as a slap at the image of a black candidate running on a theme of unity and optimism

                Hillary and incidentally Edwards may as well just as well drop out, because this forbids criticizing him for what a lot of people, including me, see as his chief weakness, sizzle without steak.

                As for Clyburn himself, he's an influential pol responding to cross pressures and personal networks, none of which I know a thing about.

                My own gut feeling is that plenty of dog whistles are being used right now, but white people like most of us at DKos don't fully make them out, because they are dog whistles inside the black community. But stepping back, race is going to be an issue, in text and subtext, and so is gender, because we now have a close, contentious national race between the first woman and the first black with a very good shot at becoming president.

                Hey, is this a great country or what?

                The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

                by al Fubar on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:56:36 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Rick, you made a light bulb go on for me. (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  al Fubar, Panda, Alegre, cpresley

                  How's this for a theory: Obama started hard with race because of the data out of NH.

                  NH strongly indicates that women, in the secrecy of the voting booth, will support Hillary just to spite every day misogyny. Obama's camp may see the identity politics of this as insurmountable without a major shake up. One of the few things under Obama's control is to use his own identity politics in SC. Forget that this is completely contrary to his previous campaign, and possibly suicidal. This is a Hail Mary pass.

                  •  This makes sense ... (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Pacific John, Panda, cpresley

                    Because if the African American vote does not swing en masse to Obama, he is left with the third or so of the Dem vote that traditionally goes to upscale reform type candidates in the primaries.

                    Working class blacks generally have not been big on Tsongas-Bradley type candidacies, any more than working class whites have. Obama being black has a leg up in fusing these constituencies, but they are not otherwise a natural fit.

                    The best fortress is to be found in the love of the people - Niccolo Machiavelli

                    by al Fubar on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:18:22 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah I mean (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kid oakland, TrueBlueMajority, Dumbo

                who is Congressman Clyburn anyway?

                Congress is increasingly complicit in the Bush administration crimes.

                by Drewid on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:56:49 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  thanks KO for sticking to basics n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                kid oakland

                Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
                IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

                by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:51:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  It would be percieved as a campaign statement (0+ / 0-)

            "Neutral, focused"? When did that become the criterion?

            I'm not seeing much of that going around these days.

            So, yeah, I flip it. And I don't see anything out of the ordinary.

            [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

            by lambertstrether on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:06:17 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  You might as well (0+ / 0-)

            hold up an "Iron My Shirt" - you'd get the same toungelashing for it.

            I do not trust Hillary Clinton.

            by The Dead Man on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:37:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Puffery. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coral, Alegre, cpresley, SaneSoutherner

            Calling something a "fairy tale" is about as innocuous as you can get....unless the other candidate is the first openly gay candidate for President.

            "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

            by Bensdad on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:52:02 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  I have seen it and I get it (8+ / 0-)

        He is as pissed as I am that Obama is not questioned on his past statements on Iraq.  That is a legitimate political criticism and in fact it is more critical of the press who are enamoured with Obama for whatever reason.  Personally I think the press is as phony as it gets and doesn't give a rip about Obama but sees him as a tool for their vendetta against the Clintons.

        The press hates them.  Hell, they have admitted it on several occasions.  The speak of how "unfriendly" the Clintons are and how mistrustful of the press they are and it bugs them.  Of course the press never reminds you of WHY the Clintons mistrust the press.  The press doggedly played along with Newt, Starr and the right wing on White Water. And of course despite proof that there was no there, there, they kept going and going and going.  Why would the Clintons feel comfortable with a press that dogged them meanspiritedly on trumped up charges and yet gave a pass to Dubya on everything.

      •  KO, thank you so much for the comment. (0+ / 0-)

        The moment I first read about President Clinton's comment, I went to watch the whole video myself, because I didn't want to believe he would be that petty. I've always had a good opinion about him.

        But there it was, in context and everything.

        And the constant slamming of the youth vote... don't get me started on that.

        I hate to see what this primary has done to some great writers, but maybe it looks worse to me since I missed the primary on this site last time.

        •  Slamming the youth vote? (0+ / 0-)

          Who started this generational war in the first place?  Who's campaign is going with that obscene Andrew Sullivan article as their mantra?  I've been excited about getting all people out to vote, especially younger people.  To have them fall for the people who can remember 1968 meme as being over the hill is just tragic.  Talk about deciding we're not in this together.

          Winning without Delay.

          by ljm on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:41:53 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  I saw a guy defending his wife (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coral, Montague, cpresley, santh

        He was angry about the way she has been treated.  He thinks Obama has gotten a pass.  It's really that simple.  

        Winning without Delay.

        by ljm on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:34:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  As one who has been appalled by (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        santh

        the "shuck and jive" and "secular madrassa" comments, I have to say that in listening to Bill Clinton in this clip, he's not being racist in any way.  "Fairy tale" was not used to refer in any way to Obama's ability to run for the presidency; it was used to slam the MSM and Obama's campaign for trying to massage the narrative on his opposition/not-so-opposition to the Iraq war.

    •  tavis smiley hasn't been assimilated yet. (11+ / 0-)

      tavis had  a book out last year called "the covenant with black america". these covenants are a method of assessing the quality of black leadership, and involve pledging individual effort in the areas of health care, public education, criminal justice, community-centered policing, affordable neighborhoods, democracy, agriculture, economics, environmental justice, and technology.

      tavis says obama doesn't measure up. i bet hillary does, though. that looks like the policy page on her website.

      tavis is catching hell, which suits him fine, being a bit of a publicity hound.

      Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

      by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:09:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Where does he say that?? (0+ / 0-)

        tavis says obama doesn't measure up.

        Link?

        I'm a hopemonger.

        by Elise on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:07:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Charlie Rose w/mentor, look it up yourself (0+ / 0-)

          We still get to have our own opinions don't we, or do you think we vote en masse?

          •  that's the andrew sullivan "racial loyalty" meme. (0+ / 0-)

            ...and it tells you volumes about how most of the white obama supporters think about black voters. many of these obama supporters live in a racial monoculture. i, on the other hand, live in an area of FL that's 35-40% black, so if you don't listen to tavis at least occasionally, you're not going to be able to participate meaningfully in a lot of office conversations.

            i cracked 'em up the day after new hampshire, when i came in and announced to the staff meeting, "see, white girls CAN jump!" even the obama people had to laugh.

            Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

            by campskunk on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:01:01 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  Tavis doesn;t want his influence supplanted (0+ / 0-)

        and frankly he has been courting the Republicans lately, and we all know Rs desperately want HRC to be the nominee.

        Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
        IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

        by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:54:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  disagree... (0+ / 0-)

          ...but see my comments upthread. tavis isn't the most humble black person out there, but he isn't the dumbest either.

          all other things being equal, we'll take travis. y'all can keep oprah.

          Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

          by campskunk on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:17:47 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  never said he was dumb (0+ / 0-)

            but we are both right that he isn;t humble.

            if someone outside the current black establishment (like O) becomes president, then Tavis's role as "black leader" is a bit diminished, not only because he backed a losing candidate but because he backed the ideology of the past rather than the future.  it will appear  history passed him by (and history will be right).

            we'll see what he has to say in his annual state of the black union conference next month.  if he uses it to trash Obama that will indicate where he has decided to cast his lot.  Tavis strikes me as the type of person who gambles on where he thinks the power will be and hitches his wagon to that star, rather than making any risky decisions that might put him on the outs with people of power.  also, he knows which side his bread is buttered on, or rather he wants his bread buttered on both sides, so he HAS been courting republicans lately and playing both ends against the middle.  i like Tavis, but I hope that strategy backfires and exposes him for being a follower and not a leader.

            there's no denying that Oprah's audience is larger and her influence is measurable.  if she had endorsed HRC, Hillary would have been happy about that.

            Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
            IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

            by TrueBlueMajority on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:32:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  is it his campaign? (5+ / 0-)

      I hope not, I hope he's trying to tell his supporters to go with hope and ending hate. he can't be thinking that smearing Bill Clinton will help him with African American voters.  He can't know very many, if there are any Americans who think for themselves, and have had enough of people telling them what to think, it's the part of the population that has been 'tricked' plenty enough.  

    •  "Oborg" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Alegre

      The offspring of an Obama=Oprah "mating" of the kinds?

      They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

      by Limelite on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:17:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  I am unsure..... (0+ / 0-)

      ...that Obama is playing this card. I think some supporters are out of control, and I think that the other side (The Republicans) may be tampering, just as they were very active in squelching Dean.

      "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

      by Bensdad on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:47:05 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's not bizarre (0+ / 0-)

      The harm is done when an Obama supporter 'takes the bait' and criticizes the Clinton campaign for their remarks.  Then hacks like Taylor Marsh and diaries like this can say that Obama is playing the race card.  Its this 'race-card' perception that turns the voters away from Obama as reckless diaries like this spead poisonous memes.  It hadn't played out by IA and NH, but the Clinton machine kept at it and at it, and now they have finally gotten the MSM to narrate the Obama camp as defensive and playing the race card.
      I know you HRC supporters are savvy enough to at least see the logic behind this.  Please stop ignoring this possible motive.

    •  Could be (0+ / 0-)

      My suspicion is that part of it is.. there are a lot of liberal white people who.. you could invent some crazy ass story to prove that the phrase "touch base" is racist against someone, and they'd be falling all over themselves to patrol everything that came out of every corporate drone's mouth in order to yell "you're a racist!" the instant s/he innocently said "we should touch base," thereby reassuring themselves of their own correctness and righteousness.

      So, you know, the harder you work to make up stories about the other campaign using alleged dog-whistle words, the more righteous you get to feel about your own choice of candidate, and be sure to get all your liberal friends to join in with your righteousness.

      (I'm a liberal.  But.. well, damned if I haven't seen plenty of people who are the most punctilious about judging others on this count never look at themselves and realize that the way they actually treat real people of different ethnicity is completely patronizing and offensive.)

      Competent leadership, for a change! | Hillary '08

      by daria g on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:22:43 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Is that diary the source of the Hillary rhetoric (11+ / 1-)

    that comes on automatically?

    •  So No Response to The Issues I've Raised? (14+ / 0-)

      Not a peep on the issues?  The fact that Obama's remained silent on Iraq since joining the SEnate.

      The fact that he said in 2004 that he hadn't a clue as to how he would have voted?

      No comment on how he skipped all those chances to be our anti-war champion since joining the Senate?

      •  Not when even when I exit the diary...am on the (0+ / 0-)

        main page..leave for a few minutes..come back and the thing is still restarting.

        Can you fix it please?

      •  Why would that be a big issue to me when (10+ / 0-)

        Clinton voted to go to War and then voted for Kyl-Lieberman.

        Your outrage doesn't make sense. lol

      •  actually, he did not... (13+ / 0-)

        he called on Bush to implement the recommendations of the Iraq study group, supported Reed-Levin as an alternative to Kerry Feingold, authored and submitted legislation for withdrawal, voted for a timetable for withdrawal, and, eventually, following a veto, voted against funding.

        By your saying that his record since joining the senate is identical to Clinton's, I take it we should conclude that he was right to vote as he did... or that Hillary voted incorrectly. I don't think either conclusion is one you are particularly inclined towards.

        The Clintons' distortions (link and link ) does not fundamentally change the fact that, when Obama was openly speaking out against the war, Hillary Clinton was giving George W. Bush permission to start it.

        •  That Legislation for Withdrawal (0+ / 0-)

          was written / offered up AFTER he declared his candidacy for the presidency.

          Same goes for just about everythig else in your first paragraph and again - it was in lockstep with Hillary.

          I point out that his record is identical to Clinton's because he's beeing using this issue as the cornerstone of his campaign and has repeatedly bashed her over the head with it since he got into this race.

          Meanwhile, he's done as little as possible to help end this war and has REPEATEDLY voted for funding to keep it going.

          As for openly speaking out against the war - it was one speech given from a very anti-war district in Illinois as a state senator.  He's since said he doesn't know how he'd have voted on the resolution.

          •  so? (11+ / 0-)

            was written / offered up AFTER he declared his candidacy for the presidency.

            Obama did not go to the Senate with an immediate mission to withdraw from Iraq, given that when he entered the Senate doing so would have made a bad situation, a situation not of his making, even worse.

            and again - it was in lockstep with Hillary.

            Logically, either he was right or she was wrong: take your pick.

            I point out that his record is identical to Clinton's because he's beeing using this issue as the cornerstone of his campaign and has repeatedly bashed her over the head with it since he got into this race.

            As he should. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War authorization and spoke out in its favor. Barack Obama spoke out against the Iraq War at the time.

            Meanwhile, he's done as little as possible to help end this war

            Well, that's obviously untrue, as there's a bloc of Republicans who are restricting any and all Iraq legislation to oppose Bush admin. policy, and Obama voted against that bloc both before and after his announcement of candidacy.

            He's since said he doesn't know how he'd have voted on the resolution.

            ...because he did not know what confidential intelligence reports showed. He stated, truthfully, that the case had not been made to HIM that war was justified. It turns out that no information in the senate would have changed that...

            •  Yeah - You've Totally Dodged My Main Point Here (0+ / 0-)

              That he's only done the bare minimum until he said he was running for president.

              But whatever.

              •  no, he has not... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TrueBlueMajority, Dumbo, fisheye

                and I've quite clearly argued that he hasn't done as much as I'd like.

                You are quite obviously and shamelessly dodging the point that your candidate made the wrong choice on the most important decision at hand- one that would have made my alleged dodging more than irrelevant.

                You, as an anti-war advocate yourself, are now part of a substantial effort to blatantly distort the record of our select political leaders who opposed the war back when that opposition was most important. Congratulations.

                •  EXACTLY what Kimball said. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority

                  The whole argument that Alegre offers is that Obama hasn't fought hard enough against the war.  Well, fine, we agree.  I wish Feingold was running.

                  But we can all see who the candidate is that has most embraced the war.  

                  And the fact that Obama has voted for re-funding the war in lockstep with Clinton is a mark against him, but it in no way can possibly EVER compare with the lunacy and the cynicism of voting to let Bush start this godforsaken mess in the first place, what General William S. Odom called, "The worst strategic blunder in American history."

          •  Again (0+ / 0-)

            the decision to go to war and subsequent decisions on how the war was conducted once engaged are not the same or transitive.

            Again you fail credibility with 'little as possible to help end this war' Barack authored and submitted a resolution as a freshman Senator for withdrawal from the war.

            Your fact hub has lost it's wheel.

      •  I have one (10+ / 0-)

        The Clintons are far, far worse when it comes to Iraq, Iran, or anything concerning foreign policy.  They'll blow people up at the drop of the hat to show their toughness.

        Is Obama perfect on this score?  No.  Would I prefer that he had led on this issue more strongly?  Damn right.  But Cluster Bomb Clinton is by far the worst candidate in the field.  Compared to her, Obama IS Mahatma Gandhi.  

        Bill wasn't in office any more in 2002.  He could have spoken out.  Instead, he gave Bush cover.  Hillary had just been elected and wouldn't face re-election until 2006.  She could have spoken out, but didn't.  Bill was probably the only person in the world who could have put the brakes on things.  He didn't, and he's her closest advisor.  Obama did speak out, at a time when to do so was not popular, even with Democrats.  Do you still forget that Michael Moore was booed at the Oscars for his "Shame on you!" speech?

        As for his 2004 remarks, he chose not to step on the platform of the two pro-AUMF candidates the party had just elected.  The full context of that speech makes clear that he was saying only that he had not seen the classified information the Senators had.  That's a sign of caution, not bloodthirst.  Hillary, on the other hand, had access to the information and didn't even bother reading it before throwing in her lot with the warmongers.  Obama, for all his caution, certainly never went around trying to out-Guiliani Giuliani with I AM THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK I WILL NOT PUT MY PEOPLE AT RISK when people suggested that maybe, possibly, the war wasn't such a great idea.

        And as for Obama missing the Kyl-Lieberman vote, thanks to Cave In Harry rescheduling the vote after saying he would not, AT LEAST HE DIDN'T PUT A GUN IN CHENEY'S HANDS - AGAIN.

        I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

        by DelRPCV on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:53:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Though you make a lot of good points (8+ / 0-)

        I have to object to this claim (also in the diary):

        he said in 2004 that he hadn't a clue as to how he would have voted?

        Here's a fuller context, taken from the link that you provided (*emphasis added*):

        In a recent interview, he declined to criticize Senators Kerry and Edwards for voting to authorize the war, although he said he would not have done the same based on the information he had at the time.

        ''But, I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

        But Mr. Obama said he did fault Democratic leaders for failing to ask enough tough questions of the Bush administration to force it to prove its case for war. ''What I don't think was appropriate was the degree to which Congress gave the president a pass on this,'' he said.

        That doesn't sound like a man without a clue. That sounds like a man who's weighed the available evidence ("from my vantage point the case was not made") while acknowledging that there might be relevant information to which he didn't have access.

        You could say he was trying to avoid taking a stand, though I don't agree there either. But saying he "didn't know", or "didn't have a clue" is a perversion of his words.

        I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth. RIP, Molly Ivins. And thanks.

        by Nowhere Man on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:59:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Clinton privy to intel, just too lazy to read it (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          aisling, TrueBlueMajority, Nick Blas

          Hillary Clinton was privy to the classified Iraq NIE in 2002 that could have allowed her to have a much more informed view of the war than then State Senator Obama. Yet SENATOR CLINTON DIDN'T BOTHER READING THE CONSENSUS JUDGEMENT OF THE US INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES ON THE EVE OF WAR. Not even when urged to read it by Senate Intelligence Chairman Bob Graham:

          "Friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form," Sen. Graham reports stating on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

          "We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States." He warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands"

          She didn't even read the intelligence, intelligence that helped make the case AGAINST WAR. There were all kinds of caveats in the full classified NIE but Sen. Clinton wouldn't know that because she couldn't be troubled to fucking read it. Blood is on her hands.

          Obama's Illinois colleage Dick Durbin read the '02 Iraq NIE and voted against the war.

          Not only does Sen. Clinton's judgement suck her vaunted work ethic was nowhere to be found on the eve of war when she couldn't read an intelligence report that was less than 100 pages. What a disgusting lack of commitment from all the Senators who didn't read the Iraq NIE on the eve of a vote for war, including Sen. Clinton.

      •  Is Bill Clinton entering the race? (0+ / 0-)

        because I kinda like that guy.

        How is the decision to go to war and the decisions made once engaged in war transitive? Oh, 'is'. I almost forgot who made this argument.

        I guess once Bill Clinton sent our country to war without any Congressional approval at all, the deliberations about how the war would be prosecuted and ended were moot? I mean, you don't call the jets back in mid mission stupid.
        But Bill Clintons war wasn't a dumb war that needed Senators to approve it. Why would Congressional approval ever be a factor in subsequent decisions of how a war is prosecuted? If you're "anti war", then the world becomes black and white. Or something like that. No reason to think about changes in circumstances. Black is black white is white, just like Hillary's defense of her vote for authorization.

        If Bill Clinon wants to parse someone elses words and deeds he can have at it. He's a master of parsing words. Hypotheticals about how Obama would have voted are irrelevent from him or anyone else. He nailed it in his stated opinion at the time.

        "Silent on Iraq since joining the Senate"? That doesn't even deserve a response. He authored and submitted a resolution for withdrawal.

    •  I have read your comment about 5 times (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DrKate, Alegre

      and cannot make sense out of it.  Insults work much better if they are articulately written.

  •  The Clintons (7+ / 0-)

    have to walk a very fine line.  Any personal remark that is disrespectful of Barack as a man or any Black leader for that matter, could be interpreted by some as disrespect based on race.

    I would think that the Clinton's would see that the Black community's reaction to Bill Clinton's assassination reference, his comment about Barack being a "fairy tale" (which he has said was misinterpreted) and Hillary's apparent disrespect for MLK  in her remarks (she has since said that she did not mean any disrespect) have set the Black community ON FIRE.

    The Clinton's have no one but themselves, and maybe fatigue, to blame for these mistakes.  And I am certainly not here to excuse them.

    But, if they think that even hinting that they have a problem with Barack and his affinity for MLK is not going to get them in a whole heck of a lot hot water, they are sadly mistaken.

    President Bill Clinton was widely admired by the Black community.  But Hillary cannot assume that she has earned the same respect and the rhetoric they and their surrogates have been using lately is not at all appreciated by the Black community and does not signal any respect for Barack Obama's historic rise in this presidential race.

    The significance of all of this will be quite clear in a few weeks when the people of SC vote.  

    The Clintons may have burned their biggest bridge to the nomination in the last few days.  And they can't blame it on Obama or his campaign.  Obama has been mum and his campaign has only said that each person can interpret the remarks themselves.

    One more "misstatement" and it could spell the beginning of the end for the Clintons..

    Health care is a human right.

    by Helenann on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:42:45 PM PST

      •  Do you think typing "Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority

        affects how this particulary story plays in the black community?  You can diary 25 hours a day, but people will make up their own minds.  Which is the point the OP here was trying to make.

        [Insert pithy phrase here]

        by Quicklund on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:35:04 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Helenann didn't bother to listen to Bill C on... (0+ / 0-)

        ...the video you posted above, Alegre, or else helenann wouldn't still be speculating about what President Clinton said.  I have to admit that I hadn't bothered to watch that clip, either, as I listened to Mob Obama distort it here over the past day or so.  I have now watched and heard the video and am certain the Mob interpetation of it here has been a part of their playing the race card.  I can't emphasize enough the importance of your diary in helping me decide between Senators Obama and Clinton (and for Clinton).

      •  Yes I did (0+ / 0-)

        Many times.  He has tried to correct the impression he left, but I am afraid the damage was done.

        Health care is a human right.

        by Helenann on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:39:06 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  He said HIS IRAQ RECORD was a fairy tale (15+ / 0-)

      Which it is!  Obama's portrayal of his OWN record on Iraq votes is indeed a big fairy tale.  Bill Clinton couldn't have said it any better.

      Clinton '08 // Putting People First

      by Berkeley Vox on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:47:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  i guess they prefer their version... (9+ / 0-)

        ...the better to be outraged over. too bad the video demonstrates it didn't happen.

        Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

        by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:11:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  "This Whole Thing (7+ / 0-)

        is a fairy tale"

        That infers much more than what he was speaking about.

        "Vetting" has become code for "dogwhistling".

        by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:26:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Stuck pig squeals (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Pacific John, sara seattle, Alegre

          As they say in Arkansas.

          "This whole thing" is the Obama narrative, which our famously free press has been deeply uninterested in examining in any detail.

          [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

          by lambertstrether on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:37:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Not the way I interpreted this (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            johnny rotten, Dumbo, Drewid

            The Clintons have crossed the Rubicon. They have sowed the wind.

            It's time for them to reap what they have sown.

            "Vetting" has become code for "dogwhistling".

            by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:40:20 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Criticizing Obama is crossing the Rubicon??!?! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              EE Prof

              Was Iowa a winner-take-all national primary and I somehow didn't get the memo?

              [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

              by lambertstrether on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:44:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  i think walt is threatening.. (0+ / 0-)

                ...to hold his breath until he turns blue.

                walt, we don't even READ your stuff. none of it is believable. you've changed your story so many times it's easier just to wait until you change it again rather than argue with you.

                Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

                by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  Dogwhistle politics was crossing the Rubicon (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                johnny rotten, Dumbo, Elise

                The Democratic coalition now stands on the edge of a straight razor.

                The Clintons seem hell bent on applying more pressure.

                "Vetting" has become code for "dogwhistling".

                by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:47:09 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The dogwhistle I remember... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... was Obama putting Social Security in play in Iowa, using it as a club to beat Hillary with, and in the sam breath claiming that Social Security shouldn't be used as a political football. Sure, it was an anti-progressive dodwhistle, but a dogwhistle it was.

                  All politicians use dogwhistles. Get over it.

                  And what's the "edge" here? You're going to take your ball and go home if your guy loses?

                  [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

                  by lambertstrether on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:53:53 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  <fingers in ears> (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dumbo, Settembrini, Helenann, JCross

                  la la la la la
                  no back lash
                  muslim emails
                  "did he sell drugs"
                  hussien
                  cocaine
                  la la la la la
                  lbj>mlk
                  jive
                  false hope
                  la la la la la
                  the idea that the Obama campaign, not the african-american community are raising these flags is the biggest fairy tale.

                  Congress is increasingly complicit in the Bush administration crimes.

                  by Drewid on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:26:36 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Obama does addres the issue very well (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TrueBlueMajority, Drewid

                    The Clintons are soooooo last decade.

                    by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:30:43 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  This is a beautiful clip (0+ / 0-)

                      This is what those of us who believe in Obama's message need to keep coming back to.  This is the direction we want our country to go.  This is the vision we want from our leaders.  This is the tone that will bring us together.

                      When the Clintons and their surrogates start slinging the mud, and nothing can stop them, we need to be more like Barack.  And stand above it.  Shine a bright light on the lies for all to see and set the record straight.  But not engage in this tired old slash and burn politics.

                      OBAMA '08

                      Health care is a human right.

                      by Helenann on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:53:34 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  That dog.... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...don't hunt.

                  "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

                  by Bensdad on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:56:38 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No (0+ / 0-)

                making up lies and innuendo about his pro-choice stance in NH (campaign mailer),

                raising outrageous questions about whether he was a drug dealer (NH campaign chair) or

                is a Muslim extremist (campaign surrogates),

                suggesting the idea of assassination (Bill Clinton in NH),

                disrespecting MLK's contribution to the civil rights movement (Hillary),

                using offensive language such as "shuck and Jive" (Mario Cuomo on behalf of the campaign),

                The above constitutes crossing the Rubicon.

                How the Clinton supporters can defend her campaign and the tactics they are engaging in is beyond me.  I understand the desire for a woman President.  But this is not the woman and this is not her time.  

                The uglier and angrier they get, the less desirable they look to the American people.  

                Health care is a human right.

                by Helenann on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  That's not how I would characterize what Bill (26+ / 0-)

        Clinton is doing in that clip.

        Here's what I would say Bill Clinton is doing.

        Bill is sowing a doubt about an opponent by making an ad hominem attack. He is making an attack based on Karl Rove's technique of attacking your opponent's strengths and casting doubts in voters minds about those very strengths.

        At the end of Clinton's Rovean attack, listeners will a) not know whether to believe Obama at all and b) not perceive his strength for what it is, a campaign advantage, but instead see it as a source of personal mistrust in the candidate!

        Barack Obama, in point of fact, gave a speech in 2002 that both opposed the war in Iraq and was prescient about what would follow if we did go to war. That is a strength. That is an historical fact.

        Hillary Clinton gave no such speech. Not only that, Hillary Clinton was a significant vote enabling George Bush to go to war. Clinton's own characterization of her war vote and what her intentions were at the time are, to say the least, a campaign weakness. (In fact, Clinton has the EXACT problem that Bill is accusing Obama of...she has not been forthcoming about her opinion about the war in Iraq.)

        Bill Clinton is attacking Obama's strength by casting doubts about Barack Obama's motivations and characterizations of his opposition to the war in the run up to his run for Senate and, now, the Presidency.

        Pay attention to how Clinton does this. He can't change history, so he tries to change how we SEE history.

        Clinton accuses Obama of being overly ambitious. Clinton then accuses Obama of pulling down his speech because he is politically ambitious. Clinton accuses Obama of getting a free pass from the press and of being politically inexperienced.

        All of these accusations are meant to make us doubt something that is a strength and a fact: that Barack Obama opposed the war in Iraq and was prescient about it's eventualities in 2002.

        When Bill Clinton says, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I have ever seen." He is refering to HIS OWN carefully cherry picked account of Barack Obama's opposition to Bush policy in Iraq.

        You see, Bill Clinton knows he can't change the fact that Barack Obama opposed the war in 2002 and Hillary Clinton did not, but he can change how his audience feels about Barack Obama.

        He calls Barack Obama's campaign negative. (????) He claims to have been "blistered" by Obama's negative attacks. (????) And then he uses a phrase that, subtly, might characterize the entire Obama campaign, he says..."this whole thing"...is the "biggest fairy tale he has ever seen."

        This is classic Rovian politics. Attack your opponents strength at the point of your greatest weakness. Attack the person, not the political record.

        If you can't change the facts, change how voters FEEL about the facts.

        The Clintons and the diarist do this by mischaracterizing Obama's record at exactly the point where he is strong and they are weak. They do this not by actually debating Obama's 2002 speech, but by  making ad hominem attacks at the man himself...the attacks on the man, make us distrust the speech.

        Ask yourself, is Barack Obama, in point of fact, a negative campaigner?

        Ask yourself, who else gave a speech like Barack Obama in 2002?

        Ask yourself, despite what this diarist says, do you REALLY think the public record reflects Barack Obama as a "race baiter" and "playing the race card?"

        Is that what his 2004 convention speech was about?

        Could Hillary Clinton have given that speech?

        What was Hillary Clinton saying in 2002? and then in 2004? and then in 2006? Isn't that the relevant thing to compare here?

        Of course it is.

        And, yes, it's relevant to our votes in the primary of 2008.

        k/o: politics and culture

        by kid oakland on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:31:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  ok, so bill clinton is karl rove. (5+ / 0-)

          sorry. you lost me there. i had serious doubts about obama's integrity long before bill brought this up, because his story doesn't add up. if he were against the war, there's be a pattern of behavior- support for others opposing the war, leaving his speech up on his website instead of substituting a watered-down statement, etc. obama's behavior does not match his current version of what happened.

          and attacking bill clinton by calling him "rovian" is a dishonorable thing to do. i know you're famous and popular and all that on this website, but that doesn't change the facts.

          Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

          by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:36:28 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think someone who tries to rewrite history (17+ / 0-)

            in particular, the fact that Obama opposed the war in 2002 and had prescient things to say about what we were in for in Iraq, deserves whatever opprobrium fits.

            Rove got Republicans to IMAGINE that John Kerry made up his wounds in Viet Nam, that John Kerry was in fact not deserving of his medals.

            How is that different from Bill Clinton getting that audience to think that Barack Obama is a negative, ambitious, dissembling, inexperienced candidate (who has "blistered" Clinton personally with attacks no less)...

            as a lead up to calling Obama's 2002 speech and opposition to Bush policy in Iraq the "biggest fairy tale he's ever seen."

            That's an outright lie. That speech is not a fairy tale in the least. Barack Obama deserves our praise for that speech. That's a part of the historical record.

            If there's a "fairy tale "component to Barack Obama it is his 2004 convention speech. That speech represents his greatest strength.  There are few living Americans who can speak that well and inspire so many, who can bring us together around our common themes.

            Hillary Clinton, whatever her strengths, and she has many, cannot really do that. That is a weakness of her campaign. She doesn't inspire the nation as a whole, she doesn't expand our message.

            Bill Clinton, following Rove's playbook, attacked Obama's strengths by attacking Obama the man.

            It was a low point in ex-Presidential politics.

            k/o: politics and culture

            by kid oakland on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:58:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Not dishonorable if it's appropriate (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nisleib

            I used to love Bill Clinton, but I feel no further loyalty to the utter lying sack he has become.  To fail to criticize our leaders when they're wrong is rather . . . Republican.

            I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

            by DelRPCV on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:59:11 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  exactly, DelPRCV (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority, emilymv

              I feel the same way about Bill.  I was once a big believer in him.  No politician has ever let me down more than he did.

              •  What we are (0+ / 0-)

                dancing around is the ugly truth:  Bill Clinton is a liar.

                It's been proven to us.  It's been shoved down our throats by the GOP for years.  We can't deny it anymore.

                Sure, he is a skilled political operative and a smart man, but he is still a liar.

                This is just one more example of his lies.  The man knows his politics, he knows what he is doing.  He fully understands why Obama toned down his anti war rhetoric in 2004, when he was about to give the keynote speach at the Democratic convention.  Obama didn't have much choice, both Kerry and Edwards voted for the war and they were the Democratic candidates.

                Clinton is just lying.

          •  Copying Rove is TEMPTATION ONE. (0+ / 0-)

            His dishonesty has worked.

            And its way too easy to do. MSM is shy about hammering logical fallacies and out-and-out lies.

            Dixie Chicks, Amy Winehouse, Imus, and Lenny Bruce. Overcome evil with good.

            by vets74 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:08:34 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  Correct (6+ / 0-)

          It's exactly what happened to Kerry, attack his military career, because that is his strongest point.

          "Hope is that thing inside us that insists...that something better awaits us if we have the courage to fight for it." --Barack Obama

          by loree920 on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:39:22 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Ok I've Got to Admit Kid (0+ / 0-)

          You lost me after about your third reference to Rove.

          You seriously got all that out of that short clip?  Holy cow!

          And as for refering to me ast he diarist while I'm still here and replying to comments...

          I'm right here - please don't talk about me as if I can't see what you're typing ok?

        •  Ok I read a bit further... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Limelite

          Hillary was a significant vote that let bush to go war?

          Did you even read that resolution? Because everything I've seen tells us that it didn't give bush any such authorization.

          And btw - the resolution did not pass by a single vote (Hillary's).  A lot of other folks voted for it so please don't make out like it's all her fault.

          I'm sorry but I don't see anythig here that addresses the fact that Obama's been pretending he's our champion in the anti-war movement and he's remained quiet when Murtha and others were doing the heavy lifting.  He remained quiet when Kerry - a guy who had received our party's nominatation at a convention he'd just given the keynote speech at - was being swiftboated within days of that convention right through to the Nov. election.

        •  Hmmmm (0+ / 0-)

          Ask yourself, is Barack Obama, in point of fact, a negative campaigner?

          I asked myself.  And myself said "YES"...."the worst kind".  He negates others with a smile on his face, sweetly, giving the illusion of positivity while trashing others.

        •  nail hit driven deep (0+ / 0-)

          I'm bookmarking this for future reference.

          I'm surprised you're joining this fray, KO, but I'm glad you're making these points because you do it better than almost anyone else can.

          you nailed the reason why this whole tactic rubs people the wrong way, and sadly, the reason why the tactic might work on an electorate that has gotten used to seeing similar tactics (from the Republicans).

          more money quotes than I can count:

          Bill is sowing a doubt about an opponent by making an ad hominem attack. He is making an attack based on Karl Rove's technique of attacking your opponent's strengths and casting doubts in voters minds about those very strengths.

          Barack Obama, in point of fact, gave a speech in 2002 that both opposed the war in Iraq and was prescient about what would follow if we did go to war. That is a strength. That is an historical fact.

          Hillary Clinton gave no such speech.

          Pay attention to how Clinton does this. He can't change history, so he tries to change how we SEE history.

          When Bill Clinton says, "This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I have ever seen." He is refering to HIS OWN carefully cherry picked account of Barack Obama's opposition to Bush policy in Iraq.

          You see, Bill Clinton knows he can't change the fact that Barack Obama opposed the war in 2002 and Hillary Clinton did not, but he can change how his audience feels about Barack Obama.

          This is classic Rovian politics. Attack your opponents strength at the point of your greatest weakness. Attack the person, not the political record.

          If you can't change the facts, change how voters FEEL about the facts.

          Damn I'm just repeating the whole thing, but it's so  well said.  If I can find my tinfoil hate around here somewhere, I might actually believe that Rove did write this part of the WJC/HRC playbook.  If he didn;t write it, they certainly learned well from someone who plays by the same rules.

          How can anyone defend the Clintons on this.  It is a tactic worthy of Fox News.

          Politics is like driving. To go backward, put it in R. To go forward, put it in D.
          IMPEACH CHENEY FIRST.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:04:47 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  An outstanding comment (0+ / 0-)

          Thank you,  I couldn't agree more with your analysis and conclusion.  

          Health care is a human right.

          by Helenann on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 12:56:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, he could have said it much better. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority, Helenann

        He could have said, "We apologize for the AUMF vote, and for Kyl-Lieberman, and we intend to withdraw all troops from Iraq by such and such a date if/when Hillary assumes office."

        If he said that, this whole argument would be moot, and a lot of people supporting Obama and Edwards would release a sigh of relief.

        But, no, as Hillary told us last January, if you want a candidate who will apologize for the AUMF vote, well you can go vote for somebody else.  

        I take that seriously.  And I will.

    •  they don't need to make mistakes (5+ / 0-)

      for one thing they really aren't racist, but the point is that some who foster hate and want to divide America are making shit up, and it isn't nice.  That's not Obama's message, but he never corrects anyone, he trying to show it not just say it, but, it isn't getting through.  

    •  I'm no fan of Hillary or Bill. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ljm, SaneSoutherner

      But, even I can see that Bill was calling Obama's record on Iraq the "fairy tale".  This is a big hullabaloo over nothing.

      Being bipolar means that I sometimes lose control and speak in generalities. Sorry if I offended anyone. Most is just snark, anyway.

      by rainmanjr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:59:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Can you read? Can you hear? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      SaneSoutherner

      Or are you so blinded by your self-righteous, holier-than-thou sanctimony that all you can do is condemn and blame, condemn and blame.

      Bill Clinton was trashing the press for not asking Obama the hard questions on Iraq and he called Obama's claims about his positions on Iraq a fairy tale.  That is legitimate political banter.  Get real.

  •  He was right, Hillary was wrong. (14+ / 0-)

    End.  of.  story.

    P.S.  Edwards was even more wrong, but that's a moot point.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:45:15 PM PST

  •  Awesome diary, as usual (19+ / 0-)

    Nicely written and laid out.  The claim that Bill Clinton meant anything "racial" by saying that Obama's record on Iraq (i.e., that once he got to the US Senate he voted exactly the same way on all votes as Hillary did) was a "fairy tale" is crazy!

    Clinton '08 // Putting People First

    by Berkeley Vox on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:46:07 PM PST

  •  here is the original speech on his website... (9+ / 0-)

    courtesy of the internet archive. look for the october 23, 2002 entry down the page a bit, and don't let the weird yellow font bother you. i guess he had different webpage designers back then. also of note are the later rumblings as he smelled an easy path to the US senate.

    archived copy of obama's speech on his illinois senate website

    Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

    by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 07:47:59 PM PST

  •  The MSM and Obama are all about Fluff, and (7+ / 0-)

    pulling the wool over the eyes of the masses. Some of the masses are so intent on the aura and  hype, that they cannot admit there is nothing there inside the suit but a past that needs erased to keep up appearances.

  •  Thanks (9+ / 0-)

    It's about time we started learning some real facts about Senator Hope@change.  

  •  Geez Alegre, I do not know where you find the (13+ / 0-)

    time to write such clear, detailed, well-thought-out and supremely well-written dairies and raise a family and work and everything else.  I reckon you and Hillary are cut out of the same cloth.

    I beginning to think such amazing organisational ability is definitely a woman-thing.  Most of us men only organise things well when there is a fishing or hiking trip at the end of it ;-)

    I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

    by Norwegian Chef on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:02:40 PM PST

  •  Well researched, Alegre. (15+ / 0-)

    Seems no one here wants to wrestle with you on this subject.    You must have hit a nerve.  

  •  A response (26+ / 0-)

    I love Bill Clinton. But I find the statement he makes in the clip presented intentionally misleading.

    When Barack Obama said he didn't know how he would vote on the AUMF he was at the convention in a role as a surrogate for Kerry/Edwards. He was trying to be a good team player and not create division between him and the nominee of the party at the convention. For Bill Clinton to pick up on that statement as evidence of a contradiction in Obama's views is deceitful.

    Obama's speech about the war was clear and prescient. It would have served as an excellent guide for our nation's policies. Hillary's speeches at the time were wrong and insulting.

    Honestly, this is one actual reason why I prefer Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton. I've always wanted a president who is in a position to repudiate that terrible war. I remain angry at Hillary Clinton for voting for the war authorization. The anti-war people asked her not to and she dismissed them. She dismissed me. She has never apologized or acknowledged her mistake. And I am left to believe that she supported the war as a political calculation. And that is somewhere between sad and unforgiveable.

    All of this is well known and if you aren't already persuaded by it, you are unlikely to be persuaded now.

    I don't see the Clinton's as racist and I don't see the Obama campaign as 'playing the race card.' Both arguments are inflammatory and I don't think we need more inflammation. I think Rep Clyburn has it right that the Clinton campaign needs to step up its care in how it speaks because people are being offended.

    From an abomination to an Obama Nation

    by copithorne on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:13:40 PM PST

    •  excellent post... (9+ / 0-)

      there's no question that the Clintons have clipped Obama's statements from 2004 in a way that distorts their meaning.

      •  i think obama is the one ... (3+ / 0-)

        ...that distorted the meaning. being a "surrogate" for kerry at the convention is a strange justification for flatly contradicting your previous position on an issue. did kerry have him under post-hypnotic suggestion or something? or (as bill said), did he say something different when put in a different political situation?

        it's an integrity issue.

        Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

        by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:29:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  answer... (8+ / 0-)

          ''But, I'm not privy to the Senate intelligence reports,'' Mr. Obama said. ''What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.''

          This is not a contradiction of his opposition. It is a completely accurate statement that he was not privy to the same information as those in the Senate, and that that information could have been a better case for an imminent threat.

          Of course, it did not.

          And excluding the second sentence from the quote, as the Clintons have done in criticizing Obama at points, is simply dishonest.

    •  Team Player? Yeah but here's the thing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrkvica, emsprater

      When Barack Obama said he didn't know how he would vote on the AUMF he was at the convention in a role as a surrogate for Kerry/Edwards. He was trying to be a good team player and not create division between him and the nominee of the party at the convention.

      Right after that convention the swift-boaters went to work on Kerry and we got what from Obama?

      ... crickets.

      Not a peep in defense of his team member.

      As for repudiating the war... why'd he wait until last year to take a stand on all this?  He's voted in lock step with Hillary on Iraq since joining the Senate.  LOCK - STEP.  The only vote they differed on wat the Gates nomination and he voted for confirmation with Hillary opposed it.

      If anything, Hillary's got a more progressive record on Iraq in comparison during Obama's years in the Senate.

      I really do appreciate your taking a crack at answering some of the quesitons I've posed.  I've just posted this reply but that doesn't negate the fact that I appreciate your taking a shot at it.  Thx.

      •  Post-war (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Elise, Settembrini

        Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's positions about what to do now in Iraq are similar.

        I myself do not have a strong opinion about what to do in Iraq. The whole thing is such a terrible catastrophe and I don't know how to make it better.

        I do prefer a president who can stand before the world and repudiate this war. That will go a long way towards restoring America's place in the world. It will go a long way in restoring a a proper understanding in this country of what our role should be. That's why I prefer Barack Obama.

        I don't find your contention that Barack's response to the swiftboat smear was inadequate to be very compelling. Barack had his own senate campaign to conduct. I don't expect it is part of your own reasoning for opposing his candidacy and supporting Hillary's.

        From an abomination to an Obama Nation

        by copithorne on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:07:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I don't blame Obama (5+ / 0-)

      but it is funny that Bill's words are taken out of context, and using a phrase is enough to pretend he's saying something awful. It's just awful to suggest he's said what some have claimed, just awful.  It's fair to look at Obama's words on the war, it's his strong selling point.  Either he really took a stand, or he didn't take such a strong one.  Obama could respond to the charge, and not let other's trash Bill on his behalf.  

    •  apply the same standards to others then (6+ / 0-)

      If you are going to allow Obama the benefit of doubt by saying that he was just trying to be a team player and so he said he didnt know how to vote, then you have to allow Clinton the benefit of doubt that she was from NY and 9/11 probably had NewYorkers, particularly upsate on the edge and upset. So she probably didnt want to anger that constituency by voting against the war. Not that I agree with that or that she should have any excuses for that vote. But be consistent and allow her that slack. Obama didnt face this problem, since he wasnt in washington at the time and he actually didnt have to vote on the war bill, not to mention representing NY. But when he did get to the senate, the war was extremely unpopular, everyone and his dog was against it at the time.

      •  More of that Double Standard Turkana Was Talking (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CC Music Factory

        about in their diary today.

      •  that makes no sense (3+ / 0-)

        9/11 isn't related to iraq.

        •  true. But I wasnt talking about that (0+ / 0-)

          No I wasnt saying 9/11 had anything to do with Iraq. What it did was make the president extremely powerful. He was hitting the democrats hard at every opportunity from the bully pulpit(particularly around the 2002 elections) and we lost some ground because of that. The guy had approval ratings in the 80s and no one dared to go against him when he made the connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and half the country or more than that believed him. It wasnt until late 2004 that folks started to disconnect 9/11 and Iraq and didnt buy into Bush.

          This is not to say our legislators shouldnt have had the spine that kucinich had. But you cant tell me that obama is the guy who would have had the spine to vote against it. BEcause he hasnt shown any since he got to the senate

          •  so, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            TrueBlueMajority

            you're saying that endorsing a war that killed nearly 1m ppl is not so terrible b/c she faced a lot of political pressure?
            that's not the kind of person i want to vote for.

            many other senators opposed the war.
            obama opposed the war before it started and predicted many of its terrible consequences, including the sunni/shia conflict.

            •  thats convenient opposing (0+ / 0-)

              look, when you dont have to vote on it where it counts, you can oppose all day. As I said, this is not to say, that she shouldnt have shown spine and voted no or retracted that later. This is in the context of your candidate supporter saying cut some slack to Obama's statement at the convention for not knowing how he would vote on the resolution. If we cut some slack for one candidate, then cut some for the other. I dont disagree with your position on the war. Just be consistent on cutting slack.

              •  2 different issues (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TrueBlueMajority

                HRC caved to political pressure for the sake of her political career, as did many others like kerry, edwards, gephardt, biden, dodd, etc.

                obama's statement was onlymade to not undermine kerry and edwards, not b/c he was waffling.

                i agree obama has been weak in his opposition since he entered the senate, but i also acknowledge that getting out is very different than getting in.
                i don't think W would even allow a withdrawal, anyway.

                •  but would obama kill his political career for war (0+ / 0-)

                  I dont think he would kill his political career for ending the war or starting the war at a time when the president had enormous appeal. I havent seen any evidence from his senate stay that remotely suggests he would jeopardize his career for standing up on principles, particulary war. If you go take a look at the bills he voted "present" in Illinois senate, you will find many of those are politically inconvenient for his re-electability

                  •  it may have killed hillary's career (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    TrueBlueMajority

                    to support it.

                    all you can do is look at what actually happened, not try to guess what would have happened in other circumstances.
                    obama was 1 of many D's who spoke out against the war, hillary was 1 of many who supported it.

                    the present vote thing is nothing.  apparently 3% of total votes.  it has been covered over and over.
                    it was a strategy to cover for moderate D's in swing districts who were at risk of losing to R's.
                    infinitely less important than supporting the war.

                    •  speaking is easy (0+ / 0-)

                      I do agree with your position on the war and that hillary should have been forceful. But I dont buy the "he spoke out against the war" part. Because talk is cheap when you dont have to vote on it directly and create a record the opposition can exploit ad nauseum, like they did with Kerry. Lets conclude that Hillary doesnt have the spine. But obama can demonstrate that he does by risking his own political career and do things like force war funding withdrawal or impeachment support etc. He didnt support even the censure motion. So I have a hard time buying he would do anything at all that jeopardizes his career.

                      On the 3% note, you are right. It is not the % that counts. Go take a look at what bills he did the present thing on. That matters. That does not show much political career risking spine at all.

                      •  what more (0+ / 0-)

                        would you expect at the time?
                        while was running for senate, he made a strong anti-war speech at an anti-war rally, and campaigned on an anti-war platform.
                        that record could be exploited just as much as a senate vote.

                        talk is cheap, but he was going on record opposing a war when the vast majority supported it.  talk is cheap, so he could have been quiet, but he spoke out.

                        i believe all of his war funding votes have been tied to timetables for withdrawal.

                        you are really grasping at straws with the present votes.

                        PS, it's spelled ad nauseam.

                        •  the question is not what more? (0+ / 0-)

                          The question is if Obama hasnt done much more than speeches where he didnt have to do create a voting record, then where is the evidence that he will risk his politcal career for principles? That was your main complaint about Hillary, when I said you should give her the same slack that you give Obama, even though her position is wrong on the war. So I dont see the answer for that other than saying he talked about opposing the war. But once you are in the senate if you were willing to risk your career for principles, you can take the lead (the leadership he now claims he has) and be the voice of opposing the war and creating bills that flat out deny the war funding, whether it fails or succeeds. That will demonstrate his leadership and his ability to risk political career and differentiate from Hillary, whom I will agree wont quite risk her political career. But it is at this point a leap of faith to believe this guy will do what hillary wont do in risking his career. All he has done is talking. So we need more evidence to support your original position about risking political career.

      •  Cut her slack? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority, Settembrini

        Four thousand US soldiers dead, 150,000 Iraqis dead, the US position in the world destroyed because she didn't want to upset upstate New Yorkers.

        If upstate New Yorkers are mollified I hope that works out for her. I am not mollified.

        I am actually still willing to give her that slack. It would be better if she asked for it herself, but I still give it to her. But the person you are describing does not have the judgment I am looking for in the next president.

        From an abomination to an Obama Nation

        by copithorne on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:13:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  There Is a Point in Obama's (6+ / 0-)

    candidacy where his supporters choose to draw the veil.

    You have just drawn back the curtain.  

    Well researched and supported diary; hence, difficult to refute without doing the shrill ballistic routine.

    It is one thing to make statements on the campaign trail that can be misheard, misinterpreted, and twisted to fit the listener's prejudice.  Most honest people are not self-censoring in their conversation.

    It is another thing to expunge one's own record when it puts the lie to the main basis of one's contention that the person possesses "superior judgment" on an issue that every subsequent vote demonstrates is the same judgment of one's rival.

    The fairy tale is the gap between Obama and Clinton's thinking regarding the Iraq War. It's an illusion.

    Let start the shrill and ballistic.

    They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

    by Limelite on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:14:17 PM PST

  •  War Candidate Clinton Has No Credibility (10+ / 0-)

    Hillary Clinton, January 5th 2008:

    "After 9/11, I would never have taken us into the Iraq war."

    When people complain about the shameless duplicity of Hillary Clington, I think this is what they mean.

    Folks, Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war resolution in 2003.  Not only was it a terrible "mistake", but Clinton is now evidently trying to rewrite history!

    Enough is enough.  Clinton and her supporters need to answer for this.

  •  I don't think you want to play the game of (7+ / 0-)

    who supported the war.

    Bill Clinton: "I opposed this war from the beginning"

    Yeah, like hell ya did.

    PS. Taylor Marsh is joined at the hip with the Hillary campaign.

    The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict. - MLK

    by KingJames on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:34:40 PM PST

  •  The irony of1st black president being racist (4+ / 0-)

    is not beneath the shameful sanctimony of the Oborgs.
    Good job.

    Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -- Mark Twain.

    by dcrolg on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:36:44 PM PST

    •  Oh, snap! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CC Music Factory, santh

      Oborgs!

      If the Oborgs act on the ground like they do here, I can see why NH was a surprise.

      [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

      by lambertstrether on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:39:27 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I hope they don't (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rghojai, Limelite, CC Music Factory, santh

        I want to believe that all our candidates are worthy of the nomination and I hope that it stops being so ugly.

        I'm going to unburdon my heart here.

        I am a 57 year old woman who has a multi racial family. I would love to see a woman President, I would love to see a black President, and Edwards of all the candidates has views closest to mine.

        I've waited a lifetime to vote for a woman. Half a lifetime for a black and feel tortured that this is the contest that we are in now.

        None of the three are perfect and I don't expect them to be. Humans make mistakes and it's their humanity that I seek. Hillary gave us a glance at her true humanity last week. I respect her all the more for it.

        I've said before, that Edwards is my first choice and Hillary is the second. Try as I might, I can't get past the barrier with Obama. I find that when it comes to issues like health care, the economy, and especially gay rights that there is no there there.

        Hope doesn't pay the hospital bills.

        Pretty Bird Woman House PO Box 596 McLaughlin SD 57642 http://www.prettybirdwomanhouse.blogspot.com/

        by high uintas on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:52:43 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  From Your Voice (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          CC Music Factory

          to my ears.

          I find that when it comes to issues like health care, the economy, and especially gay rights that there is no there there.

          Hope doesn't pay the hospital bills.

          It's an exterior echo of my own thoughts.

          I went to hear his speak in November 2006.  "What an orator!" I said.  "Superbly in touch with himself, his personal experience, and his feelings.  But what an insubstantial thinker, though."

          His ideas sounded like good ideas because I'd heard them all before.  They just sounded so much better coming out of his mouth.

          They burn our children in their wars and grow rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

          by Limelite on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:58:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  E/H/C (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          high uintas

          Exactly. Most everyone on my blog is coming down the same way. See my sig for how I'll vote.

          But.

          I really, really didn't like the way Obama put Social Security in play in Iowa ("all on the table"). There was no good reason to do that.

          As for HRC, she's got her bullet points, and she's sticking to them. They aren't always my bullet points, but I feel I know where I am with her.

          I don't feel I know where I am with Obama, and at this point, the rhetoric is a turn off for me, because I've started looking at what he actually SAYS much more carefully. And I have to say that the Oborg have been a turn off as well; at some point, you've got to think that in some way they represent the man.

          Thanks for unburdening your heart. I'm pretty much where you are.

          And I think the unity message is a load of crap. I don't want unity with a bunch of torturers and looters and criminals. Fer cryin out loud.

          [x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

          by lambertstrether on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:59:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Gay rights?! (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Elise, Settembrini, countmein

          What achievements did the Clinton Administration achieve in regard to gay rights?

          Bill sold us out get re-elected when he signed DOMA.

          Hillary, unlike Obama, also doesn't support the complete repeal of that travesty of a bill.

          •  This gay man (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coral, Montague

            supports Hillary Clinton.  A total repeal of DOMA is not realistic right now, but I do have hope for her goal--a partial repeal that will force federal recognition of gay marriage sanctioned by the state.

            Bill Clinton had no choice but to sign DOMA.  The fact that he did it on an airplane in the middle of the night was telling.

            I haven't forgotten that Bill Clinton's first major battle was a fight for gay people to serve in the military.

            Barack Obama is exciting, but I am giving my support to the Hillary Clinton.  The Clintons have stood up for me since they came to Washington.  And I am going to stand up for Hillary.

            Which candidate fought for universal health care before it became popular?

            by psychodrew on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:41:23 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed (0+ / 0-)

              Clinton at least tried to end anti-gay discrimination in the military.  He also spent a lot of his own political capital on that battle.  The outcome wasn't perfect but it was a step forward, a very valuable step forward.

        •  Obama goes furthest on gay rights... (4+ / 0-)

          of all the candidates except Kucinich. He has said that if elected he will help pass Federal Civil Unions with the same benefits and rights as marriage. No one else has said that. He has said he'd end DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

          As for Health Care - people do not want mandates. Obama's plan is the only one without mandates that addresses the concerns of all people. It makes care more affordable and accessible to all people (and despite Alegre's past attempts to make fun of "accessible", a recent study shows that one of the biggest problems in our health care industry is accessibility. Obama helped pass health care for tens of thousands of kids in IL and helped expand Medicare here as well.

          You can see all of these details you're looking for - and more here. Download the "Blueprint for change" and read it - and every question you have will be answered. And if you have any questions that aren't answered...email me and I'll ask someone next time I go in to volunteer.

          I'm a hopemonger.

          by Elise on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:23:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Donnie McClurkin begs to disagree n/t (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coral, northsea, decca, owl06

            I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

            by Norwegian Chef on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:36:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  mcclurkin has jack to do with policy (nt) (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              countmein
              •  And everything to do about killing hope to gays (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Montague, santh

                to young men and women who are trying like hell to come out against all odds and having this asshole, telling them that 'gayness' is some sickness that God can cure you of your affliction, and Obama doing nothing --NOTHING AT ALL--to repudiate these remarks at an Obama fund raiser.

                We just had a lovely Kossack who lost her son in suiceide due in part to gender identity. It is a very hard thing for young people, and Obama is insensitive in the extreme to allow this horrid anti-gay rhetoric.

                Don't even try race with me when Obama uses this homophobic, ignorant bastard and his campaign to KILL HOPE to young gays.

                Gays went 75% to Hillary in NH. I wonder why?

                I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

                by Norwegian Chef on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:08:47 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  and now you are lying... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TrueBlueMajority, Elise

                  ... as Obama openly repudiated those beliefs on several occasions.

                  Do not try to effing "personalize" this to me... people I love quite dearly are homosexual... I criticized the campaign on its conduct concerning mcclurkin but I weigh my measure of a candidate's support of gay rights on things for substantial than a fundraiser, thanks.

                  •  Absolute Crap!!! (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    santh

                    Obama allowed a known and aggressive homophobe to make these comments at an Obama fundraiser when Obama was warned well in advance about this mans views and activitis. Obama never, I repeat NEVER, repudiated McClurkin's statement on the day.  McClurkin continues to be a prominent Obama volunteer. Nor did he do anything to prevent him from singing at the concert.

                    If Obama were serious or the tiniest bit sincere, he would have directly repudiated McClurkin's comments on the day and distanced his whole campaign from this evil man.

                    I way my measure of a candidate's support on his actions not on his empty rhetoric.

                    Bottom line=Hillary Clinton 75% Gay Support in NH
                    I leave you to read the tea leaves on that one.

                    I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

                    by Norwegian Chef on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:32:55 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  yes, your statement is indeed crap... (0+ / 0-)

                      McClurkin continues to be a prominent Obama volunteer.

                      How? When? Where?

                      Obama never, I repeat NEVER, repudiated McClurkin's statement on the day.

                      False:

                      "I have clearly stated my belief that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters and should be provided the respect, dignity, and rights of all other citizens. I have consistently spoken directly to African-American religious leaders about the need to overcome the homophobia that persists in some parts our community so that we can confront issues like HIV/AIDS and broaden the reach of equal rights in this country," Obama said in the written statement.

                      "I strongly believe that African Americans and the LGBT community must stand together in the fight for equal rights. And so I strongly disagree with Reverend McClurkin’s views and will continue to fight for these rights as President of the United States to ensure that America is a country that spreads tolerance instead of division," the statement added.

                      http://www.swamppolitics.com/...

                      Bottom line=Hillary Clinton 75% Gay Support in NH
                      I leave you to read the tea leaves on that one.

                      I don't begrudge anyone their choice of candidate based upon fact, and I think Clinton's support of gay rights stands equal in anyone else's in this race. I do begrudge falsehood.

                      •  That was not a repudiation of McClurkin's (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        coral

                        statement on the day, it was bullshit triangulation, nor was it any type of a direct apology to the gay community for allowing McClurkin to use Obama's campaign platform as a vehicle for his homophobic views when Obama was warned well in advance that McClurkin would do just this.

                        He permitted the concert to go on and allowed it to be used as a venue for homophobic hate and Obama never apologised directly to the gay community for his own bad judgement by allowing black to be played against gay.

                        When one of Hillary's people makes a gaffe they get fired.  Actions over words and triangulation.

                        I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

                        by Norwegian Chef on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:43:14 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                      •  I find Obama's repudiation inadequate (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Norwegian Chef, santh

                        Religious conservatives also say that gays and lesbians are our brothers and sisters, so I'm unimpressed.  In talking about equal rights but failing to repudiate the extreme homophobia of McClurkin, Obama fails to convince.  

                        Here is what McClurkin has said:

                        "The abnormal use of my sexuality continued until I came to realize that I was broken and that homosexuality was not God's intention... for my masculinity."

                        That is so frikkin insulting to gay people, and Obama didn't go nearly far enough.   He needs to make it absolutely clear that homosexuality and masculinity are not mutually exclusive and that there is nothing "broken" about being gay.

                        •  At least Obama gave a repudiation (0+ / 0-)

                          when did Hillary repudiate these anti-gay comments by her fund-raiser Rupert Murdoch:

                          http://gawker.com/...

                          And McClurkin was just a performer at an Obama event. Murdoch is a fund raiser for Hillary and a political force like none other.  Why the constant attempts to make an African American gospel singer the poster boy for homophobia while an ultra-powerful white man gets a pass from Clinton supporters?  It just goes to show how  insincere and intellectually dishonest you all can be.

                          •  News flash for you (0+ / 0-)

                            Obama, Edwards and Hillary all more or less concur (at least publically) with what Murdoch said there.  They are against gay marriage, as is Murdoch. Now I happen to disagree with all four of them on that point.  Murdoch didn't say gay people are broken humans, he didn't say God doesn't intend for them to be that way, he didn't call it a curse, and he didn't say a gay man isn't masculine.

                            The poster boy remains the poster boy. Come up with a better case in point before you start calling people insincere and intellectually dishonest.  

                          •  Now Hillary supporter defend Murdoch (0+ / 0-)

                            Murdoch didn't say gay people are broken humans, he didn't say God doesn't intend for them to be that way, he didn't call it a curse, and he didn't say a gay man isn't masculine.

                            I think I'd rather be told I wasn't masculine and a curse by some ignorant religious loon, then have the most politically powerful person in media imply I'm a threat to civilization.  I quote from Murdoch:

                            But I think that the family - father, mother, children - is fundamental to our civilisation

                            Murdoch seems to be implying that civilization will crumble if children grow up in same-sex households.  Unlike McClukin who is uneducated and insecure about his own sexuality, Murdoch is brilliant and knows better.  He also commands a stratospherically powerful media empire with a platoon of writers, journalists, broadcasters, and opinion makers that dare not contradict his ideology. But you'd rather pick on some obscure irrelevant uneducated confused homosexual black man; you'd rather make a gay black man the poster boy for homophobia because you're too much of a coward and a Clinton shill to utter a word of criticism against an omnipotent straight white man who supports Hillary. I don't like spin, I don't like hypocrites and I don't like intellectual dishonesty and that's exactly how you're coming across.

                          •  Here is your intellectual dishonesty (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Larry Bailey

                            I have not defended Murdoch, nor can you make a case that I have.  You are reading what you want to into other people's comments.  Further, I am not discussing the race of any of the participants, because it's not pertinent in this situation.  

                            Murdoch is an old fart who's going to die, and he thinks print media is still valid to the point that he purchased the Wall Street Journal for far more than its value.  Actually I believe it was done from pure vanity, and who can afford a vanity purchase more than a billionaire?  I hope he and McClurkin both go to the hot place and fry for eternity.  Not that I believe in hell, because I don't.

                            Your spin is to try to make this about race, and it's not.  If a candidate gets a white person ranting about the curse of homosexuality on his/her stage, I'll get just as pissed off.  

                          •  That commenter started off with dishonesty... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Montague

                            ...labeling Murdoch a "fund raiser" for Hillary.  Murdoch may have curried favor by raising funds for his state's sitting Senator, but by no stretch can he be labelled a Hillary for President "fund raiser".  After that, anything else the commenter says is subject to question.

                          •  Truly Clintonian spin & parsing (0+ / 0-)

                            l

                            abeling Murdoch a "fund raiser" for Hillary.  Murdoch may have curried favor by raising funds for his state's sitting Senator, but by no stretch can he be labelled a Hillary for President "fund raiser".

                            He's not a fund raiser, he just raised funds. How silly of me to get those two concepts confused. I guess it depends on what the definition of is, is.  And you'd have to be living under a rock to not know that Hillary's senate career was just a stepping stone to the presidency, and according to the end of this article, that was Murdoch's goal for in forming an alliance with her:

                            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

                            Personally I couldn't care less who she lets help her campaigns (I judge her on her record),  I just detest the utter hypocrisy in her supporters picking on some ignorant gay black preacher while ignoring Hillary's equally offensive ties to a far more dangerous and savvy straight white proponent of homophobic ideology.

                •  I saw LOGOS debate too... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coral, Norwegian Chef

                  where he looked uncomfortable in the room.  I just don't get that.

                  I'm glad Hillary supports gays, fought to keep the "one man-one woman" language OUT of our Constitution, and I know she'll work harder in the future because there's obviously a lot more to be done.  

                  ...so sorry to hear about the Kossock's son's suicide, and I don't know why Obama never has to say he's sorry for comments like that when there are so many events like the one you describe every day but I will...

                  And using Bhutto's death before her body was even out of the hospital let alone in a casket made me sick.

                  Where is his deep understanding of minorities, gays, and women?

            •  I missed where Obama gave McClurkin (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              TrueBlueMajority, Kimball

              a relevant law-making position.

              I'm a hopemonger.

              by Elise on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:37:13 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I feel real sorry for you if you can (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Runs With Scissors, santh

                not see the how Obama allowing a known homophobe and hatemonger to use Obama's campaign as a platform for his hate to crowds of young black people, does not constitute a relevant venue where young people can be irreparably influenced.

                You are really heartless if you feel this way.  Obama, having been warned that McClurkin would do this allowed him to continue in the concert and spew this hate from the stage.  How do you know that some young black gay struggling with his sexual identity did not go home and commit suicide that night due to those hateful comments.

                Elise you should be mortally ashamed of yourself.

                I like the silence of a church, before the service begins better than any preaching. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

                by Norwegian Chef on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:48:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Obama having McClurkin sing is nothing compared (0+ / 0-)

              to Hillary having a fund raiser held for her by Rupert Murdoch.  McClurkin is an irrelevant tormented ignorant gospel singer, Murdoch is a brilliant powerhouse so his anti-gay views are much more dangerous and threatening.

              Obama had the courage and decency to speak out against what McClurken said; Hillary has yet to condemn these anti-gay comments by Murdoch:

              http://gawker.com/...

          •  Without mandates (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            santh

            the system won't work.  

        •  That was inspirational High Uintas-- (0+ / 0-)

          you go girl.

  •  Alegre's argument in a nutshell: (16+ / 0-)

    "Yes Hillary showed poor judgment in voting for the war, and for continuing to support it over the last four years, but a few quotes I dug up show that OBAMA MIGHT SUCK JUST AS BAD."

    •  crestingwave's argument in a nutshell: (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mrkvica, Limelite, Alegre, santh

      "Yes, Obama showed poor judgment in doing nothing after his speech except hide the speech when it was politically inconvenient, but by pointing to one vote and misrepresenting her subsequent actions I can show that HILLARY MIGHT SUCK JUST AS BAD."

      Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

      by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:43:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Lampooning, engaging... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        johnny rotten, james risser

        They're not mutually exclusive. Or are you being purposefully obtuse?

        •  You are avoiding (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Limelite, Alegre

          making an argument. That's not engaging. And you're insulting the diarist to boot, without even copping as to precisely why. Your point is obviously that you think the construction as you put it should be reversed, and that we all should see through your eyes of enlightenment that Hillary "sucks," and Obama should get a pass. But again, you don't dare to spell out the whys and wherefores.

          Lampooning the diarist may win you points with other advocates for Obama who love the thrill of being among like minded individuals, but it's basically disrespectful, and moreover, completely unpersuasive.

          I do view parody and lampooning, set against engaging, as being mutually exclusive. How's that for "not obtuse?"

          •  I think the argument is painfully clear... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            space, ChiGirl88, Settembrini, Kimball

            Rather than give the reader of her diary a reason to vote for Hillary, she instead attacks Obama's statement that he did not support the war. Since we all seem to agree being against the war is a good thing, Alegre's sad strategy is to try to drag Obama down to Hillary's level as an accomplice and muddy the waters. That was my take. Am I wrong? Was Hillary right to vote to authorize the war. Enlighten me?

            That you don't see that speaks volumes about your mind. Or wait. Maybe you do see that but you're pretending to be obtuse again in the hope you'll trick simple-minded folk into voting for your candidate.

            •  Ha hahaahahahaaaaaa! (0+ / 0-)

              I'm just dying to TRICK you into voting for my candidate, bwa hahahahahah!

              Seriously, all I'm looking for is some substance from Obama and his supporters, since when push comes to shove they tend to hide behind generalities. That's why I remain unmoved to appeals about hope and would like to hear a lot more about what Obama understands about the depredations practiced by GWB and how he's going to make Repubs atone.

              Authorizing use of force is not, to me, the same as "voting for war." 5 out of 6 tri-state Senators voted to authorize: Schumer, Torricelli, Dodd, Lieberman and Clinton. That was more about post-9/11 politics unfortunately. I would have preferred all of them followed Corzine's example and voted in opposition, yes. But I will say that I am completely dissatisfied with Obama's opposition to the war in this campaign. Where is the fire? Where is the outrage? He's too cool, way too cool, for me to accept him somehow as the anti status quo candidate. None of them are doves, but all of the Dem candidates will draw down or withdraw, of that I am sure. The catastrophe is of Bush's making. It's not the Dem's war.

        •  ad homs, too! (0+ / 0-)

          keep em comin.

          c'mon let's sweat, baby!

          by CC Music Factory on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:57:48 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Not At All - Care to Answer My Questions Now? n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  a few selective and misleading quotes (6+ / 0-)

      and assertions.

      Senator Barack Obama has always opposed Bush policy in Iraq. He was prescient about this war.

      However, his proscription for what we do NOW, once we were already there, has never been one that would be totally acceptable to the Out of Iraq coalition. Obama admits that. It's a position with some nuance since he doesn't see an easy way out given the Bush administration and his need to "support the troops" like most of our Congressional Democrats...by voting for Bush Iraq budget requests.

      Regardless, Senator Obama is talking about an 18 month timeframe for withdrawal from Iraq. ie. a steady draw down leading to combat forces withdrawn, we can expect if he is elected, sometime in 2010.

      Hillary Clinton is talking about 2013.

      The diarist will tell you Clinton and Obama have virtually the "same views" on Iraq.

      I would call that selective and misleading, too.

      What did Senator Clinton mean about withdrawing from Iraq "the right way?"

      She certainly wasn't contrasting her position with the GOP, who aren't calling for withdrawal and plan on saying in Iraq for at least a decade more.

      Could someone show me evidence to the contrary that 2013 = what Hillary means by "the right way" to withdraw from Iraq?

      How do Hillary supporters actually defend the 2013 date?

      Seems that's a valid question to ask her in a debate and very relevant to the diary topic at hand.

      k/o: politics and culture

      by kid oakland on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:50:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good diary... (7+ / 0-)

    needed to be said.

    The Clintons are being badly abused...from mass media and from some progressives who repeat the distortions.

    The Clintons....racist?   Give me a break!

    The Clintons may not be your first choice, but a racist accusation against them is ludicrous.

    Capitalism without limits will be the end of Democracy.

    by Pink Lady on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:43:47 PM PST

  •  Straw man (4+ / 0-)

    No one said the "fairy tale" comment was racist.  Rather the comment was false and unfair.  The former President should not be smearing anyone's record.  He has a responsibility to the Party to be evenhanded.

  •  I don't get it. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes, ShowMeProgressive

    Why are Hillary supporters allowed to post here anyway? Isn't this supposed to be a progressive site?



    Obama: "You can disagree without being disagreeable."
    dKos: "If you aren't disagreeable, you aren't really disagreeing."

    by Vincenzo Giambatista on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:52:06 PM PST

  •  They are falling for the corporate media crap. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Alegre, SaneSoutherner, dragoneyes, rigso

    Meanwhile, she is going door to door in Vegas, working hard for the Latino vote and came up with an economic stimulus plan for the recession.

    Time for Obama to get to work and catch up.

    "It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush"

    by gotalife on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 08:57:01 PM PST

  •  just a note (4+ / 0-)

    Coming in here to say (off topic) that I like that part of her economy stimulus package is to force the lenders to refinance to loans the homeowners can afford after a ninety-day moratorium.  

    I was pleased to see that.  Peace out!  

  •  such BULL SHIT (5+ / 0-)

    In 2004, at the DNC, Obama said he didn't know how he would have voted on the war resolution because he didn't want to damage Kerry, who was our party's nominee. Kerry, like Senator Clinton today, ran on a platform of opposing a war that he voted to authorize. He was vulnerable to such attacks that he was a flip flopper (remember that?) and Hillary is also.

    •  This is obvious to anyone (5+ / 0-)

      being honest with themselves. Here's the thing. Watching The HRCers twist themselves around over her abominable war vote will be even worse once the general comes around. Wait until McCain makes her do her dance about how she was misled and all the other crap that no one will believe.

      •  Right (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TrueBlueMajority, Crestingwave

        If it's Hillary vs. McCain, say hello to President McCain.

        That would be such a depressing election. Honestly, I wouldn't even care who the winner was. I might even vote for McCain, cause having him in there would give us a much better chance of holding the Congress. If Hillary were elected, we'll lose the Congress in 2010, guaranteed.

        •  Hillary beat McCain among Independents (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Montague

          in NH.  By 10 points.  She can whip him, no fear.

          I'd rather vote for a candidate who doesn't get tongue baths from Chris Matthews.

          by SaneSoutherner on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:37:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Hillary isn't my first choice, but... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          auapplemac

          there's every reason in the world to support her over McCain.  Just one example: wouldn't preserving Roe v. Wade alone be worth voting for her?  A President McCain would likely (depending on the health of Stevens/Ginsburg/etc.) be able to appoint enough judges to the Court to get Roe reversed.  We can't afford the consequences of losing the Supreme Court for a generation.  Voting McCain in this situation would be disastrous.  And I haven't even mentioned Iraq, economic policy, or health care - all areas where she is clearly superior by far to McCain.

          As for losing Congress - in the scenario you cite, even if we lose Congress in 2010, we'd still have a Democratic president.  That's much better for us than having a Republican president with a chance to lose Congress as well if 2010 goes badly; at least they wouldn't get to do any MORE damage to the country.  If it comes down to this matchup, the decision to vote for Hillary over McCain is easy.

      •  Is America better off today because of (0+ / 0-)

        Saddam Hussein's removal from power?

        Your answer please, candidate Clinton.

        Clinton rejected Saul D. Alinsky as outdated. Obama has lived Alinsky's teachings. That is one core difference between them.

        by Bill White on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:35:34 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Hillary is awesome....Obama sucks...blahbittyblah (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes, Settembrini, alba

    blahblah....

    5hrs a night defending Hillary....I'd rather stick a needle in my eye...

    LOL

  •  According to those facts both should be ideal (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rich in PA

    for each other and work together, no?

    I have not heard that any of the two were thinking that's an option.

    Can you tell me why not?

  •  Obama has refuted all the crap thrown at him (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes, Crestingwave, alba

    by the Clintons:

    The Clintons are soooooo last decade.

    by Walt starr on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:27:42 PM PST

  •  the argument isn't all that effective (4+ / 0-)

    when it takes the form of "look everyone, Obama's just as bad as Clinton on the war."  This doesn't make me like Hillary Clinton any better or have any more confidence in her judgment on foreign policy.  It certainly doesn't make up for Kyl/Lieberman.

    "this machine kills fascists" - woody guthrie's guitar

    by clashfan on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:28:53 PM PST

  •  Give the kids a hug for me.... (0+ / 0-)

    ...your work is done here tonight!

    "I am my brother's keeper. I am a Democrat." -- That's your slogan, Democrats.

    by Bensdad on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:34:40 PM PST

  •  Same as always... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    james risser

    I expect no less...

    Time to clean up DeLay's petri dish! Help CNMI guest workers find justice! Learn more at Unheard No More.

    by dengre on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:38:00 PM PST

  •  Great job. (0+ / 0-)

    Now if people would take off their rose colored glasses and READ!

    From an Edwards supporter.

    http://johnedwards.com

  •  This reads like "I know you are but what am I" (4+ / 0-)

    For all the millions of dollars, this is all Hillary has to show for it? The kind of argument teachers hear every day at recess?

    It's a juvenile argument that tears her down along with obama.  And she doesn't have charisma to spare.

    I do not trust Hillary Clinton.

    by The Dead Man on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:42:14 PM PST

  •  public will react against MSM for Hilllary (0+ / 0-)

    I have a new theory. Hillary's got in the bag. The public knows that the MSM is being unfair. Mostly men who have an issue with her as a woman. She's going to win the primaries and win big.

  •  About "the race card": (5+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, TrueBlueMajority, cville townie, alba, ManahManah
    Hidden by:
    DrKate

    People all over the country, not associated with Obama's campaign, are the ones who are picking up on the myriad subtle and not-so-subtle race-baiting comments that the Clinton campaign, and Clinton supporters, have made over the past few months.  We are the ones who are raising the issue (heck, even the NYTimes picked up on it) -- not the Obama campaign.  The question of whether the Clintons are racist is irrelevant (they are, just like everyone else in this country).  And its not even particularly relevant whether or not they are making race-baiting comments on purpose -- its the effect, not the intention that matters.  

    So vet Obama; please, do.  But don't use the supposed fact that the COM has not vetted Obama as an excuse to justify race-baiting.  Please.  

    (Incidentally, the "fairy-tale" comment is not one of the comments that I am referring to when I talk about race-baiting -- by making it seem as though this is THE incident that everyone is talking about, you are sidestepping the issue.)

     

  •  I'm recommending this because of the first (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rimjob, Larry Bailey, decca

    half of the diary.

    The "fairy tale" remark has been twisted out of all proportion.  The use of this comment by the traditional media to tar Bill Clinton is the archetypal, out-of-context spinjob that people around here used to take pleasure in debunking.  There are still some reality-based people around here, I hope.

    The rest of the diary?  Well, all I can think is that I am disappointed by all these candidates for blurring the lines on the war.  None of them has done enough to end it.  Damn disappointing, and it will hurt us in the general, whoever is the candidate.

    "Virtue can only flourish among equals." -- Mary Wollstonecraft

    by Joelarama on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:45:23 PM PST

  •  Is anyone uprating this diary that hasn't already (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    seabrook, Kimball

    given their full support to Clinton? I see alot of the usuals, which makes me feel like any comment here is a waste of time. Everyone here is either in the choir being preached to or trying their hardest to refute the premise.

    Bottom line is none of the top candidates have good records on Iraq. Obama has the virtue of opposing it prior to invasion. Everything thereafter is history that makes the whole lot look bad.

    Maybe if this was a little more balanced, like some criticism of Edwards Iraq stance prewar, it wouldn't offend me as an Obama supporter. But it's hopelessly one sided, hence not convincing at all.

    The hottest place in Hell is reserved for those who remain neutral in times of great moral conflict. - MLK

    by KingJames on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:54:01 PM PST

  •  Response (8+ / 0-)

    I admire you for working hard to make a living, raising two kids and spending your free time embracing democracy and fighting a candidate for whom you feel passionately.  
    Regarding Fmr. President Clinton's remarks, you should have paid closer attention to the end of your first link:

    But Lynch, the Clinton consultant who is advising Clinton’s South Carolina campaign, said he wouldn’t advise Clinton to fight on this terrain. "The more you kind of defend it, the worse it gets," said Lynch.

    I read that first link 3 times and can't see where Bill's words were being twisted or where he was being called a racist.  "It’s very unfortunate that the president would make a statement like that," is what I read.  Now, I've seen and heard a fair bit of media and I haven't heard anyone call Bill a racist.  In fact, Al Sharpton had Bill on his show to clear any misunderstanding - and I learned this on a MSM show tonight.

    Now, the article did focus quite a bit on a pattern of potentially racially sensitive comments coming out of the Clinton campaign.  And many are concerned and angered by this pattern.  Sheehan, Young, Penn, Kerry, HRC's MLK analogy, Cuomo... all within a month.  

    I don't think any of these people are racist.  Nor do I think that their comments in and of themselves are necessarily racist (Cuomo's terms are disparaging by definition, though).  But as a whole it makes for strong circumstancial evidence of race-baiting.  Its at a point where the third-ranking House democrat, James E. Clyburn felt he had to send a shot across the bow.  

    Then you have the nerve to make the accusation:

    they’re playing the race card now - at a well-chosen point in this campaign to try to drum up support in the lead-up to the South Carolina primaries.

    Shame on you.  The race-baiting has been going on since before Iowa.  To counter your SC GOTV conspiracy, I offer a couple of plausable motives for this tactic by HRC's campaign.
    a) Having given up on the AA vote, HRC hopes to rile up the AA community, bait the Obama camp into reacting and play on white voters who are turned off by seeing the "race card being played".  All they need is JJ Jr. to act like an ass for 30 seconds and Hillary supporters are blogging "race card" for 5 hours a night.  

    b) putting race out there as they are doing, HRC's camp are playing on racial fault lines between blacks and hispanics.  This can have a big payoff for HRC in Nevada, Florida, California - all important upcoming states with high hispanic populations.

    Its sad that despite Obama keeping a magnanimous demeanor while Clinton camp spews a half dozen racial drops in a month, the "dog whistle" coverage continues and voters fall right into the trap.

    Playing to such a low denominator of human psychology is slimy politics and shows how unscrupulous Clinton ambition can be.  I recommend that you spend your time doing something besides defending it.

    •  you seem conflicted. (0+ / 0-)

      the first half of your comment seems to defend bill clinton, but then you relapse into wild accusations without any merit, calling both hillary and bill racists. maybe you ought to sort out your thoughts before you post.

      Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

      by campskunk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:59:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  you seem random (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DelRPCV
        1. The diarist offer a link presumably as evidence that "folks are twisting the HELL out of his words and calling him – of all things – a racist."  I was pointing out that the link offers no such evidence.
        1. My accusations aren't any wilder that the diary's accusations.  How is merit lacking?
        1. I didn't call anyone a racist.  I specifically said I don't think anyone involved is a racist.  
        1. Maybe you ought to reply to me more on point.
    •  <fingers in ears> (0+ / 0-)

      la la la la la
      Some people just don't get it.
      Majority Whip people, hasn't endorsed anyone.
      I mean, wow.

      Congress is increasingly complicit in the Bush administration crimes.

      by Drewid on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:16:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  What are you getting at? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Drewid

        Your reply to my post is "Majority Whip people, hasn't endorsed anyone."

        That statement has nothing to do with what I said.

        •  Sorry (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DelRPCV, ManahManah

          I was imitating some people .
          They seem to be dismissing your/the argument.
          James Clyburn isn't just some random surogate/supporter.
          He is neutral, and hasn't endorsed anyone yet, and happens to be the House majority whip. #3 in the house.
          He is also well respected in my state.
          I was kinda agreeing with you.
          Sorry I've been drinkin bourban.

          Congress is increasingly complicit in the Bush administration crimes.

          by Drewid on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:34:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Alegre, (8+ / 0-)

    you are such a true woman warrior for us.  I love Hillary, and I'm right there with you.  I am not nearly as articulate as you are when I write, but you certainly speak for me.  Thank you, and thank you again.

    I know what it's like to have two young ones.  Mine are now 27 and 29, but I too fought battles from the heart while they were still little.

    I fought for the Navajo/Hopi elders at Big Mountain who, in tern, fought their own tribal councils to prevent Peabody Coal and Bechtel Corporations from further dividing the tribes through public law #93-531.

    I spent two whole years of my life advocating, organizing and raising funds for the traditional Navajos (Dine).

    Having been and still being a radical leftist, I'm the last person that would endorse a "corporate shill".

    I've looked at her long and hard, and I trust and believe her after all I've seen.  And I've looked at her for many many years.  I'm 55, from Europe originally,  not quite tainted by the Right-wing's 17 year long, 100's of millions of dollars campaign to make her out the witch so many of us seemingly have integrated in our subconscious (especially the younger ones, who are not familiar  with her history and fights).

    I truly resent the endless attacks against her.  We've had so many diaries here asking for an end to the hate and unwarranted personal attacks, including a plea from a mother whose son committed suicide.

    Has it done any good?  I ask you.  The hate keeps streaming in, on the recommended list, and the rest.

    We have adopted the Right-wing's methods.  Just look at it.  And it will hurt us just as much as it is hurting them right now.

    END OF RANT.

    Hillary/Clark in 08 - unbeatable

    by Gabriele Droz on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 09:58:30 PM PST

  •  You think this makes Clinton look good? (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, Dumbo, Crestingwave, Tanya, jw2008

    Odd.  Very odd,

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:01:58 PM PST

  •  Okay (4+ / 0-)

    I've watched Bill Clinton's comments several times now, and I just don't see it, whatever "it" is supposed to be. Maybe I'm just not attuned to the dog whistle--I'll admit, my ears aren't what they used to be.

    But truthfully, there simply is no there there.

    " The Assault On Reason is written like a resume for leading the world." - BalanceSeeker

    by MeMeMeMeMe on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:10:38 PM PST

  •  Bill Clinton makes me want to puke (8+ / 0-)

    I can't stand disingenuous arguments.  

    Bill Clinton knows why Obama didn't undermine Kerry in 2004.  Bill Clinton knows why Obama has voted alongside Hillary since he entered the Senate.

    Why can't Bill and Hillary Clinton tell the truth?  The truth is that either:

    (A) they were bamboozled by transparently weak intel that I could see through sitting in my living room OR

    (B) they supported the war for reasons other than the WMD that they do not trust you, I, or the rest of the hoi polloi to understand.

    Those are the only two options.  Personally, I lean towards "B", although I would never bet entirely against the stupidity factor.

    What I really can't stand is Bill's argument that Obama's votes in the Senate are inconsistent with his anti-war stance pre-war.  First of all, I just know that Bill Clinton, like any other political blowhard, would be the first to invoke the "yes, but now what do we do?" argument to attack anyone who supported defunding the occupation during the past 4 years.

    Second of all, doesn't this moron realize that he is basically accusing Hillary of a pro-war stance?  This idiot is the "greatest Democratic politician of his generation"? God help this Party?  I suppose that in the land of the blind, deaf, and dumb the deaf and dumb man is king.

    •  Exactly. The Clintons (4+ / 0-)

      plan to deliberately mislead Democratic voters over and over again throughout this primary.  They deliberately mislead Democratic voters about other Democrats.  They repeat as needed.  It's unethical, and I hope the Obama campaign calls them on it.

      This is only one example, and it's telling that the Democratic establishment will cry foul when this kind of lying is done by Republicans, but will let the Clintons get away with it.  Call it loyalty to the king and queen.  

      The Clintons have always fought dirty.  Ask anyone who's ever run against them.  

      •  Believe the right things.... (0+ / 0-)

        ...fight dirty when you have to, and win.  All of you people who skip the second part are ignoring the third part.  And you're therefore treating politics like a self-gratification game for yourselves rather than a tool for helping others.  Those others, worse off than you, don't give a shit about whether you played by Marquess of Queensbury rules.  They want to know if you got the job done.

        Clinton.  Because this isn't a fucking game.

        "What you're saying is so understandable. And really, your only crime was violating U.S. law." Marge Simpson.

        by Rich in PA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:03:05 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Option B (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority, onanyes

      She never read the intel so she couldn't have been bamboozled by it.  She voted for AUMF for domestic political reasons, not national security reasons.  That alone is unforgivable.

      I cry for those orphaned by Hillary's mistakes.

      by DelRPCV on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:30:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Awesome diarist! You could work in the news ... (4+ / 0-)

    if they were still in the business of reporting facts and doing solid journalism :)

  •  Hillary's plan to bring the troops home? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV

    Ted Koppel on NPR, hereor here:

       A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War

       "... I ran into an old source who held a senior position at the Pentagon until his retirement. He occasionally briefs Clinton on the situation in the Gulf. She told him that if she were elected President, and then re-elected four years, she would still expect U.S. troops to be in Iraq at the end of her second term. We're talking about a shade less than 10 years from now.

       I happen to think she's absolutely right, and what's more I'm sure there are several other Democratic Presidential candidates who agree with that assessment, that U.S. troops will be in Iraq for another decade, at least, even if every candidate is sounding as though the pullout would be immediate and total. When, oh when is that deadly serious issue ever going to become the topic of an equally serious and candid discussion? When, in other words, will we get the brutal truth, in place of vapid and misleading campaign applause lines?"

    That's her plan for getting us out of Iraq.  Or as she said when she won in New Hampshire, she's going to end this war "The RIGHT WAY." (Said with much emphasis on right way.)

    •  Pffffffffffffft! (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ljm, DrKate, Larry Bailey, Fabian

      Why don't you look at what she actually SAYS, instead of what Koppel says that some anonymous guy who advised her said she said.

      I'd rather vote for a candidate who doesn't get tongue baths from Chris Matthews.

      by SaneSoutherner on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:33:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's alway that anon (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DrKate, SaneSoutherner

        Have you noticed how on so many blogs trolls always seem to be anon?  

        Winning without Delay.

        by ljm on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 10:55:36 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  With a big flaming turd like this out there, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DelRPCV

        do you think maybe somebody on the Clinton team would have wanted to disavow it by now?  

        And as far as I know, she has said nothing to contradict this.

        In fact, I recall very well, in one debate, how she tried so hard to have it both ways.  She told the moderator, "OF COURSE I'M AGAINST THE WAR!"  ...  And then went on to say a little later, she would keep troops in Iraq, and that they would be doing combat missions while they were in Iraq.  Which by any sane definition of the word means, she wants to keep the war going.

        I suppose, by a tortured Clintonian definition, she could define that as being "against" the war if she regretted doing it, the way you and I regret having to pay taxes or taking out the trash.  Oh well, what's a few more dead bodies in bags between friends, eh?

  •  Clintons deliberately mislead voters. (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    DelRPCV, cville townie, jw2008
    Hidden by:
    FelisRufus

    And this diary is just more of that.

  •  I'm getting concerned (4+ / 0-)

    If this racial discord on DKos is a harbinger of what is to come in the general election, we may lose the election.

    If Obama wins the nomination, please do not make race an issue in the general election, in the sense of taking advantage of every slightest opportunity to call an opponent a racist. If we do that, we'll incite every last redneck American conservative to go out and vote, and the Republicans could win.

    This tactic of turning every offhand comment into a racial slur could backfire in the general election.

    The Clintons might be unable to effectively respond without making the epithet stick even more, but Republicans won't have that problem. They will become infuriated, and they will fight back, and fight back hard. There could be a backlash.

    It may backfire among Republicans, and turn the vote out among the conservatives.

    Obama should ask his supporters to lighten up on the vitriol. It isn't helping.

    By the way, I will support the candidate Dems select. For what its worth, I support Edwards, but remain undecided between Clinton and Obama.

    I want us to win back the White House. Lets not piss the chance away before we even get up to the gate. We need to stop the racial divisiveness.

  •  Please don't use Taylor Marsh as a source (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nick Blas, ManahManah, jw2008

    She's proved to be inaccurate too often. She has no credibility here at Daily Kos.

    Last time around she falsely claimed Obama never travelled to Europe, easily debunked with a quick google.

    Your arguments will carry greater weight citing more reliable sources than Taylor Marsh.

    Children in the U.S... detained [against] intl. & domestic standards." --Amnesty Internati

    by doinaheckuvanutjob on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:17:31 PM PST

    •  Emailed to Taylor (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nick Blas

      I think your blog "Obama Plays the Race Card" is negligent and sloppy journalism.  Its entirely possible that the pattern of a half dozen (Young, Sheehan, Penn, Kerry, HRC, Cuomo) racially insensitive remarks of the HRC campaign is a tactic: race-baiting.  By making these statements, the HRC camp could be intentionally riling up the black community to make race an issue.  Then all it takes is 30 seconds of JJ Jr. acting like an ass and shills like you can call it "playing the race card".  Obama has hardly broken his magnanimous demeanor as this shitstorm of racial media has spread "white guilt" and other negative feelings of him to potential voters.  This type of politics plays to a very low denominator of voter psychology.  You should be ashamed of yourself for being part of it.  Please redeem yourself with an apology and this alternative analysis of the racial politics of the Clinton campaign.

  •  You are seriously suggesting (0+ / 0-)

    that a State Senator (of a state Kerry won by a large margin) was the one who supposed to be rebutting the Swift Boaters?

    As opposed to either Clinton, both nationally known public figures? Or, I don't know, Kerry, for that matter?

    Where is the mental disconnect that brings you to the point that this makes any sort of sense?

  •  Still waiting (4+ / 0-)

    for that first Clinton diary that doesn't contain any Obama attacks.

    I guess everyone's got their own blog now.

    by zonk on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:24:15 PM PST

  •  you lost me at (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, Nick Blas

    'fighting the good fight for hillary'

    scanner something mushroom cloud. -9.25 -8.92

    by el zilcho on Fri Jan 11, 2008 at 11:42:19 PM PST

  •  Obama only voted for funding that had (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes

    a timetable attached to it. That is the point. When that billed was passed which had the requirement for a timetable to begin withdrawal, Bush vetoed it and Obama has not voted for funding since that point.

    So we are suppose to think and act like Obama was supporting the war by handing Bush the bill that said, here is the funding but you have to end the war?

    Get fucking real.

    The entire premise of your diary is full of shit and would be no matter how Hillary voted on the 2002 AUMF or funding.

    Obama opposed this war form the start, and the only funding he voted was tied to ending it..

  •  Your'e "just a mom" yeah right...snort (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes

    Hey, ever heard the term it takes one to know one?  

    Alright so if you are really just "tucking your kids into bed" there is no way...and I mean no fucking way you you know all of these quotes and inbeded vids etc etc

    So can we cut the crap cause if you give me your full name I can just about guarantee i'll find you in Hillarys FEC reports and if not some consultant is paying you.

    Anyway on to what you wrote......bottom line.  Basically you are engaging in the tactic Karl Rove mastered.  Attack your opponent at their strength.  Hillary is a hawk and will always be a hawk.  She likes wars and votes for wars and there is no hiding this so you attack obama on the semantics.

    Pathetic.

    Let me ask you this.   As a Edwards supporter I can safely say the ONLY candidate who I will not vote for in the general in Clinton (and this includes the entire D field).  

    What will you do if Clinton loses (other than look for a new job)and would you vote for anyone else?

    •  Well I thought I liked ALL of the Edwards' (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey, Sanuk

      supporters for their class, charm and self restraint.

      And I did, until you.

      The Audacity of Ambiguity! The Climate of Change! The Search for Substance!

      by Fabian on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:59:23 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  he is just pointing out (0+ / 0-)

        the obvious: why is the diarist's introduction at all relevant?

        It is the classic sign of a HRC plant.

        Geeze, you get all worked up when people refuse to drink your cool-aid, do you?

        When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

        by onanyes on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:43:42 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You think that was worthy of an uprate? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larry Bailey, Sanuk

          Was it substantial?  Did it contribute to the discussion?  Did it elevate the discourse?

          Or did it speak to your own biases?

          And yes, almost all Edwards' supporters can support their candidate with thought out and substantial posts.

          Almost all.

          The Audacity of Ambiguity! The Climate of Change! The Search for Substance!

          by Fabian on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:00:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  sorry (0+ / 0-)

            but pointing out astroturf stuff IS helpful, IMHO.

            Disagree if you like.

            When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

            by onanyes on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:36:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  And the only "cool-aid" I drink is Gore's. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Larry Bailey, Sanuk

          None of our front runners come close.  Edwards actually tries, so I give him credit.

          Jimmy Carter: Nobel laureate
          Albert Gore Jr: Nobel laureate

          Maybe the others will get there, someday.  They've each got a lifetime to work on it.

          And if you think I set the bar high, I do.  Why should I settle for less?

          The Audacity of Ambiguity! The Climate of Change! The Search for Substance!

          by Fabian on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:04:12 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Please refrain from the personal attacks.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Fabian

      ...on users here.

      Jeez...

  •  If you hate what is going on in Washington (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes, Nick Blas

    don't elect Hillary.  She is the establishment.  The Clintons has been running the Democratic party for 16 years.

    She can cry a river but, she has no intension of cleaning up a corrupt and dysfunctional government.

    If Hillary gets the nomination, Bloomberg will enter the race as the spoiler and McCain or Hucklebee will become the President.

    •  Want to put some money on that? (0+ / 0-)

      I love all the people who can see the future.

      Now about my winning lottery numbers....

      The Audacity of Ambiguity! The Climate of Change! The Search for Substance!

      by Fabian on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:57:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Establishment????? (0+ / 0-)

      Given that no woman has seriously run for president before, I'm generally of a mind that any woman is a change candidate.

      But Hillary is the candidate whose career was begun helping vulnerable children (not the establishment); continued to Arkansas where she and Bill were the champions of working people, union families, racial and ethnic minorities, none of which are the "establishment."

      The idea that because she has learned to navigate the shoals of special interest groups is not a bad thing.  The problem she ran into in her first health care attempt was that she was insufficiently aware of ways and means of the interest groups.  She thought she could exclude them from the table and thereby deminish their power.

      But ignoring gravity does not mean you won't fall down.  Barak has not explained to me how he will diminish the power of the Chamber of Commerce or the Insurance Council.   They will be there.  They will mount "Harry & Louise" ads.   I have confidence that, if Barak Obama is nominated, he will be elected, and if elected, he will be a good president.   After he learns what he appears to deny now: that there are powerful interests in Washington that will not cease to be so simply because the president ignores them.

  •  If Bush has proved anything, it is that (0+ / 0-)

    candidate X can go absolutely any way he wants to when he or she becomes President X.

    We will have some answers about how p'owned the Dems truly are when our next Dem President is installed.

    I would be really surprised if the WH door gets slammed on PAC's, 527's and teh lobbyists.  Many foreign countries ask for what they're going to get anyway, and if you go the diplomatic route you get no campaign contributions out of the deal and what fun is that?

    And if you don't meet with pHarma creeps and health insurers, you can't even gauge the resistance, and how much fun is that?  Your own petty party grafters think you're a putz for turning down the money, too.  What the heck, they might even go after you for the programs you do push for, and that's no fun.

    So when Hillary says, "This is the fun part," I'm not too sanguine about our chances of getting Medicare for all or some such bullshit story actually passed.

    You have to remember that insurance companies now own a lot of hospitals, too, giving another shafting to anti-monopoly laws.  So, they'll just shut down and tell the gov't to buy them, if they'll be willing to sell, necessitating a federalization of private property, something that even FDR had some trouble with.  Prolly give Mao Tse Tung himself a big chuckle.  

    I can't wait to see blood on their lawns, though, because you have to believe that is the only thing that will make a difference to these assholes. Unpleasantness for themselves and their stupid criminal families.  What the f**k do you think Blackwater is for anyway? Social justice????

    They are the storm troopers, the Waffen SS, the shock troops, the enforcers. These jerks will plant the false flag ops themselves just to up the ante. You'll think we're in the midst of a revolution when the truth is it will be a CIA/Blackwater kabuki play perpetrated on our senses by the schmuck MSM.  

    This will be not for the faint of heart in no time flat if our Dem president doesn't toe the line. We are, in fact, p'owned, and Bush did it to us.  Unfund Blackwater and you let loose a well-hung unrestrainable militia right on our own shores! And they will be pissed off, too.  The shadow government is going to come out of the shadows, as needed.  End of a 200-year era.  Bush might write his own history books, too.  Can you imagine?

    First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Mohandas Gandhi

    by ezdidit on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:31:17 AM PST

  •  What's the point of opposing the war once the (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes, Sanuk

    troops have been committed and the Iraq government overthrown, and the country in the middle of a civil war?  To me, the mistake was going to war in the first place, but once the war started, you can't just pull out in a rash impulsive way and leave things worse off than before the war began.  That's why Hillary and Obama were probably both right to support the war once it started, but Obama was brilliant and courageous to oppose going in in the first place.

    •  Dennis Kucinich and Al Gore (0+ / 0-)

      One is not running in this presidential campaign and one is.  One doesn't care what the politically expedient choice is when it's a matter of principle.

      It's a shame that we don't simply let all the candidates raise money and then a month before the first caucus, divide up all that campaign cash equally between the party's candidates.  Then maybe we could have a race based on merits instead of fund raising.

      The Audacity of Ambiguity! The Climate of Change! The Search for Substance!

      by Fabian on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:56:18 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The point is to end the war (0+ / 0-)

      with your logic we'd be there forever.

      The system is rigged - John Edwards

      by okamichan13 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 07:48:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  the Hill-o-bots are hilarious (0+ / 0-)

    Look guys, I’ve already got a lot on my plate... I work full time (and NOT as a blogger), I’m raising two WONDERFUL young children, and I already spend about 4 or 5 hours an evening on sites like this

    what the hell does this have to do with anything?

    Everything out of their mouths is focus group tested spin.

    When liberals saw 9-11, we wondered how we could make the country safe. When conservatives saw 9-11, they saw an investment opportunity.

    by onanyes on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:11:27 AM PST

  •  As an Obama supporter, (5+ / 0-)

    I really need to stop reading these diaries. There's just so much negativity, it wears hard on my soul. I hope we can come together when we have a nominee.

    First in class at Harvard Law. Do you really think he'll be a naive negotiator? You know what they say about those who speak softly.

    by Michael D on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 03:57:20 AM PST

    •  thanks for your concern. (0+ / 0-)

      your concern is that the hillary supporters are SO NEGATIVE, whereas the obama supporters are all sweetness and light. well, thanks for your concern. that latest bit about bill clinton being karl rove tells me what i need to know about the obama supporters here. they have no loyalty to the democratic party or anything else except obama's candidacy.

      Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

      by campskunk on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:11:35 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lame Argument Construct = Lame Diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    onanyes, Crestingwave, Nick Blas

    The argument has always been experience (as defined in years) versus judgment.  The fact that Hillary supporters cannot win that argument is not our problem.  The fact that you continually embark on revising history is a slight problem especially when you have an irate former POTUS being taken semi-seriously.  

    In regards to the race card, I find it amusing how the Anglo-Saxon has become the expert on race.  If you add up all these comments ...you get, at best, an aggregate of stupidity that shows the campaign to be rather insensitive to the black American experience.  Repetition is indicative of a pattern.  Now if you can establish a pattern, the question is then what is the motive?  

    Please define what the gender card is b/c I'd like to know how transformative it is to run a campaign that incessantly seeks play on the "It's hard out there for a woman".  

    1964 Cassius Clay vs Sonny Liston, 1997 Masters Tiger Woods vs Field, 2008 Barack Obama vs Field

    by ZenMaster Coltrane on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:35:19 AM PST

  •  I'll be damned. I really thought Obama was (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sandy on Signal

    telling the truth all along about his record.  I'll be damned...

    If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

    by hestal on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:38:03 AM PST

  •  Diary Of The Year (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coral, Sanuk, roguetrader2000

    We're only 12 days into 2008, but Alegre's diary is The Best I've seen so far (and that's amid extraordinary competition, including RenaRF's last weekend, ttrout's a few days ago, Turkana's yesterday, and quite a few others).

    I have been trying to put my finger on why we're suddenly -- right after NH -- experiencing this rash of claims of "the Clintons are racist" -- which are clearly coming from Mob Obama here and elsewhere.  I couldn't find the logic behind this swarm of attacks against the Clintons and, well, even against those of us here who have been Obama-undecided (e.g., I had a high-UID Kossack trailing me around the site yesterday, asking why I'm a racist and unwilling to change -- all because I was undecided between Obama and Clinton and criticized the Mob behavior I've seen from the Obama campaign at Daily Kos).

    But, Alegre, you have put all the clues together for me and you have opened my eyes to what occurred here and in the MSM this week -- the Obama campaign (and their Mob runners at Daily Kos) have played the fucking race card and tried to do it below-the-radar by taking several comments from the Clintons and their supporters and trying to twist those comments into "racism".  My goodness, I hadn't even heard President Clinton's actual words around "the fairy tale" the Mob has made so much of here.  I have now, and can say without reservation that Mob Obama have definitely played the race card in that case.

    It is also now clear to me (thanks to you) why they played that card.  They think they saw a gender card propel the other side in NH and, wanting to blunt that and revive momentum in South Carolina, they panicked and took the lowest of roads.

    I am beyond dismay that progressive Democrats would do this -- against OTHER progressive Democrats -- all to keep a buzz going and save their momentum.

    I don't know where the Obama campaign goes from here, now that their play has been revealed.  And I don't know how I will look at Barack Obama with the same hope, imagination, and admiration as last week or the week before.  If he wins the nomination, of course, I'll be for him (in person and in wallet) as he or Senator Clinton (or any other progressive Democrat) will be an extraordinary improvement over the alternative.  But, for me, that luster of last week is gone and Senator Clinton becomes the best choice I can make in the upcoming New Jersey primary.

    Gone with the luster I found in Obama is any remaining tolerance I might have otherwise had of the Mob on this website who have been waving the race card in unison since experiencing defeat in New Hampshire.  Observing the frenzy of that Mob right before New Hampshire, I asked some of them to calm down or else their heads would explode at the first loss.  I thought they were just rabid idealists.  Turns out that they're not idealists at all, but political punks (with probably more than a few operatives among them) who will stop at nothing, including tearing progressives apart, just to keep their buzz-swarm going.

    •  Obama is the Toyota Prius of candidates (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Larry Bailey, pioneer111

      There's a smug satisfaction involved in proving that you're enlightened enough to support a black man.  Well I got that out of the way with Jesse Jackson a long time ago.

      Why this community rallies around a man who showed contempt for the blogsphere, associates himself with a man who says God cured his homosexuality, talks incessantly about working with Republicans and rejects core liberal values as too old fashioned is amazing to me.

      Oh yeah, he's not a Clinton, he's got that going for him. I dislike her immensely, but the more I look at what Obama really says and does, and the more I ignore his "progressive" apologists on this site, the better Clinton looks to me.

      What did you do with the cash Joe?

      by roguetrader2000 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:11:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You prove the point very well - (0+ / 0-)

      The harm is done when an Obama supporter 'takes the bait' and criticizes the Clinton campaign for their remarks.  Then hacks like Taylor Marsh and diaries like this can say that Obama is playing the race card.  Its this 'race-card' perception that turns the voters away from Obama as reckless diaries like this spead poisonous memes.  It hadn't played out by IA and NH, but the Clinton machine kept at it and at it, and now they have finally gotten the MSM to narrate the Obama camp as defensive and playing the race card.
      I know you HRC supporters are savvy enough to at least see the logic behind this.  Please stop ignoring this possible motive.

      ^ I posted this upthread.  I just wanted to point out how you are a perfect example of how the Clinton strategy is working.  You are the voter I refer to who is shaped by a perception that has been carefully baited by the Clinton machine.  Please take a careful look at what is going on.  Its hard, but try to discount the Taylor Marsh(s) and hyper-Obamamites of the world and contrived media narratives.

      •  I hope you understand where I'd like for you... (0+ / 0-)

        to put your condescension.  

        •  I apologize for being condescending (0+ / 0-)

          I admit that I have gotten a bit "in your face" and defensive with my posts in this diary.  I'm not proud of it.  I'm just so frustrated at the traction being generated by opinions like that of Taylor Marsh and I feel like HRC supporters are ignoring the other side of the argument.

          My point is this:
          The "fairy tale" remarks were not racist or even racially sensitive.  The link that the diarist provided that was labeled "folks are twisting the HELL out of his words" actually contains no references to Bill's comments being called racist.  
          It has been suggested that reactions from the AA community (most notoriously personified by Jesse Jackson Jr.) are a ploy to drive up AA votes in South Carolina.  The "race-card" defense is also being projected onto Obama himself, largely due to JJJr's comments and the comments of rabid Obama supporters on this site.  IMO, this is unfair.
          I contend that it has been the Clinton camp's goal, all along, to generate enough racial backlash to give voters the impression that Obama is playing the race-card.  The benefit to HRC is that this drives up her votes in protest of the contrived media narrative.
          I really wish Obama supporters would let the race-baiting go and focus on his message.  The defensive attitude and protest of racially sensitive remarks (however warrented they may be in certain cases) plays right into HRC's strategy.  I think this is evident in your comments above - and that was what I was trying to say.  

          •  Thanks for elaborating. However... (0+ / 0-)

            ...it's clear you believe the Clintons are race-baiting.  You're just concerned that it might somehow be blown back onto Obama.  I strongly disagree with the race-baiting premise and charges, and see them as a part of a strategy, reflected heavily among Obama supporters here, for reverse-use of the race card.

            If this is being orchestrated by the Obama campaign (and we can just as easily suspect them of this as you can accuse the Clintons of race-baiting), then it's temporarily disgusting but would not stop me from eventually voting for him if he's our nominee.  My concern is about what happens with Obama supporters if Clinton is the nominee.  How can they move from a position of actually believing the Clintons are BOTH race-baiters (or as many of them are saying here -- "racists") to a position of support of Senator Clinton, if she's the nominee?

            You can "get over" a strategy you disagree with, but how can you "get over" a belief that the opposition candidate is downright evil?

            So, all of this is really risky business and has the potential to tear us apart -- just as we are on the verge of reclaiming the WH, appointments of justices, and all that goes with that.  What a shame that would be.

      •  I predicted this on 12/18/2007 (0+ / 0-)

        Post

        I think the HRC camp is trying to put Obama and/or black activists on the defensive.  Its looking increasingly likely that the African-American vote is going to break heavily in Obama's favor.  I think Shaheen's comments were a signal that HRC needs to win the nomination from a different base.  If activists of the Sharpton/Jackson mold get riled up, this could swing a block of white voters who don't like seeing the "race card" being played (even if being played fairly).  I fear that a button will be pushed and some activists will (rightfully) get angered and vocal, but the net result would be a perception that Obama is using race as politcal cover. 'White guilt' is a turn off for many voters who might otherwise align with Obama.

  •  Great work Alegre, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Larry Bailey

    can't talk now , gotta run daughter to a basketball tournament. Thursday I took her to practice, then went to son's basketball game. Things do, people to see, come on MSM, we are very busy, do your job and report the truth,so maybe we can sit down once in awhile. Thanks Alegre, recommend.

    *a hundred years from now, the future may be different because I was important in the life of a child*

    by bonesy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:58:12 AM PST

  •  You rock, Alegre. Good diary. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pioneer111
  •  Iraq was and is the direct result of the (0+ / 0-)

    defense industry lobby. Partisan politics is the fight for lobbyist dollars. Economic woes are directly related to lobbyist takeaways. Healthcare has failed because lobbyists won.
    Every damn thing wrong is this country is rooted in one disease. Only one candidate has brought laser-like focus to the problem.

    "I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle

    by java4every1 on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:17:50 AM PST

  •  To be perfectly clear. (0+ / 0-)

    You've already lost. You should understand this and make peace with it, so it isn't a avalanche when the convention comes.

  •  I wish (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glinda, onanyes

    I wish that you'd spend your time telling us why your candidate is so good as opposed to why others aren't so good.  It's, well, tiring.

    Cheers.

    I feel like I'm taking crazy pills! The AA stands for Ann Arbor.

    by Matt in AA on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 05:40:12 AM PST

  •  I used to enjoy (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ManahManah

    I used to enjoy your diaries even though I wasn't a Clinton fan. I thought they were even handed, fair, and effective. Your last few diaries have been really disappointing. The petty arguments, back handed slurs, and insulting and sexist title are beneath you. Or I thought so at least.

    •  so... (0+ / 0-)

      your concern is that the hillary supporters are SO NEGATIVE, whereas the obama supporters are all sweetness and light. well, thanks for your concern. that latest bit about bill clinton being karl rove tells me what i need to know about the obama supporters here. they have no loyalty to the democratic party or anything else except obama's candidacy.

      Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

      by campskunk on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:10:47 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Both sides (0+ / 0-)

        Both sides have been using disgusting tactics lately. This reply is a perfect example.

        The sexism spewed forth by Clinton haters lately is revolting. The underhanded racism coming from the Obama haters has been equally disgusting.

  •  Wow this diary was posted (0+ / 0-)

    a full hour after Delaware Dem's eloquent diary.

    I am speechless.

    "The Revolution Won't Be Microwaved."

    by Glinda on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 06:13:36 AM PST

  •  a lot of us who opposed the war (0+ / 0-)

    weren't opposed to funding until it became evident that no further positive benefit could arise from our reconstruction efforts.

    A lot of us who opposed the war recognized that people in the Senate may have had access to intelligence superior to what the public had. It turns out that they didn't.

    This post, framed with the typical sexist condescension from Clinton surrogates, is nothing more than the usual oversimplification and distortion that the DLC and their Republican allies have applied to the Iraq issue from the start.

    The fact of the matter, however, is that, even if we do obscure the important details, there remains one glaring difference:

    Obama now thinks the vote to go into Iraq was a mistake, as he did when the vote occurred. Whatever he said to keep a positive spin on Kerry in 2004 does not eliminate those facts.

    Clinton, in contrast, continues to refuse to say that vote was a mistake. From Clinton, we continue to get the implication that the concept of the invasion and occupation was not fundamentally flawed to begin with. Listening to Clinton, we only hear that Bush was incompetent, suggesting that the war would still have been a good idea if, say, she were president at the time. Again, she continues to attribute the flaws of the war's concept to Bush  himself, not the war itself.

    This issue eclipses the whole matter of parsing quotes and falsely equating reconstruction funding with original support. In 2002 and 2008, along with numerous instances in between we have evidence that Obama thinks the concept of the war was fundamentally flawed to begin with. From 2002 to 2008, Clinton has insisted that the only problem with the war was Bush's handling of it. While she has lately said she would have remained focused on Afghanistan and not invaded Iraq, she continues to refuse to acknowledge that invading and occupying an ethnically and religiously divided nation is a strategic blunder of Napoleon-goes-into-Russia proportions.

    This is a fundamental issue of judgment.

al Fubar, Superskepticalman, Best in Show, coral, kid oakland, Trix, DaveOinSF, mikepridmore, daria g, Pacific John, Radiowalla, debcoop, coturnix, ghost2, Doctor RJ, Delaware Dem, badger, wildlilacs, markw, Rolfyboy6, MontanaMaven, ljm, SeltzerDuke, sara seattle, Coldblue Steele, SanJoseLady, be inspired, Vico, HarveyMilk, Norwegian Chef, LIsoundview, memberofthejury, concernedamerican, hestal, GregNYC, DrKate, wonkydonkey, sarahnity, nyceve, rghojai, DaleA, CalvinV, Bensdad, AZnomad, mrblifil, vmibran, roses, marylrgn, Larry Bailey, Miss Blue, Torta, jalbert, internationaljock, Nate Roberts, high uintas, campskunk, mrkvica, milton333, Kentucky DeanDemocrat, StuartZ, BarnBabe, roseeriter, kevin22262, TXsharon, lambertstrether, Andrea inOregon, JimWilson, DEFuning, Black Maned Pensator, attydave, hopscotch1997, Timbuk3, bella, jen, Emmy, Limelite, goldberry, sawgrass727, averageyoungman, Fabian, keila, Gabriele Droz, Independent Musings, J Rae, Laurence Lewis, dunderhead, cassidy3, LithiumCola, tony the American Mutt, Alvord, Hane, JackTheIntelligentDesigner, Ekaterin, RainyDay, bently, itsadryheat, evanaj, Sanuk, atdnext, MeMeMeMeMe, Nestor Makhnow, Partially Impartial, robokos, OhioCav, Lashe, funluvn1, gotalife, MO Blue, Jjc2006, bonesy, kidneystones, pdxarch, cpresley, Joelarama, anna shane, flagpole, FelisRufus, Lysis, BruceMcF, psychodrew, America08, dotcommodity, mhinds01, ezdidit, phoenixdreamz, newhorizon, bluehen96, lizpolaris, quadmom, Uberbah, owl06, keikekaze, Lena, roguetrader2000, TomP, Pink Lady, SaneSoutherner, dragoneyes, Andrew40, Rich in PA, lily15, Universal, okamichan13, jamess, Mardish, Berkeley Vox, CC Music Factory, Kathy S, santh, LaEscapee, sunflwrmoonbeam, JamieG from Md, rigso, ZhenRen, domma, texan4hillary, Izarradar, NewHampster, Psychotronicman, EE Prof, AUD, Matisyahu

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site