Thursday’s campaign round-up

Today’s installment of campaign-related news items that wouldn’t generate a post of their own, but may be of interest to political observers:

* The post-Super Tuesday fundraising push is more intense than I even imagined: “[T]he Hillary campaign has raised roughly $4 million since the polls closed, the Clinton campaign tells us. The Hillary camp is also claiming 35,000 new donors in the past 48 hours.” At the same time, however, the Obama campaign, using the $5 million Clinton loan as a rallying cry, has raised $7.6 million over the same time period.

* Some Obama campaign staffers got a little sloppy yesterday and inadvertently leaked a memo with expectations for the next couple of months: “By the time the last primary is held June 7, Obama’s advisers project he will have 1,806 delegates to 1,789 for New York Senator Hillary Clinton, according to a document outlining the scenario that was inadvertently attached to a release on delegate counts from yesterday’s Super Tuesday primaries.” As the campaign sees it, Obama will win all of the remaining states, except for Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

* In case there were any concerns, Joe Lieberman will not be a Democratic superdelegate: “Lieberman’s endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo. Miller, then a Democratic senator from Georgia, not only endorsed Republican George Bush four years ago, but he delivered a vitriolic attack on Democrat John Kerry at the Republican National Convention. The Democrats responded with a rule disqualifying any Democrat who crosses the aisle from being a super delegate. Lieberman will not be replaced, DiNardo said.”

* Yesterday morning, Obama said he’d be ready for the Republicans after enduring attacks from the Clinton campaign, should he win the nomination. A few hours later, the Republican National Committee told reporters that it would hit even harder: “With all due respect to the Clinton ‘machine’, should Barack Obama win the nomination, I’m sure Republicans will have plenty of arguments to level against the Senate’s ‘most liberal’ member.” (I assume you know, but the “most liberal” line is bogus.)

* A Yale medical student named Liza Goldman reportedly asked Hillary Clinton this week whether she would support a single-payer healthcare policy if Congress passed one. “She said yes, and shook my hand,” Goldman said.

* Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a superdelegate, announced yesterday that he would support Obama because his constituents did: “Last night at the Democratic caucuses, the voters of southern Minnesota overwhelmingly supported Senator Barack Obama and his hopeful vision for positive change. As a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will honor their decision and support Senator Obama.”

* The back and forth on Mississippi Republican Governor Haley Barbour’s decision to delay a special election to fill Trent Lott’s seat went to the state Supreme Court yesterday. Unfortunately, the court majority ruled in Barbour’s favor. (The dissent was a gem: “Much of what has been written by the majority in the instant case would be dismissed as mere gobbledygook but for the fact that it is being promulgated by a venerable institution in our democracy, the Mississippi Supreme Court. This majority decision erodes that veneration.”)

* Ron Paul thinks he has 24 delegates. Party officials aren’t so sure.

* Pollster John Zogby predicted a double-digit victory for Obama in California this week. Given that Clinton won by double digits, Zogby felt compelled to respond to the criticism: “Some of you may have noticed our pre-election polling differed from the actual results. It appears that we underestimated Hispanic turnout and overestimated the importance of younger Hispanic voters. We also overestimated turnout among African-American voters. Those of you who have been following our work know that we have gotten 13 out of 17 races right this year, and so many others over the years. This does happen.”

Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), a superdelegate, announced yesterday that he would support Obama because his constituents did: “Last night at the Democratic caucuses, the voters of southern Minnesota overwhelmingly supported Senator Barack Obama and his hopeful vision for positive change. As a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention, I will honor their decision and support Senator Obama.”

That’s good. That’s the way it should be were ever possible.

Poor Zogby.

I’m listening to a McCain commercial, where he claims to have opposed Bush’s failed Iraq strategy. Almost sounds like he opposes the war, if you listen with only one ear.

Is that how he’s getting anti-war independents?

  • …I’m sure Republicans will have plenty of arguments to level against the Senate’s ‘most liberal’ member.

    Considering that Americans, by substantial majorities, now trust the Democrats more on everything from the economy to handling terrorism, pointing how different Obama is from the Republicans doesn’t sound like the best strategy.

  • In case there were any concerns, Joe Lieberman will not be a Democratic superdelegate: “Lieberman’s endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention

    Just to repeat a question from a previous thread– Why was Lieberman a superdelegate to start with? He left the Democratic party when he lost his primary and ran as an independent. Does Bernie Sanders get superdelegate status?

  • CNN is reporting that Romney is suspending his campaign. I’d like to say, ‘nice to know ya’ but it wasn’t.

  • damn, beep52, thanks to your post, i went to CNN.com, and the first headline that caught my eye was “Glenn Beck: My Untimely Demise” and I welled with hope that he was announcing the end of his show, only to be crushed when I clicked and saw it was merely a lame defense of the impotence of WingNut Radio in the Republican nomination process.

  • As a jaded, super-cynical LIBERAL (and damn proud of it) trapped in a red state, I can only begin to imagine the Repug attacks on Obama should he become the nominee. And no, I don’t think he or his advisors can even begin to imagine what would be thrown his way.

    By comparison, Hillary has gone nice on him (mostly).

    Fairness in advertising: I’m backing Hillary.

  • The Democrats responded with a rule disqualifying any Democrat who crosses the aisle from being a super delegate. Lieberman will not be replaced, DiNardo said.”

    Is Bernie Sanders a super delegate? If not, then why the hell was Joe still potentially a super delegate in the first place? Lieberman beat the Democrat in his race to retain his Senate seat, it would be nice if the Washington establishment showed some recognition of that fact.

  • Zeitgeist… here’s what’s here now…

    GOP sources: Romney to suspend campaign
    Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney will suspend his Republican presidential campaign after a disappointing showing in this week’s “Super Tuesday” primaries and caucuses, GOP sources said today. Romney is expected to announce his decision this afternoon at the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, three Republican sources told CNN. developing story

  • Is it just me, or are there a few levels of irony in an RNC statement boasting that they are even dirtier than the Clintons?

  • Brooks @ #12, I was thinking the same thing. How quaint for the Republicans to be *proud* of the amount of garbage they can churn out.

    “The Republican Party – All Slime, All the Time”

    Charming.

  • By comparison, Hillary has gone nice on him (mostly).
    By comparison, Barack has gone nice on her (mostly).

    Barack won’t go here: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=076fd56f-4aca-4683-a9d1-3c55d748946e
    Or here:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
    Or here:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2182065:
    Or here:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClfpG2-1Bv4

    Why?
    For fear of alienating those with bad cases of Clinton infatuation syndrome.
    Of course the republicans will. Like flies on piles and piles of corrupt donkey shit.
    And it will all stick… and peel away voters a slab at a time.

    Why would anybody in their right mind vote to take that kind of baggage into the Fall?
    I guess that’s why we call ’em (affectionately) Dims.

  • The problem is that the media and large portions of our nation who are potential swing votes HATE the Clintons.

    There is no mass Obama Hate factions in our nation.

    Whether this is fair or not, this is the reason why we MUST elect Obama!!

  • That is my view exactly, ROTFLMLiberalAO.

    Why would anybody voluntarily invite the Clinton Soap Opera back into our lives? Too much baggage, and too much polarization. Clinton will not attract new votes, Obama will.

    Obama is our best hope for the General Election

  • see, there is a principled side of me that is automatically on guard whenever a sentence has to start “whether this is fair or not.”

    if its not fair (and much of the Hillary Hate is not), i dont feel compelled to validate it.

  • I can only begin to imagine the Repug attacks on Obama should he become the nominee.

    Let them attack him.

    And then let them try to find an angle that isn’t deemed as racist, xenophobic or just downright silly.

  • if its not fair (and much of the Hillary Hate is not), i dont feel compelled to validate it

    You don’t NEED to validate it.

    It is real. It exists. And it will be a huge problem in a general election.

  • It is real. It exists.

    And if it is unfair – and it is – then we should be proud to stand up to it.
    Even (perhaps especially) in an election.

    An election we would win. Which would show irrational, trumped-up Hillary Hate to be impotent, at which point it, and its purveyors, would be left much weaker.

  • Come on, folks, what’s this business on thinking Obama isn’t prepared for Republican smear tactics? Remember the “radical madrassa” lie last year? Obama just out-right thumbed his nose at Faux “News” over that one, ignored their posturing, made sure the truth got out, and *won* that battle. It got to the point where “O’Really?” literally assaulted one of Obama’s people just to get a chance to talk to him after the New Hampshire primary.

    If I didn’t have moral objections to gambling (^_^), I would bet gold to grass that Obama knows exactly what he’s facing and will deal with it far better than Gore or Kerry did.

  • Whether or not Hillary Hate is fair* is irrelevant. It does exist, and it will hurt in November if she is the candidate. There are no Obama Hate groups out there.

    * – I think Hillary Hate is fair. Her husband just brokered a shady oil deal, then they loaned the money to her campaign (note: loaned, they expect us to pay them back). She will sell pardons, she will give up on her national healthcare dream the second a big health care company opens their wallet for her.

  • And by the way, I agree with Zeitgeist too, at least in principle. Letting fear of dirty republican smear tactics decide our primary for us is wrong. It’s caving in. It’s *weakness*. If we stand up to these merchants of filth and make them look like the monsters they are, it won’t matter who we have in the general election. **EVERYTHING** is going our way in 2008. For a change, let’s play this as if we actually recognize that fact.

  • Zeitgeist: if its not fair (and much of the Hillary Hate is not), i dont feel compelled to validate it.

    Well, I admire your principles. For consistency’s sake, I hope you don’t lock your front door or your car, because surely it’s not fair that we have to worry about thieves. And when someone cuts you off on the road, I hope you just plow into them in the interest of fairness.

    Me, I think sometimes we have to deal with the world as it is rather than as we wish it were. It’s not as if Hilary is a dramatically better candidate; she and Obama are close in policy and, while they each have shortcomings, seem fairly comparable over all. To me, it seems crazy pick the one (much!) more likely to lose the general just because it’s not “fair” that she’s more likely to lose the general.

    The Republicans will eat Hilary alive. From old stuff like Whitewater and the previous failed health care plan to new stuff like (hypocritical but true) attacks based on dynasty, she will have a much, much harder time in the general. It’s not fair. But it is true.

  • Reuters confirms that Romney is suspending campaign operations. If it’s already broadcasting in Europe, then the news probably started leaking sometime this morning.

  • McCain is very much different from Bush on Iraq, in that he strongly opposed ‘Staying the course’ and never missed a vote on the war….

    … NOT!

    2003: McCain Said Bush Led With “Clarity” And Did Not Exaggerate the Case for War. During an interview with a live audience, Senator McCain praised President Bush on his leadership on the Iraq war and said, “I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he’s done a great job leading the country, don’t you all?” And asked if he thought the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, “I don’t think so. And I think that it’s obvious that the 16 words should not have appeared in his speech. He acknowledged that again today. But I think that he made a strong case and I think that case has been verified with discovery of mass graves and the brutality of this incredible regime.” [MSNBC, Hardball, 4/23/03; Fox News, 7/31/03]

    2003: McCain Said The End Is “Very Much In Sight.” Senator McCain was asked “At what point will America be able to say the war was won?” McCain said there were oil fields to secure and “die-hards” to take care of but “it’s clear that the end is very much in sight, and today I think Americans should be very proud of their leadership, their technology.There are still some foreigners, Syrians and others hanging around. But it won’t be long. It will be a fairly short period of time, but this happens in wars. I’m confident that once they are confident the area is no longer a threat to the Marines and to our army troops that they’ll start imposing discipline. In the meantime, we’ll have a short period of chaos.” [ABC News, Good Morning America, 4/9/03]

    2005: McCain Said That Another Year Will Prove “Stay the Course” Is Working. “McCain believes that the U.S., and the cause of Iraqi independence, are moving forward in Iraq, a little bit at a time. ‘I think the situation on the ground is going to improve,’ he says. ‘Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course.'” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

    2006: McCain’s Top Political Advisor Says McCain’s Support for the War is “Stay the Course, No Matter What.” John McCain’s top advisor explained McCain’s support for the war and the impact it would have on McCain’s future aspirations saying, “It is stay-the-course, no matter what. And if it dooms McCain, so be it.” [Bloomberg News, 4/20/06]

    2006: McCain Said That Iraq Was “On The Right Track” As The Country Moved Closer To Civil War. Speaking on the “Imus In The Morning” radio show on March 1, 2006, McCain played down the increasing civil violence in Iraq. When Imus remarked that Iraq “already looks like a civil war,” McCain responded, saying, “I keep trying to look at the bright side of this because we have to because the consequences of failure are catastrophic. But the gathering of the seven most respected religious leaders the day before yesterday, calling for calm and calling for some kind of reconciliation, I think, was important. I think, at least we’re on the right track here.” [MSNBC, Imus in the Morning, 3/1/06]

    2007: McCain Claimed There Were Neighborhoods Safe Enough for Him to Walk Through. McCain claimed there were neighborhoods safe enough for him to walk through in Baghdad but then toured a Baghdad market wearing a bulletproof vest while accompanied by “100 American soldiers, with three Blackhawk helicopters, and two Apache gunships overhead.” [NBC Nightly News, 4/1/2007]

    2007: McCain Called Iraq the “Premier Issue” of Our Time, But Missed Iraq War Votes to Campaign for President. According to accounts in The Washington Post, Senator McCain said: “Look, this is the issue. This is the premier issue of my time and the next generation.” [Washington Post, 4/7/07] But when it came to voting on the premier issue, Senator McCain was too busy campaigning, missing each of the first three most crucial votes on the Iraq war this year. The first time, on February 5, “McCain admitted he was mending fences with conservatives in Texas when the Republicans in the Senate blocked a debate on the war.” The second time, on February 17, McCain chose “to spend the day courting conservative voters for his presidential campaign in Iowa.” And finally, McCain missed the third Iraq war vote on March 15, because he was “campaigning in Iowa.” [Dallas Morning News, 2/5/07; AP, 2/16/07; MSNBC.com, 2/14/07; Los Angeles Times, 3/16/07]

    2007: McCain Claims Political Success, Pleads for More Time for Surge. McCain told MSNBC that “the security situation is such on the ground that we can have the Iraqi military take over more of those responsibilities. There is great local political progress being made.” McCain argued for more time for the surge despite lack of progress on key benchmarks telling CBS that, “this new strategy’s only had a few months.” [MSNBC, 9/11/07; CBS Early Show, 9/11/07]

  • Which would show irrational, trumped-up Hillary Hate to be impotent, at which point it, and its purveyors, would be left much weaker.

    This is the problem with many people who support Hillary: You all seem too eager to re-hash old battles to seek vengeance on the Right.

    I am fed up with dynastic politics, and I don’t want to return back to the 90s (no matter how good they were to me). I want to look forward, without all the baggage the Clintons bring to the equation. This doesn’t make me a Clinton-hater (I would vote for her if she wins the nomination), it just means I want a frsh start in our politics, and that isn’t going to happen with Clinton.

  • Can’t wait for the General Election for the old Vince Foster murder allegations to resurface. That would be great for the Democratic Party.

    Meanwhile we have a teflon candidate in Obama. The guy is untouchable and any attack on him gives the impression of a candidate playing dirty politics.

    Whether this is fair does not matter. This is the reality.

    Clinton is a magnet for criticism and hate.
    Obama gets a free pass.

    Disagree with whether that is fair, but anybody voting for Hillary is just asking for McCain to be president.

  • Ohioan @ 27: Um, nice book, though perhaps a bit heavy on the italics. But did I miss the part where someone asserted that McCain is less a warmonger than Bush?

    John S.@ 28: Bingo. Well said.

  • If Obama makes his candidacy a referendum on Clinton, then I’ll take Clinton hands down. If his candidacy is a referendum on the Newt Gingrich politics of smear and hate, and Tom DeLay, and Rove and all their enablers and proactive partners in the press, then I’ll pick Obama.

    I won’t let Obama wipe David Broder’s hands clean, and I am not going to cast a vote that puts the politcs of hate at the foot of the victim, as we claimed Kerry “brought on” the swiftboaters, or Michael J. Fox brought on questions from Limbaugh for getting the shakes. We don’t need David Broder’s approval, and I am done with the mindset that made Leiberman such a star, of eating our friends and enabling our enemies.

    I’m forgiving. All it takes for my hand in friendship is for the Republicans to put their hand out, but I’ve offered my hand so many times and gotten kicked in the balls every single time for it, so as far as I’m concerned, the ball’s in their court and it’s up to them to either make a gesture in good faith, or they need to get out of the way because we’re going to fix this country with or without them, and no amount of griping and whining from the punditry class is going to stop us.

    Is it better to be loved or feared? DC used to fear Republicans, until they became pathetic. I’m tired of trying to be loved. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that only now, when liberals learned to do what they believe without fear of annoying Chris Matthews that we’ve started getting anywhere.

    Is Obama about starting a new chapter? Then I’m there. Is he about refighting old battles to try to rewrite history where Maureen Dowd and the GOP couldn’t? He’ll fail, too.

    A challenge to all Obama supporters: tell me why I, a Bill Clinton supporter, should vote for you candidate, without mentioning Clinton. No backhanded allusions either. Sell your candidate without resorting to the talk-radio nastalgia. What is your vision, other than, “not her”.

  • Are people really voting for Hillary still? Why?

    I understood the Hillary support early, before any other candidates emerged as serious contenders. But now we have a real candidate that we can stand behind with pride.

    Why would anybody want to return to the bitter love/hate relationship of the Clinton Presidency? Just so you can prove to the world that the Clinton Haters are wrong? Who cares if they are wrong, let’s move on and elect a candidate that doesn’t have hate groups directed at him.

    Obama is a great candidate. Hillary is qualified, but she has more baggage than Louis Vitton. That right there makes this an easy choice.

  • So, if Lieberman was a superdelegate, but has been removed by the Zell Miller rule, does that mean the total number of delegates to the convention drops to 4048, making it possible for there to be an exact tie, 2024-to-2024?

  • memekiller,

    you really think that a vote for hillary is putting your hands out to the Republicans and Moderators? Trying to shove another Clinton Presidency of scandal and deceit is going to make Republicans want to take your olive branch?

    If you tell a Republican or Independent voter that you support Clinton, you are essentially kicking them in the political balls.

    This is why Obama is going to win the pledged delegates. And the party better not allow Hillary to purchase all of the Super Delegates and steal the nomination, otherwise we’ll be looking at a 100 yr war in Iraq.

  • Re@14

    What I was trying to show up above with that set of links…
    Which could have been much longer of course,
    Is that there is no equivalency of links on the Barack side of the equation.

    He is pretty damn clean.
    As clean as anybody I’ve seen rise this high in my lifetime.

    If you have comparable links to trash and tar him with…
    Show them!

    As CB has written above: “most liberal” is probably ALL the repugs got on him…
    And those aren’t hardly fighting words.
    I mean really: Most of the time, Barack supporters are working hard to show the left that he is liberal enough!

    Golly gee whiz. This guy represents a new start. No stains! No sins!
    The upside to having him as the candidate is powerfully enormous.
    He is going to be EASY TO DEFEND.
    EASY TO FIGHT FOR.
    Plus… he is likable!

    She la la. Isn’t it obvious?

    Hillary for the Supreme court and Barack as President.
    It is a no brainer!
    She’d be fantastic in that position.
    He will be fantastic in his position.

  • Kevin @33: Yes. However, I would expect them to add or remove one to prevent that eventuality. It would be most amusing, though.

  • An election we would win. Which would show irrational, trumped-up Hillary Hate to be impotent, at which point it, and its purveyors, would be left much weaker.

    Zeitgeist, this is one hell of a big bet to place on what’s essentially an abstract argument.

    I know that some of the, um, less clear-minded Obama supporters/Clinton opponents here are pushing you to dig in on this one. (Hell, they’re almost doing as much to me…) But you’re doing exactly what both the Clintons *and* the LImbaugh/Coulter crowd want you to do.

    This is only a landslide Democratic year if the campaign is fought on substance. If Hillary’s the nominee, I credit that she’ll try to fight it on substance–but the opposition and the media alike will make that impossible.

    Think of it this way: will Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer spend more time talking about Clinton’s health care plan or solutions to the mortgage mess, or the shady donors that ROTF linked to @ 14? Particularly running against Mr. Campaign Finance. You might not like the answer, but you know what it is.

  • A challenge to all Obama supporters: tell me why I, a Bill Clinton supporter, should vote for you candidate, without mentioning Clinton. No backhanded allusions either. Sell your candidate without resorting to the talk-radio nastalgia. What is your vision, other than, “not her”.

    That’s some challenge. Being that most of my rationale for supporting Obama is because he isn’t a Clinton, I may have trouble complying with your rules.

    A few things, though.

    First, I’d point out that Bill Clinton isn’t running for office, so I’m not sure how your support of him has anything to do with anything.

    Second, although you may object to this as a backhanded allusion, Obama isn’t part of a political dynasty. That is very important to me, because we live in (supposedly) a democracy, and therefore I have major issues with the presidency more closely resembling a monarchy.

    Without delving into any ‘radio nostalgia’ or major policy positions (because who are we kidding, there isn’t much difference here between Clinton and Obama), that is my primary rationale.

    Sorry if I borke your ‘rules’.

  • The abstract arguments for Obama as I see them, excluding any consideration of his opposition (this is silly–as they all say, “elections are about choices”–but I like a challenge, so here we go):

    –He broadens not just “the electorate,” but the engaged public. People believe in this man, and it doesn’t seem to be the sort of infatuation that fades after a short time–this has been true since he first appeared on the national stage. That kind of sustained engagement has the potential to reinvigorate citizen democracy, particularly considering that his core message, like Howard Dean’s, is that this is about us: “We are the change we’ve been waiting for.”

    –Obama’s background–as a “child of the world” (that sounds cheesy, but hopefully you get my meaning), a community organizer in low-income areas wrecked by macroeconomic transformation, a professor of constitutional law, and a consensus-building legislator willing to take on politically contentious issues like the videotaping of crime suspects–seems particularly well-suited for the challenges of this time.

    –His instincts, based on the Iraq decision, seem to be pretty good–but he’s no reflexive pacifist, as indicated by his comments about Pakistan.

    –The sum total of this man’s background, political appeal and inclusive vision of transparent and responsive governance might be the strongest possible repudiation of George W. Bush in particular and the partisan, money- and interest-driven politics of the post-Reagan Republicans in general.

    How’s that?

  • A challenge to all Obama supporters: tell me why I, a Bill Clinton supporter, should vote for you candidate, without mentioning Clinton. No backhanded allusions either. Sell your candidate without resorting to the talk-radio nastalgia. What is your vision, other than, “not her”.

    If you are a Bill Clinton supporter, you should leave the country. Clinton is scum.

    Obama will give our nation a lift in foreign perception like we have never seen before, at a time when it has never been as low as it is now.
    Obama will not sell pardons.
    Obama will support a healthcare system that is affordable for all (as opposed to Hillary, who wants everybody to buy it, but not make it affordable)
    Obama will not abandon his health care system dreams the second a big company opens their wallet for him (the way Hillary did in 1993)
    Obama will not raid medical marijuana fields (Hillary refuses to state this)
    Obama can be trusted (and if you think this is a minor issue in November, you are crazy)

  • As requested by ROTFLMLiberalAO on Obama’s baggage:
    Obamacan is a Republican. The corporate wing of the Dems, the DLC loves him.
    Hillary is a Democrat who appeals to the working class…the heart of the Democratic Party.
    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/31/obamas-african-hubris-2/
    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/03/the-audiology-of-hope-dogwhistle-economics-102/
    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/28/will-rezko-blow-up-obama/
    http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/01/21/barack-youre-lying-and-im-calling-you-on-it/

  • HOW MUCH OF CLINTON’S $5 MILL LOAN TO HERSELF (which we have to pay her back for) CAME FROM HER HUSBAND’S SALE OF PARDONS PRIOR TO LEAVING OFFICE?

  • Being that most of my rationale for supporting Obama is because he isn’t a Clinton, I may have trouble complying with your rules.

    That’s really all I needed to know. It’s just like arguing back in the 90’s — it’s just pure, blind, irrational hatred. Not Obama. It’s a Leiberman campaign, a negative campaign, with the Clintons, yet again as the bane of evil. It’s a campaign of ABC — Anything But Clinton, Bush’s overarching policy. He’s not turning the page, but rehashing the past. It’s not a referendum on failed conservatism, but Democratic success. Support of Obam is inseperable from Clinton hate. Obama is merely a catalyst one uses to fill the vacuum left by the decline of Limbaugh and Coulter’s influence. It’s not a campaign “for” anything, it’s not about the “vision thing”. It’s about Clenis. At the very moment when the Democrats have been vindicated, and we were shown to have been right about Bush all along, Obama is another campaign against ourselves, more seconding of the punditry’s hatred of us, more internalization of the right charicatures of us, not stopping the politics of smear, but demonstrating, yet again, their effectiveness in making us believe what anyone says about us. He’s not Kennedy, he’s Nick Kristof, always more terrified of the dirty hippies speaking than he is speaking truth.

    WE write the rules this election. The politics of Rove no longer apply. This is our moment to redraw the maps so that the Republicans spend the next decade fighting on OUR turf. I want a leader who’s proud of being a Democrat, and not afraid to say what we do right, and why we’re the ones you should vote for, not someone whe props up the same strawmen and telling the country why we’re hated and why we deserve it.

  • You call that “baggage” on Obama?

    Give me that “baggage” over Vince Foster any day.

  • memekiller,

    why do you want one of the most hated families in the nation return to our highest office?

    answer me that one.

  • Does anybody know any other forums with good pro-Clinton talk? I’m sick of all the Clinton Hating, but everywhere I turn that is what I read.

    Thanks in advance.

  • Messy Jessy, go screw yourself.

    The Return of the Clinton Dynasty will be a great day in our nation’s history. It will be a giant “I TOLD YOU SO” to all the Clinton Haters out there. It will be a return to greatness, a return to prominence, a return to style.

    Bill made a lot of mistakes, but he is still a great, great, great man. Bill and Hillary are wonderful people, even if you think they have done some illegal things.

    A Hillary presidency will be a giant F-U to the republican party, and that is what I want to see.

  • That’s really all I needed to know. It’s just like arguing back in the 90’s — it’s just pure, blind, irrational hatred.

    Wow, you don’t read so good, huh?

    I realize you PREFER it to be like arguing back in the 90s, but I don’t.

    See, my entire voting life my choices have ALWAYS included a Bush or a Clinton. That strikes me as fundamentally WRONG. In a nation of 300 million people, where we choose the people to best represent us, it seems a bit fraudulent for that to have been the case. Therefore, I do not want to repeat the cycle. I would like NEW choices.

    Now tell me, what in holy hell does that have to do with hating Clinton? Oh that’s right, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

    WE write the rules this election. The politics of Rove no longer apply.

    Like I said, you people are obsessed with turning back the clock and sticking it to the Republicans. GET. OVER. IT. It is time for a new chapter in history, with fresh characters to write the story.

  • Messy Jessy,

    Most hated… you mean Bush? Or Dick Cheney?

    If Bill’s approval rating leaving office were reversed, to 66% disapproval instead of approval, he’d almost have the same ratings Bush has right now.

    I don’t want a return of anything. I’m just not your monkey who believes Chris Matthews. I’m someone who figured out over a decade ago that Republicans sometimes say things that aren’t true about Democrats, not because Democrats did anything to deserve it, but purely for partisan political reasons. So, I was not shocked to discover we were being lied to about Iraq. I knew there weren’t flowers in the streets. I didn’t get suckered by the swiftboat vets, or Maureen Dowd.

    It’s amazing how, when you refuse to ingest cable news, you’re rarely surprised any more by the dirty tricks the GOP plays every election. I don’t “hate” on command, and jump when the punditocracy says so. I figure these things out for myself based on the evidence.

    And I don’t want Clinton back in office necessarily. I badly, badly, want Obama to stop being such a dupe so it can be him.

  • A Hillary presidency will be a giant F-U to the republican party, and that is what I want to see

    Ah, another nostalgic Clinton fan. You’ll be in good company here, just talk to Zeitgeist and memekiller. They got your back.

    I have a question for all you Clinton supporters.

    Is your rationale for supporting Hillary based on anything other than reliving the 90s, adding to the Clinton’s personal political legacy and getting even with the Republicans?

  • Mark J.: “If you are a Bill Clinton supporter, you should leave the country. Clinton is scum.”

    Sorry, not going to oblige you on that one.

    Do you people ever hear the hysterical tone in your writings?

    Re # 39,

    That’s not bad dafaji. Of course, it seems to me that most of those things could be said about William Jefferson Clinton in 1992.

    Scary that.

  • JohnS,

    I gave a challenge based on an assumption I had that you proved correct: that support of Obama is inseperable from Clinton-hate. So I gave a challenge to see if it was possible for an Obama supporter to give a reason for their candidate — not why to vote against the other guy. This is what you said:

    most of my rationale for supporting Obama is because he isn’t a Clinton.

    You want to move past the 90’s? Obama’s the one who brought it up. You’re the one who can’t shirk of the years of conditioning you got from cable news.

  • John S. wrote: “Is your rationale for supporting Hillary based on anything other than reliving the 90s, adding to the Clinton’s personal political legacy and getting even with the Republicans?”

    I believe that Hillary will be better for the over all economy.
    I believe that Hillary will work harder for the lower classes (and so do they if you read the exit polls).
    I believe that Hillary has a far firmer grasp of the issues facing this country.
    I believe that Hillary won’t compromise unnecessarily with our enemies just to get them to the table (that includes the Republican’ts of course).
    I believe that Hillary is ready to work hard, and not vacation away her term.

    Now all of these are really comparisons with Boy George the Second (BGII), and not Obama.

    But I believe it is Hillary, and not Obama, who can do these things.

    And these are the things that are important to me.

    Is that okay with you? Or am I just another Obama-hater?

  • A challenge to all Obama supporters: tell me why I, a Bill Clinton supporter, should vote for you candidate, without mentioning Clinton. No backhanded allusions either. Sell your candidate without resorting to the talk-radio nastalgia. What is your vision, other than, “not her”. -memekiller

    Although I don’t believe you can fully make a decision like this, especially when it’s down to two candidates, in a vacuum devoid of criticism of the other candidates, I’ll give this a go.

    Obama is a rousing and inspirational speaker who made a breathtakingly good speech in opposition to the war in Iraq before it started. For me, this is a critical issue, as I consider war in Iraq quite possibly one of the top five biggest blunders in world history. I know people will argue that he has since voted to fund it, but I honestly believe there is a big difference between atoning for the mistake and making it.

    I think it would be good for America to have a leader like this, not just for our own enjoyment and the history books, but because I believe it plays well on a national stage. The world is not on our side anymore, and I think Barrack can change that.

    I appreciate his history, diverse background and his experience, especially with Constitutional Law. It will be nice to have someone in the White House who understands what it means well enough to teach others.

    The essence of his approach, though I’ve not always agreed with his execution, is something I’m very drawn to, especially when so many Republicans and independents feel left out cold by the current Administration. Now is the perfect time to extend the olive branch.

    He has, despite what his detractors claim, a history of fighting for Democratic principles: health care, personal liberties, translucent government, and against police brutality.

    I think he has the energy and drive to set this country on a new, better course.

    That, in a nutshell, without any claims about his opponent, is why I support him.

  • memekiller, all these people are providing reasons they like obama, and you can’t get away from Clinton.

    we want a person who believes in national healthcare, ending the war, improving international relations, helping the poor, stabalizing or social security, etc…

    obama does all this.

    hillary does a lot of this stuff to, but she also lies, cheats, steals, sells pardons, has a false marriage, and a lot of other stuff that people don’t want to return to from the soap opera of the 90’s.

    if hillary’s last name were jones, and there was no past of her decietful actions, she would be a great candidate. but she is a clinton, so she does not deserve our support, and she will not receive the support of the nation in the general election. the clintons are not highly regarded outside of hard core democrats (who usually like obama and clinton).

    anybody voting for clinton is being selfish.

  • Lance, you don’t think that Hillary will compromise?

    Like when she was all about healthcare in 1992, but it is 2008 and she’s still touting the plan (even though she had a decade to get it done in the 90’s)?

    What do you call that, if not compromising? Maybe she was just selling her values to the highest bidder?

    Clintons do not deserve our respect.

  • Just curious has Obama excluded himself from public campaign funds. I know Clinton has. McCain is taking public matching funds so in the general the most he will have is $70 million however if Obama opts for matching funds in the general it will be an even fight money wise. I’m sure had all the dems known then what they know now they would have taken federal matching funds but they were afraid of Romney or 911 Mayor getting the nomination and would have been at a big disadvantage against then.

    Just a note to Meme none of them can answer your question so all you will hear is some lame statements about him being the UNITER and drawing in all these new voters. Or that he didn’t vote for the war. Although in 2003 he said that he didn’t know he would have voted for the war and that was at a debate in 2003 for his Ill. senate seat. And every since then he has voted the same ways as Hillary. On the Iran resolution he made his common vote on the tough measures “present” all you have to do is look at the sentate web site under votes. If he was truly against it he could have voted “no” but it was politacally convenient to vote present. He waited until the very last second to see how Hillary voted to cast his vote. That sure is a leader. He did it so he could use it in a debate a few days later.

  • Anything positive you can say about Hillary, same can be said about Obama. They both share a lot of the same political views, they are both experienced, they are both intelligent.

    Which brings the major difference between the two:
    Character.

    There is no debate here, Obama wins in a landslide.

    So while you feel that Hillary will be good for the economy, I think that Obama will also do a good job with the economy.
    While you feel that Hillary will end the war in Iraq, I think that Obama will end the war in Iraq.
    While you feel that Hillary has a firm grip on the issues, I think that Obama has a firm grip on the issues.
    While you feel that Hillary will work hard, I think that Obama will work hard.

    While you feel that Hillary is a respectable individual who will be a good representative of our nation, I look back to the 90’s and emphatically disagree. I think that Obama will bring along similar results as Hillary, without the national embarassment.

    So if two candidates are substantially similar on issues/experience/education why do you prefer Hillary? Besides returning to the glory years of Clinton Drama?

    (and don’t pull the experience card, that’s foolish. Obama has 12 years in major state government, he is just as experienced as Bill was in 1992)

  • ***comment 23*** “…- I think Hillary Hate is fair. Her husband just brokered a shady oil deal, then they loaned the money to her campaign (note: loaned, they expect us to pay them back). She will sell pardons, she will give up on her national healthcare dream the second a big health care company opens their wallet for her.”
    Your nose must be the length of a broom handle. Shame on you.

    For all those “Hillary hate” believers, the only Hillary hate I see is coming from you. Polls have demonstrated that she is attracting new voters and for all the “Hillary hate” is doing as well as Obama. Must be a lot of Obama haters out there we just don’t know about huh? That must be why they are voting for Hillary huh? Hillary has been well vetted.

    Whoever believes that a republican will win the WH after Bush no matter who we nominate is an idiot. Just what Americans want…more Bush like administration…more war…more tax cuts for the wealthy, yeah, that’s the ticket. I believe Obama supporters have more integrity than to use a blackmail tactic to get their candidate nominated. “you must support Obama because every body hates Clinton and if she were nominated we’d lose the WH”? What nonsense. The polls are showing that those who supposedly hated Clinton have been coming out and voting for her. One reporter said it must have been the debates because that “Hillary hate” just isn’t there like people said. But many name calling dregs on this site spout it like it was fact because they feel that way and want it to be true. I haven’t made up my mind but I do know that Hillary is just as good as Obama and in my mind this Hillary hate thing amounts to as much as saying voters hate Obama because he’s a black man. Who ever wins the democratic nomination will be the next president…period. “Hillary hate” is not any more of an issue than “Obama hate”.

  • To answer your question JohnS: I will vote for Hillary because Obama seems incapable of understanding the politics of the 90’s, and therefore less able to put an end to the Gingrich politics, and the dark era he ushered in. It’s not revenge, it’s motivate by the fact that I don’t have this insatiable need to base everything I do on what David Broder will or will not approve of. He’s irrelevant.

    Without any understanding of the politics that brought about the Republican ascendance, you can not end it. If he embraces the frame of talk radio, and legitimizes the attacks and smears, then he is a continuation of the 90’s partisanship of Newt Gingrich, and further demonstration that all you need to get us to turn the rifles on each other is to angril accuse us of something, and we’ll believe it. I will not base my vote on who the Republicans and punditocracy hate.

    If I vote for Hillary, as Obama’s supporters show me I must, it will be because she is an able politician who can start reparing the damage George Bush has left us, and because Obama has failed to demonstrate he has any understanding of politics over the past twelve years or so. I will vote for Hillary because Obama is making this a referendum on Bill Clinton, who is not running, rather than a referendum on the failure of conservatism. I will reluctantly not vote for Obama because he is against the new politics as represented by Paul Krugman, the blogosphere and Howard Dean, who I’m also told I must hate, and I wouldn’t want to make anyone angry by voting my conscience!

  • I gave a challenge based on an assumption I had that you proved correct: that support of Obama is inseperable from Clinton-hate.

    Like talking to a brick wall.

    Obviously, it is futile to explain that my reason for supporting Obama has nothing to do with hating Clinton. So have it your way.

    You want to move past the 90’s? Obama’s the one who brought it up.

    Wrong. Clinton is the one that has been campaigning based on having more experience, which is only true if it includes her time in the White House. Nice try, though.

    You’re the one who can’t shirk of the years of conditioning you got from cable news.

    Oh, please. You can blow this nonsense right out of your ass. It doesn’t take cable news for someone who has been voting since 1992 to recognize the flaw in having our executive branch be headed by Bush > Clinton > Clinton > Bush > Bush > Clinton.

    I guess I won’t waste my time on you again if this is the best you can do.

  • We all have the power to turn the page – every single person who is stuck in 1998 or 1999 has the power to realize that this is 2008, that looking forward is one way to leave the past in the past.

    I know and understand that Hillary has, to some extent, opened the door to the past by talking in positive terms about Bill’s years in office, but I think she offers that not because she wishes to re-live those years, but to contrast where we were when those 8 years ended with where Bush has taken us in the succeeding 8 years.

    Hillary has spent the last 8 years as a Senator in a state where she was not a native, and managed not only to win both conservative and liberal votes throughout the state, but she did it convincingly, and she did it twice. She didn’t do it by using the name “Bill Clinton” in every sentence – maybe I’m missing something, but I think he was a pretty low-profile guy for much of that time. And when he was in the news, it was for things like joining with Bush 41 on tsunami relief.

    And it isn’t so much that Hillary deserves to be handed anything on a silver platter – I don’t think there is anything in what she has said or done in the last 8 years that suggests she believes that – but I think she has earned the right to be judged on her own merits. It’s what we are doing with every other candidate in the race up to this point, and if there is anything she does deserve, it is to be judged on the same field as everyone else. Disagree with her on policy, reject her positions on the issues, but hating someone because of who her husband is is no less discriminatory that judging someone unqualified for a job on the basis of his or her race, gender or appearance.

    Electing Barack Obama is not going to turn the page on the Hillary-hatred unless the people who feel that way let go of it by making a conscious decision to do so; I just have never understood the value in so hating someone who has done nothing to engender that level of vitriol. “Moving on” is a great concept, but a new and exciting candidate does not magically make that happen – I am hearing nothing from Obama supporters, or Obama himself, which suggests that he particularly wants to let go of that animosity – we see daily that, if anything, he is making that work for him – and this, to me, is not what someone does who wants to turn the page, come together and unite in common goals. He has enough people from those Clinton years on his staff and on his advisory team that he must not view the Clinton years as a total loss, don’t you think?

    I don’t mean to go all psychobabbly on everyone, I am just troubled by this notion that somehow, all we need is a fresh face to make us forget the past.

  • You really don’t think Hillary Hate exists?

    People hate the Clintons. What world do you live in? Have you ever visited a “red state”? Do you have any friends who are not die hard democrats?

  • Anne, the only reason Hillary won the NY Senate is because Gulliani got cancer and dropped out of the election. He was CRUSHING her in the polls, and then she ran uncontested in the election and barely beat some no name lazio guy.

  • Yep. I’m a brick wall. I refuse to yield to your insistance that your support of Obama has nothing to do with Clinton hate, when after I asked you why I should vote for Obama, without bringing Clinton into it, you said this:

    most of my rationale for supporting Obama is because he isn’t a Clinton.

    Brick wall. Immovable. Solid as concrete.

  • I don’t mean to go all psychobabbly on everyone, I am just troubled by this notion that somehow, all we need is a fresh face to make us forget the past.

    True.

    But basing part of your campaign on that past as well as being a face from that past doesn’t do a very good job of getting past it, either.

    Sorry for all the gratuitous use of the word past.

  • most of my rationale for supporting Obama is because he isn’t a Clinton.

    For the last time, and I will say it s-l-o-w-l-y so that it permeates your thick skull:

    I DO NOT WANT TO VOTE FOR ANOTHER CLINTON BECAUSE I AM TIRED OF ENABLING POLITICAL DYNASTIES.

    If you think this means “Clinton-hate”, then you are a moron.

  • Mark – in case you’ve forgotten, the only reason Obama was elected was because the strongest GOP candidate – Ryan – dropped out because of a messy divorce-sex scandal and Alan Keyes replaced him…

    In 2000, HRC beat Lazio by 55% to 45% – not a landslide, so there must have been some “there” there to Lazio.

    In 2006, she won with 67% of the vote – do you have some excuse for that, too?

  • John S –

    It gets tiresome having to cover the same ground everytime a new group of trolls shows up and doesn’t bother to read or understand any history of the site before jumping in mouth wide open, but as a matter of fact I do have reasons other than refighting the 90s (although I think “the 90s” will never be put to bed by avoidance – the way to stop the Republican bully is not to move over a block, its to break its jaw).

    Clinton is frankly more up to speed, at a higher level of detail, on the intracacies of policy than Obama is. Even most of the pro-Obama pundits have given her this one. I happen to think that when it comes to finding and fixing all of the damage of BushCo, this is more important than really cool prepared speeches.

    I know many disagree – and we’ve had some good debates here on this – but I think she can start fixing things more quickly. This is where the First Lady experience is relevant: her learning curve for what is likely the biggest job in the world will be shorter. She knows what the different staff positions do, she’s seen how massive the spotlights are, she knows how the phone system works (so to speak) – the things that get every administration off to a slower-than-planned start (i.e. being overwhlemed by their new circumstances) will be less overwhelming to her.

    I think Obama is painted into a bit of a corner by his own “transcending politics”/”post-partisan” rhetoric. He either immediately disappoints the crossover voters by governing from the left, or he grants the Republicans a clean slate that essentially locks in their ill-gotten gains. No, I am not arguing he is to weak to respond if attacked, but how aggressive will he be on offense? Will he seek consensus judges? because the judiciary is too slanted right now for consensus judges – we need several years of pure partisanship (in a two-party system, I’m not sure why this is a dirty word) just to get the courts roughly back to equal.

    So even without sticking it to the Repubs in a retrospective sense, I think HRC is stronger, more up to speed, more ready, more detailed, and less restricted by her own persona.

    Some of these wont matter if Obama really can “change politics.” I hope he can – I like Obama; I just prefer HRC. Color me unconvinced. I see no reason to believe the Republicans are ready to change, and it takes two to “change politics.” If I’m right and they aren’t ready for change, I’d rather have HRC in the ring with them.

  • On the Iran resolution he made his common vote on the tough measures “present” all you have to do is look at the sentate [sic] web site under votes…He waited until the very last second to see how Hillary voted to cast his vote. -Jim

    If you’re referring to Kyl-Lieberman, you’re being disingenuous in your zealous support in a situation where I don’t even think you need be. Obama did not wait to cast his vote until Hillary cast hers; he wasn’t there to cast a vote at all. Why lie when the truth suits your need?

    For what it is worth, to the level-headed Clinton supporters, the level-headed Obama supporters, like myself, certainly disavow the comments and attitude that many of his come lately ‘supporters’ espouse. I’m entirely sure you return that favor. The silliness doesn’t do either candidate any good.

  • So…because she was married to the president, and was able to participate in various policy and issues activities – that’s supposed ot be just a big fat zero?

    That makes no sense.

  • “Hey, we need to find out who has been rendered so call this friend in the DoD I had for years…”
    If it were Obama he wouldn’t know who to call. He’d have to learn the names of all the contacts Clinton already has. Like the Godfather who had so many judges and politicians in his pocket…point is, it’s important to be connected, to know who to contact to get around some obstructionist people, to know where the back doors are, in order to get things done. I’ve seen a lot of people on this site project things onto these candidates that they really don’t know if that’s how they stand or not.

    Neither of these candidates are that progressive. Both are keeping the profiteers in their healthcare plans. Neither are committed to drastically cutting the defense budget and both want to make higher education “affordable” rather than free like it used to be before Reagan. Obama is as much a corporatist as Clinton is and we as dems need to quit acting like their plans are acceptable when they are barely tolerable. These two are what we have to choose from but neither is making ‘accountability’ a major issue. Neither have advocated corporate regulation. Neither are as progressive as the base wants them to be and yet to support their candidacy we are making them believe their plans are acceptable because it’s the best we think we are going to get. It’s time to start asking ‘why not’ rather than ‘why’? It’s time to get our candidates to listen to us…to our improvements on their plans.

  • John S. said: “I DO NOT WANT TO VOTE FOR ANOTHER CLINTON BECAUSE I AM TIRED OF ENABLING POLITICAL DYNASTIES.”

    Now that I can understand, especially after seven years of BGII.

    But sorry, that won’t be grounds for making up my mind.

    Take a deep breath. Hillary’s positives are higher than her negatives. And when the Republican’ts start to attack her, she’s going to win more women’s votes.

    John, there are posters here who’s whole comment is “Clinton is Evil”. Well, maybe I’m not a good Evangelical and I can’t ‘see’ evil. Clinton doesn’t seem evil to me.

    Though I think she’s a pretty sharp and when necessary vicious politician.

    However, since I’m sick and tired of being b**tf**ked by the Republican’ts because of Reid and Pelosi wimpiness, I’m ready for a Clinton to stand up to them.

  • Mark – in case you’ve forgotten, the only reason Obama was elected was because the strongest GOP candidate – Ryan – dropped out because of a messy divorce-sex scandal and Alan Keyes replaced him… -Anne

    I agree that helped. Keyes is far more incompetent bat-shit crazy than Ryan, but I don’t think Illinois would’ve elected a Republican Senator, regardless. In that case, the Democrat was going to win, it was just a question of ‘by how much.

  • King James said: “Lance, you don’t think that Hillary will compromise?”

    Not until she gets the best deal possible. Compromise isn’t a starting position.

    “Like when she was all about healthcare in 1992, but it is 2008 and she’s still touting the plan (even though she had a decade to get it done in the 90’s)?”

    I’m pretty sure it’s a new plan James.

    “What do you call that, if not compromising? Maybe she was just selling her values to the highest bidder?”

    Assuming your accusation was correct and her 2008 plan was the same as her 1993 plan then she hasn’t compromised anything. I think she now has a plan she believes will be workable today.

    “Clintons do not deserve our respect.”

    Unlike Tom C., I actually think the Clintons did fairly well in the 90’s. I also believe that Hillary has been a hard-working Senator. Don’t respect them if you don’t want to.

    Kindly stop telling me what to do.

  • On February 7th, 2008 at 2:30 pm, King James said:

    Clintons do not deserve our respect.

    Funny, because I tend to think that someone who likely has never run for anything but the fridge during halftime rendering moral judgments over people who have put themselves out there, taken immense abuse for 15 years, yet raised by all accounts a great daughter, staved off a rabid Republican tide, and increased the EITC and health coverage – those people do not deserve our respect.

    But that could just be me.
    Or, you may quite objectively just be a dick.

  • It gets tiresome having to cover the same ground everytime a new group of trolls shows up

    Does it also get tiresome calling people with reasonable points of view that differ from your own trolls?

    Apparently not.

  • Lance-

    I’m glad you understand where I am coming from (I thought I made myself clear enough).

    I will agree to disagree with you, but I understand your point of view (particularly in your response to my pointed question). I don’t think the Clintons are evil and I don’t hate them. I just want to move past them.

    Rest assured, come November, I won’t care who is on the ticket in the Democratic slot. That will be who I am voting for.

  • Oh my, I don’t think anyone has come remotely close to just how awful this election could get if Hillary ran. However, one name among Bill Clinton’s associates should probably do it: Jeffrey Epstein. See the link to get some sense of what you’ll deal with: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0726062epstein1.html.

    The question from Chris Matthews will be: Do you know what your husband is doing with this man when they travel on a private jet to South Africa?

    The headline from Rush Limbaugh will be: “Bill Clinton travels on pedophile’s private jet”.

    You guys are so naive. The uranium thing is nothing. It will be sex scandal after sex scandal. The Republican oppo teams will be canvassing every single model that traveled on Ron Burkle’s private jet with Bill to see whether there were any “extra-curricular activities.” And you know what, it will stick as soon as Bill’s impeachment deposition is replayed for a generation of voters that didn’t have the chance to appreciate it the first time.

    Vote Obama…. PLEASE….

  • So…because she was married to the president, and was able to participate in various policy and issues activities – that’s supposed ot be just a big fat zero?

    Correct.

    My wife doesn’t get credentials for me being an Art Director of an ad agency even though she has offered many helpful critiques of my work and offered me all sorts of invaluable input over the past decade.

    You don’t get qualifications by association.

  • John S, if you aren’t one (and from your last line in 79, I believe you are not) I apologize. You had the misfortune to show up and start posting aggressively the same day as I Love Democratic Party, Messy Jessy, and about a half-dozen others like them showed up out of nowhere and in my annoyance I overgeneralized you in with them.

  • Mark J @ 40 says

    If you are a Bill Clinton supporter, you should leave the country. Clinton is scum.

    Obama will give our nation a lift in foreign perception like we have never seen before, at a time when it has never been as low as it is now.
    Obama will not sell pardons.
    Obama will support a healthcare system that is affordable for all (as opposed to Hillary, who wants everybody to buy it, but not make it affordable)
    Obama will not abandon his health care system dreams the second a big company opens their wallet for him (the way Hillary did in 1993)
    Obama will not raid medical marijuana fields (Hillary refuses to state this)
    Obama can be trusted (and if you think this is a minor issue in November, you are crazy)

    Lot’s of credibility you’re building up there considering how many people voted for Hillary on ST…How do you expect to get them to leave the country?

    With respect to what Obama will do…How do you know this? do you have a crystal ball? You have no idea whether he’d sell pardons. Hillary has said that people will pay for healthcare on a sliding scale as a percentage of income. Stop pretending you know Obama’s heart. With respect to Obama’s instincts read Joe Wilson’s post at Huffpost here:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/the-real-hillary-i-know-_b_77878.html

  • Zeitgeist-

    No worries.

    I’m a regular over at Balloon Juice, and just happened to pop over here to join the fray. I am a regular reader, but seldom comment. I felt compelled the other day to chime in with all the bomb-tossing going on in here.

  • Obama is so much better than Hillary.

    the only people who like Hillary are poor old women with too many cats.

    I assume that all of you Clinton Apologists here are poor, lonely, female and own cats. Is this true?

  • greg –

    i post here anon for a reason. please don’t give away my identity like that.

    oh – and how many are “too many”? just checking.

    – zeit

  • the average Hillary Clinton supporter owns 4.5 cats.

    not only are they supporters of evil, but they like to cut their cats in half (also known as Cat Torture).

    I don’t understand how you can support the Evil Empire. Obama is a great choice, Hillary is a criminal.

  • Mark – in case you’ve forgotten, the only reason Obama was elected was because the strongest GOP candidate – Ryan – dropped out because of a messy divorce-sex scandal and Alan Keyes replaced him…

    Uh, hardly.

    Ryan was a much better candidate than Keyes, to be sure, but Obama was polling 20 points above Ryan before the stupid sex scandal even started. Obama would’ve walked with the election either way; the scandal just made it easier.

  • Ugh.

    I think this is my cue to check out of Carpetbagger for awhile. To my friends on both sides of the argument, have fun with the idiots, and hopefully we’ll meet again on the other side.

  • “all we need is a fresh face to make us forget the past.”

    I detest this argument. If you’re not old enough to remember, we had a mini Bush presidency in the early 70’s, In fact, many of the Bushies were part of the Nixon administration.

    Our congress actually knew the constitution at that time and were about to successfully kick him out of office when he resigned. Ford was a nice man, but his pardon of Nixon set the stage for 30 years of Nixon’s cronies working the media, slowly plotting, getting their people elected and transforming the Republican party into a giant get back at the Dems and make liberals pay for trashing their man and they succeeded brilliantly. I remember those years. I remember being so proud that our great nation could rise up against our own immoral leader and hold him accountable. I remember the disappointment in all when he got pardoned and we realized he would suffer no consequences. The congress was not going to stop prosecuting Nixon after he resigned. Criminal charges would have been brought and he and his people would have been held accountable. What’s happened in the Bush years would not have happened if we had held them accountable.

    Now we have a Administration that is 100 times worse than Nixon and a congress that has ceded all power to it. We cannot get beyond the bad times until we hold these people accountable, one way or another. If we elect someone who wants to mend fences, establish a “new” style of politics and not hold these criminals accountable, we will be repeating this same disaster of a story 30 years from now.

    It is my only fear of Obama. That in his quest to bring the nation together, holding the Bushies accountable will fall by the wayside. I’ve always maintained that 70% of the country is already together anyway. The mere fact of kicking this horrible administration out of office will unite the Country, not matter who wins.

    They are both great candidates and I will support whoever gets the nod. But please don’t accuse me of hatred or stupidity because I’m wise enough to question the rhetoric of a politician running for office.

  • Comments are closed.