Originally this was a long post. People told me to post it as a diary, so here it is. It's a follow up to my last several diaries, http://www.dailykos.com/...
I'm sorry, but here is the truth. I've been reading the boards. Some said that this is what it takes low blows to win elections, that people want the Clintons back in office because deep down people like this stuff, that the doodee (not the cream) floats to the top of the political toilet, that the Democrats and the Republican politicians are part and parcel floating next to each other, and that the Clintons will do and say anything, absolutely anything, to float their way back into the top of the White Bowl.
Obama is running on platform to change American politics, to try to take it out of a back alley street fight and add some rules against biting, groin shots, head butts and the like. The Clintons are doing everything they can to drag Obama back into that alley. This latest Clinton move today is really low. Hillary says Bill says he's sorry that "maybe" he went overboard in beating on Obama. It's professional alright. Professional wrestling. After all the Clinton distortions of Obama's statement about Reagan and falsely accusing Obama of making up fairytales about his superior record on the Iraq war, now Bill says he's sorry. Only he doesn't say it. His wife does. Tag team!
What makes me really sick is that the Clintons are race baiting to try to divide the electorate in South Carolina to scaremonger the white vote away from their opponent. The Clintons would love for this election to be about race and gender, old identity politics, vote for your own and screw the rest who aren't like you, because there are more women likely to vote for the Clintons than blacks likely to vote for Obama. The white women versus the blacks. Great. This sounds like race baiting in the old segregated South that the Clintons so rail against. Now that's selflessness for you! And to those who say they are no better than the Republicans, I agree that the Clintons give Karl Rove a run for his money.
You know how we know for sure the Clintons are the wrong choice? Because the New York Times endorses them. In a totally vapid and insipid piece, the NYT said they endorse the Clintons because, among other things, Hillary got it wrong on the war but somehow she is more right on the consequences of withdrawal. What the heck are they talking about?
Here is the plain truth the NYT acts like doesn't exist. Hillary Clinton totally screwed up the most important vote of her career in an admitted gigantic error in judgment. She was a sheep. The self-proclaimed "workhorse" didn't even read the National Intelligence Estimate at the time, not even after the most senior Democratic Senator in military affairs personally asked her to. Unbelievably, Hillary Clinton still can't admit she made an error, much more a gigantic one.
Hillary is still spinning her reasons for voting for the resolution by saying she didn't vote for war - she says she just voted to authorize Bush to use force. She is in denial about the fact she didn't vote for another resolution that said exactly that. As for her plans to disengage in Iraq, they are no better or more clear than Obama's. And unlike Hillary who has burned every bridge with the Republicans (the latest NBC/WSJ poll today shows Obama beats McCain and Hillary does not - I wonder why), Obama could reach across the aisle and grab someone like a Colin Powell to be Secretary of State. After all, Powell said "you break it, you own it." Another run at Secretary of State could be Powell's chance to "fix it", at least a little.
So, back to the truth about the NYT with a little rant thrown in. Hey NYT, not only do you not walk on water. You often act like morons. Absolute morons. Don't believe me? Well, here's the proof. You were stupid enough to buy into the Administration's phony made up stories about WMD in Iraq. And don't tell me everybody was fooled. They weren't. McClatchy's wasn't fooled. The UN Weapons Inspector wasn't fooled. The vast majority of other nations in the world which would not go along with us into Iraq like they did in the early 1990s weren't fooled.
And worse of all NYT, you didn't even give it a college try to find the truth - your reporter Judith Miller was doinking one of the Administration's biggest felon lying lips Libby as she published whatever he and the Administration told her. Get real NYT. Wake up. It's obvious, NYT, why you forgive Hillary Clinton for making a gigantic mistake about the war and can't give Obama credit for having the foresight to be against the war from the start. You, NYT, can't come to terms with your own gigantic failure in blindly reporting lies about the war. That and the fact that you are scared of change. Those are the reasons, you self-absorbed, conceited institution.
There is definitely an element of truth to the comments of many posters in this thread. In some ways, the NYT is one of the biggest pieces of doodee that rises to the top of the Democratic Party. (Caveat: while the NYT can be a big stupid, conceited piece of turd, Fox News is an even more arrogant, evil POS that intentionally distorts the news to benefit rich people, crazy neocons and their billionaire owner directly at America's expense).
Sorry to get so scatalogical, but you can't describe poo otherwise. Obama is essentially asking the Democratic Party, CAN WE FLUSH ALREADY? All of the posters on this thread are ready to push the knob on the toilet. If the Democrats don't, the Clintons are going to be floating around us for quite a while.
PS The New York Times has redeemed itself slightly by not squelching these editorials today:
http://www.nytimes.com/...
http://www.nytimes.com/...