Time's Jay Newton-Small asked about "concerns" that "the Clintons might yet again burn down the Democratic Party"
During an Obama campaign conference call, a recording of which was posted on Time's Swampland, Jay Newton-Small stated: "I just wanted to ask about your pitch to superdelegates these days and if that's changed at all. I mean, are you talking to them at all about the concerns that the Clintons might yet again burn down the Democratic Party?"
During a March 5 conference call with David Axelrod, senior adviser to Sen. Barack Obama, Time magazine political reporter Jay Newton-Small identified herself and then stated: "I just wanted to ask about your pitch to superdelegates these days and if that's changed at all. I mean, are you talking to them at all about the concerns that the Clintons might yet again burn down the Democratic Party?" Audio of the conference call was posted on Time's Swampland blog.
In a January 10 post on Swampland, Newton-Small reported that Rep. George Miller (D-CA), whom she referred to as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) "BFF," "announced today he's endorsing Obama." Newton-Small continued: "Pelosi has so far stayed out of the race. But when her top advisor who also happens to be a famous champion of women politicians endorses Obama, does it send the signal: is there room in Washington for both a Speaker Pelosi and a President Hillary [Clinton]?"
From the March 5 Obama campaign conference call:
UNIDENTIFIED OBAMA STAFFER: We'll now move on to our next question.
NEWTON-SMALL: Hey, this is Jay Newton-Small. I just wanted to ask about your pitch to superdelegates these days and if that's changed at all. I mean, are you talking to them at all about the concerns that the Clintons might yet again burn down the Democratic Party?
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
A page right out of the Clinton playbook - plant the victim seed and watch it grow. Refer back to a totally irrelevant item this reporter said about Pelosi and Clinton to somehow claim his current criticism must somehow be sexist in nature, try to invalidate it even when there is zippo evidence of the sort.
Nicely done......
Well, hell...
Since the Clintons are responsible for all things wrong for the last two decades, they must surely be responsible for this, right?
Newton-Small - good puppy, goooood puhhh-peee!
103rd Congress (1993) : 57 Senate Dems, 258 House Dems
107th Congress (2001) : 50 Senate Dems, 211 House Dems
That's -7 Senate seat, -47 House seats.
"...yet again..."
Oh, they've done it more than once. But you have to pay close attention. I think it was around the time Clinton became the first Democratic President since, who, Roosevelt? to be elected to office for a second time... obviously a divisive, unpopular Democrat...
But I don't blame Clinton alone. It is equally our fault for not working harder to stop the morally vacant Republicans from lying. They will stop at nothing to sate their lust for control and we woefully underestimated just how far these thugs would go to attain power.
Lesson learned, I hope. Republicans are not trustworthy.
The Clintons burned-down the Democratic party during the 90's and early 2000's. When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 Democrats controlled the House, Senate, and had a majority of the governorships in America. When he left office all three were controlled by republicans and Democrats were afraid to show their faces in public. Bill Clinton also used the strategy of Triangulation against Democrats. The Clintons are in politics for themselves, not for the good of our country.
Can't argue with that. Why so many Democratic candidates think Clintonism is somehow helpful is beyond me. As Markos told Harold Ford, Jr. a year ago on Meet The Press: had he ran as an economic populist rather than a Reagan-lite Democrat he might have won that Senate seat in 2006. The Clintons is the sole reason why I consider myself a left-leaning independent and not a registered Democrat. Until its members grow a backbone and stand up to the Republicans on principle, rather than rolling over and allowing the Republicans to define their platform – afraid that being labeled “liberal” will cost them politically – I may consider aligning myself with them.
I sahre the sentiment that triangulation is just about the worst thing to happen not just to the Democratic Party but to politics in general. However the Republican revolution of the 90s can also be attributed to the fact that Congressional Democrats had gotten very corrupt and lazy over the many long years they had control. Financial scandals blanketed the party and the Republicans took advantage of it.
Of course it didn't take long for them to raise political corruption to a much higher level and even create a revolving door and quick campaign ATM in the form of K Street, but that's a whole nuther story.
Aren't these people losing the true focus of our Democracy, when they imply (foolishly) that candidate Clinton is "burning down the Democratic Party"?
I mean, what part in this act of arson did the majority of Democrats in Ohio play?
What stage in this arson did the majority of Democrats in Texas participate in?
How about California, where an impressive super-majority of Californians registered their support for Sen. Clinton... what part of burning down the Democratic Party did they contribute too?
The same is asked of the majority of Democrats in New York and New Jersey, and Massachusetts too: Are they also "burning down the Democratic Party"?
If so, then that's an impressive number of arsonists there, making for a majority in those significant States (and perhaps a majority in all of America, if we account these things accurately, between now and November)...
That's a lot of People "burning down the Democratic Party"...
If that's how these idiots want to describe what's happening, then I say
"BURN, BABY, BURN!"
Irony, I always love your posts.
IMHO this is just another one of the Republican Party's tricks. Their party is the one burning down, not the Democratic Party. It's another one of their 'lookie over there' distraction techniques...when they know very well that they are pretty much toast after the November election.
I think this little stunt by Rush Limbaugh may prove, once and for all, that he actually DOES have great influence over his dittobots, despite assurances to the contrary by our conservative friends here.
Nerzog,
Just a little anecdote. My cousin lives in Sugarland and both he and his wife crossed over to the dar.... dem side to vote for Obama. His wife said everyone in their neighborhood did so in the hopes of getting Hillary out of the race.
Of course they may be the anomaly but all I can say is that they are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans.
I know Rush is claiming credit. But he claims credit for everything. I do seem to remember independents and dems voting for McCain in New Hampshire. It seems to me to be a legitimate method of trying to get the candidates you want to run, to get the nomination. I don't really care for it, but it happens on both sides.
You're right, they ought to be ashamed. If they were actually proud of their own party, or their nominee, or their current president, they wouldn't have to resort to such "Batman's Joker-ish" tactics.
They must feel real good about themselves. Nothing like lifting their own party up, is there?
Rush went on to blame Democratic "dirty tricks" for the nomination of McCain. I guess it's easier for him to believe that meddling Democrats nominated McCain than to contemplate the possibility that he and his fellow Troglodytes are finally being shrugged off by the majority of his party. Of course, he didn't bother to explain how this happened when the Democratic turnout was generally much higher than Republicans. Where did they find enough Democrats to cross over and nominate McCain while turning out to vote Democratic in even larger numbers?
Rush went on to blame Democratic "dirty tricks" for the nomination of McCain.
Rush is wrong...you can probably blame that on Huckabee. Had he not been in the race, siphoning votes that would have likely gone to Romney, I don't think McCain would have won South Carolina or Florida. Or even the nomination.
Thanks Gomer Huckster you jerk.
Irony,
I live in Ohio and got my own personal call from Obama asking me, no matter what my party affilliation might be, to register Democratic and vote for him. Is that any different than what Rush suggested?
I think it rather rich that some here think it is dirty tricks when a Republican employs the same tactics that are seen as democracy-in-action by Democrats.
Nerzog,
If Rush really had the influence you suggested, McCain would not be the GOP nominee.
I live in Ohio and got my own personal call from Obama asking me, no matter what my party affilliation might be, to register Democratic and vote for him. Is that any different than what Rush suggested?
Obama is a candidate running for President. It's his job to go out and try to get people to vote for him. Rush is a sloppy, disgusting, loud mouth radio personality who should concentrate on his show and stay out of trying to influence the Democratic primary race.
I think it rather rich that some here think it is dirty tricks when a Republican employs the same tactics that are seen as democracy-in-action by Democrats.
How exactly is your alleged phone message from the Obama campaign asking for your support regardless of your party even close to a dirty trick as being described? Seriously this is possibly the lamest attempt at equivalency ever.
The dirty trick - Voting for someone you don't support so that the person you do support will have an opponent you believe is easier to beat.
Obama's call to AA - Assuming it was the standard political message call he probably made a broad outline of his platform and said that if you believed in it you should vote for him whether you were a Dem or a Rep.
And these are similar how?
OK Nerzog, that statement BEGGED to be checked out...
In defense of this not being the whole story...
In Armstrong County 0 Dem votes v 353 Rep votes.
But then there is this from A through D in the list of Texas counties at MSNBC (sorry, they had the best source of info)...
Borden 93 Clinton 32 Obama v 0 Rep, Brooks 2,294 Clinton 763 Obama v 0 Rep, Cottle 276 Clinton 113 Obama v 0 Rep, Crockett 566 Clinton 414 Obama v 0 Rep, Culberson 312 Clinton 175 Obama v 0 Rep, Dickens 335 Clinton 194 Obama v 0 Rep, Duval 3,913 Clinton 988 Obama v 0 Rep
And since I am a geek, I went all the way...I'm no statistician, but when the results look this odd...
In Brooks County there were 0 Rep votes and 3057 Dem votes in the 2008 primary...in 2004 Sen. Kerry had 1823 votes and Pres. Bush had 845.
In Duval County there were 0 Rep votes and 4901 Dem votes in the 2008 primary...in 2004 Sen. Kerry had 2916 votes and Pres. Bush had 1160.
In Maverick County there were 0 Rep votes and 9363 Dem votes in the 2008 primary...in 2004 Sen. Kerry had 5948 votes and Pres. Bush had 4025.
In Reeves County there were 0 Rep votes and 2066 Dem votes in the 2008 primary...in 2004 Sen. Kerry had 1600 votes and Pres. Bush had 1777.
In Zapata County there were 0 Rep votes and 3080 Dem votes in the 2008 primary...in 2004 Sen. Kerry had 1662 votes and Pres. Bush had 1228.
So of the 9035 voters who selected Pres. Bush in 2004, not one of them voted Republican in the 2008 Primary? Not one? And no one in Mavericka County voted for Sen. "Maverick" McCain?
I'm sending the whole thing on to MMFA & Dr. Alterman...they'll have more luck looking into it than I will! Or should I send it straight to David Axelrod? :)
Occam's Razor...these counties just haven't reported the Republican results yet. Even though I checked CNN, MSNBC, and the State of Texas and every one of those sources agreed on all of these results. Gotta be...there is no WAY that no one early voted in the Republican primaries.
In the immortal word of Keanu Reeves..."Whoa."
I've watch Hillary rant about her vast experience and how she is much more qualified on day one. Why has no one asked her how many Natl Sec. meetings she attended or how many PDB's did she read. I would love to see her sputter about because the truth is Hillary had NO security clearance. In the 8 years she was in the White House she had NO security clearance. She didn't receive the PDB's, attend ANY Natl. Sec. meeting, she couldn't even be in the room because of her lack of security clearance. So what is all this experience? What will lead me to believe that she would be a better person to answer the phone at 3am? I'm feeling nasty enough to say it can't be because of Bill cause there's no guarantee that he'll be next to her at 3am to answer the phone. Sorry but after that McCain compliment, I'm feeling really nasty toward Hillary.
anyway that e 3:00 am call will probably be from one of Bill's girlfriends , and I'd hardly call that a national crisis.
LOL
I'd like that 3:00 am call to be answered by someone who is neither misty (a la New Hampshire) nor busy reading My Pet Goat (Dumbya)
Clinton sure will burn it up if this gets out on TV.
According to Canada's Globe and mail, after an investigation into the leaked NAFTA memo it was a CLINTON rep who made the statement that the NAFTA talk was all political posturing.
So Clinton really benefited from a lie.
I was on another political message board and someone said thatif Hillary is given the nomination at the convention as a result of the superdelegates that the African American community might riot. If so this would harm the Democrats. I could not really disagree. Perhaps this is the hidden subtext?
Also Frank Rich who has been cited as putting forth misinformation here in this site but is usually considered at least somewhat liberal said that it would take the full powers of the Democratic party's capacity for self immolation for them to lose this year.
I do think that there is risk for the Democrats in what Hillary is doing. More than what Obama's strategy has been so far.
I was on another political message board and someone said thatif Hillary is given the nomination at the convention as a result of the superdelegates that the African American community might riot.
Doug Wilder, the mayor of Richmond and a former governor of Virginia, went even further, predicting riots in the streets if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates.
“There will be chaos at the convention,” Wilder told Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation. “If you think 1968 was bad, you watch: In 2008, it will be worse.”
"...if the Clinton campaign were to overturn an Obama lead through the use of superdelegates."
I honestly don't see that happening. However, if they go to the convention locked up, for example, where one candidate has a slight lead in the popular vote and one has a small margin in electoral votes then each candidate and his/her followers are going to have to live with the superdelegate outcome. I don't like it because it lends itself to backroom wheeling and dealing...but it is what it is.
I can't picture rioting in the streets either, but if either side suspects hanky panky I can see them refusing to get on board with the nominee & sitting the election out.
Then it's game, set, match McCain.
Jeter,
My guess is Hillary will try to work a deal to get Obama as her veep. She'd be crazy not to.
Think Obama would accept?
I don't see that happening. She'll probably put someone like an Evan Bayh on the ticket because she'll think that's her way to secure those swing states and perhaps a few Southern ones. Like Bill Clinton in the 90s, she'll triangulate her way out of adding Obama on the ticket, promising voters if once elected she'll fix the problem. Jeffery Toobin suggested that if Clinton becomes president she's going to give Obama a Supreme Court seat.
But I don't see her adding him to the ticket. She'll consider that too much of a political suicide in terms of her attempt at winning many of those key states. Besides, I don't think she likes Obama too much.Preston,
Don't you think if Hillary wrestles the nomination away from Obama at the convention that she will disenfranchise large segments of the black voting community? I see Obama as VP as Hillary's only chance, if she can get the nomination away from him, to keep that large voting block.
Politics breeds strange bedfellows and this is only speculation so your view may very well be true. I personally have a difficult time believing the super-delegates would pick Hillary if Obama has won the popular vote for delegates.
I do not see Obama picking Hillary as his veep.
I can see McCain picking a Colin Powell, Condoleza Rice, or some other African American to pull that large voting block away from the Dems. Again it is just speculation on my parat
Don't you think if Hillary wrestles the nomination away from Obama at the convention that she will disenfranchise large segments of the black voting community?
Hillary may wrestle with that, but she'll figure out a way to make some sort of deal with Obama supporters by suggesting once she's elected Obama will have some special role under her administration—of course, that all will be in code since that’s how the Clintons roll. Will that work with black voters? I don't think so, but that doesn't mean that Hillary isn't that gullible to believe that. I think Jeffery Toobin's theory isn't that far off about Clinton making Obama a Supreme Court Justice if she wins the presidency. That will be her way of making it up to the black voting bloc that strongly supports Obama.I just can’t see Hillary Clinton risking John McCain and The Republican Attack Machine sliming her and Obama as “inexperienced, big government liberals” that’s “weak” on National Security. She'll be too afraid of them painting her as a radical feminist and Obama a Black Nationalist. A woman and black man on the ticket would be too much baggage and too many “firsts” for her to risk—to use her husband’s words, “rolling the dice”—against a strong opponent.Don't you think if Hillary wrestles the nomination away from Obama at the convention that she will disenfranchise large segments of the black voting community?
The only way I see Hillary winning the nomination is if she starts winning primaries/caucuses by 20 to 30 percent margins. That's the only way she can cut into Obama's lead. If she's not close in the delegate count, the super delegates won't overturn it.
AA,
I doubt Obama would take the VP offer from Clinton, though the party might pressure him to do so in the hope of unity. I doubt Obama would ask Hillary to be his veep, nor do I think he'd be pressured to. He doesn't need her. She may need him.
My guess is Hillary will try to work a deal to get Obama as her veep. She'd be crazy not to. Think Obama would accept?
AA, I don't think Obama would accept a VP slot from Hillary because there's no up side for being her VP. It's no secret, IF Hillary gets the nomination whoever she chooses for her VP will be just for show, Bills actually going to be her unofficial VP.
First off, I'm disappointed that such sexist comments as "Bill's going be her VP" keep being said by alleged liberals. I am always saddened when people look at Clinton based on her gender rather than the issues.
Second, Obama would be a fool not to take the VP offer. He is gravely lacking in experience both as a policy maker and a politician -- he could get much use out of 4-8 years as VP, and then be ready to go for real in 2012 or 2016. This is how you get 20 years in control of the White House -- you don't nominate the guy who isn't ready under the guise of "change". You know what change is? It's the amount of money left in your pocket after you've spent a dollar.
First off, I'm disappointed that such sexist comments as "Bill's going be her VP" keep being said by alleged liberals. I am always saddened when people look at Clinton based on her gender rather than the issues.
You are welcome to be disappointed however you are confused. Hillary and Bill both said they are running a co-campaign. Hillary needs Obama, Obama does NOT need Hillary and it does him no good to align himself with Hillary. And trust me I've looked way past her gender and still feel the same way about her.
Second, Obama would be a fool not to take the VP offer. He is gravely lacking in experience both as a policy maker and a politician -- he could get much use out of 4-8 years as VP, and then be ready to go for real in 2012 or 2016. This is how you get 20 years in control of the White House -- you don't nominate the guy who isn't ready under the guise of "change". You know what change is? It's the amount of money left in your pocket after you've spent a dollar.
I love it when folks who support Hillary tell me how inexperienced Obama is. WHAT is Hillary great experience? Lying beside Bill when HE answered the 3am calls? THAT is what her great experience is all about? Did she get her knowledge from ESP? Hillary NEVER in the ENTIRE 8 years she was a resident in the White House attend ONE Natl Sec. meeting, she couldn’t even be in the room! She never read a PDB’s, not ONE cause she DID NOT have security clearance for ANYTHING related to Natl. Sec.
Since Hillary couldn’t answer a reporter's questions on what made her more qualified, maybe YOU can tell me WHAT is her vast experience besides occasionally sleeping next to Bill?
Anyway I promise not to set any cars or my house on fire should HC win. I’ll try real hard to control myself.
Phew Lynn, well that's a relief! ;-)
I was a surprised when I read Doug Wilder had even made such a prediction. It seemed to be a pretty reckless suggestion to make, especially coming from someone of his stature.
Clinton's gettin' wild y'all gettin' down on the House - Do you hear?
(the folks are flaming)Folks were screamin' - out of control
It was so entertainin' - when the party started to explode
I heard Rush Limbaugh say
Burn baby burn! - Demo inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that party down
Burn baby burn! - Demo inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that party down
Burnin'!
Satisfaction (uhu hu hu) was seen in Limbaugh's reaction
(burnin') He couldn't get enough, (till he had to self-destroy)so he had to
self destruct, (uhu hu hu)
The heat was on (burnin'), rising to the top, huh!
Democrat's goin' down (uhu hu hu)
And that is when Limbaugh's spark got hot
I heard Rush Limbaugh say
Burn baby burn! - Demo inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that mutha down, yoh!
Burn baby burn! - Demo inferno!
Burn baby burn! - Burn that party down
Burnin'!
And here is the response from David Axelrod: "...(W)ell there are a lot of folks that do care about the Democratic Party...that want to move forward and want to move forward as a unified party...aren't looking for the kind of attacks that the Clintons enthusiastically embraced...as I said a search and destroy mission..."
He'd closed out the previous question using the same "search and destroy" comment. He was referring to the "3AM" ad and discussing the desire of the Obama campaign to debate issues rather than the "kitchen sink" last minute attack ad.
Why is MMFA only highlighting Jay Newton-Small? This question is posed in various ways by almost every host, pundit, journalist & columnist on a daily basis.
Translation: Why aren't you letting Obama have the nomination we the media believe is rightfully his.
Also, I for one am glad this Democratic primary season isn't settled yet. I want to hear more from Hillary & Obama. And I think it would be better in the long run to know what these two really have to offer.
I heard someone say that Democrats were the only party to snatch defeat from the hands of victory.
How can the Democrats lose in 2008 after 8 years of lies, unnecessary war, corruption, economy in the toilet and more. What will be the thing that defeats the Democrats? Hillary Clinton. Maybe the more appropriate name for her should be changed to Hillary "if I can’t win no one else can" Clinton. Hillary in her "if I can't win no one else can" mind has managed to give John McCain two perfect campaign commercials to run against the Democrats this fall.
If Obama is the nominee, one commercial will have Hillary’s voice telling millions of Americans how unqualified her fellow Democratic presidential candidate Obama is on Natl. Security, "And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002," her voice will say.
Of course with Hillary and McCain being such good friends she just had to be the gift that keeps on giving and provide one if she gets the nomination. That commercial will have Hillary’s voice telling millions of Americans "I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House”, then the voice on the commercial will say that "during Hillary’s 8 years in the White House she never had Natl. Security Clearance". The voice will ask the question, “How many Natl. Security meeting did Sen. Clinton attend? How many PDB’s did Sen. Clinton read?" The voice will then answer “ZERO because Senator Clinton never requested security clearance and Pres. Clinton never gave his wife security clearance”. Then the commercial will have Hillary’s voice telling millions of Americans “I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House“.
I'll certainly know you to thank for 4 years of McCain but I wonder if McCain will remember to send Hillary a thank-you card on inauguration day.
You be the judge -
when Bill Clinton was first elected President the Dems had -
A majority in the Senate
A majority in the House
A majority of state Governorships
A majority of state Houses
By the time Bill Clinton left office the Dems were -
NOT a majority in the Senate
NOT a majority in the House
NOT a majority of state Governorships
NOT a majority of state Houses
Bottom line - you can call it "burning down" or you can call it
"nuking" or you can call it "poisoning" or "killing" or "screwing"...
But whatever it was, it left the Democratic Party with a burning
sensation.
Republicans continue to downplay the influence of Rush and his army of local wannabees, but Conservative Talk Radio amounts to a defacto 24/7 infomercial for the Republican Party. The Democrats don't have anything comparable.
Nerzog,
What's stopping the Dems from having a successful highly distributed radio-talk show host like Limbaugh?
(I'll be disappointed if you claim some sort conspiracy theory that is keeping liberal talkers off the air. There has to be a better reason than that.)
THE ABSCENSE OF THE FAIRNESS DOCTIRINE ! ! !
There may be other factors; maybe liberals just don't respond to talk radio like conservatives do. Maybe conservatives are more likely to flood the radio stations with hate mail if they air a liberal show. I do remember that in Nashville, the A.M. talk station had a couple of local liberal hosts back in the early 90s. They were eventually drummed off the air by conservative hate mail. Now both local stations are all conservative all the time.
And, please, don't tell me that these local talkers are more talented than their liberal counterparts... that won't fly. I've listened to these local twerps, and they've got little to offer but leftover talking points from old Rush Limbaugh shows.
I don't buy the conspiracy theory that clearchannel is buying up stations to prevent liberals from getting air time.
I also don't agree that the market is saturated. It seems to me that second-rate conservative talkers regurgitating Rush's points would quickly stale and lose listeners. I would think a good liberal talk show host would draw listeners as an alternative. However it seems none yet have caught on big time.
Is it that liberals don't listen to radio talk? I've tried listening to Air America and liked Al Franken even though I disagreed with him. What happened to him? Anyone out there you like?
What's stopping the Dems from having a successful highly distributed radio-talk show host like Limbaugh?
I don't know. Why do you think the few media conglomerates that own the airwaves might have a problem with distributing a talk show that is anti-conglomerate?
I can only speak for myself, but I'd rather hear discussion, not a rigid line of propaganda coming from someone who quite clearly has their head up their ass. (O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity). Discussion, to most people, is boring. There is no shouting, or self promotion.
The people who listen to these guys want controversy. They don't want to hear reasoning.
The late William F. Buckley would never have made it in todays market. I never agreed with Bill, but always found him to be informative and mostly reasonable. I can't say that about anyone who gets ratings today.
What's stopping the Dems from having a successful highly distributed radio-talk show host like Limbaugh?
Well the big issue is selling ad time. Look at the simple demographics of it. There is a reason that there are so many talk radio stations. People actively listen as opposed to music stations and they are more likely to act on that advertising. When I worked in financial services we valued talk radio 100 times more than music radio because of the effect. We were after clients with money. Guess which station was more likely to be listened to by those upper middle class and above and which was more likely to be listened to by those poor people that we would refuse to serve?
In the city I live in now, they dropped the Air America network. This is in a very democratic city. Why? Because by carrying 24/7 sports they got better advertisers. It isn't personal, it's just business.
"I always loved the smell of napalm in the morning." Keep up the fire for the rest of us to watch, I'll grab the marshmellows!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3212609
"I love the smell of hipocracy in the morning. It smells like - republicans".
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/senate-floor-is-unlikely-stop-on-mccains-campaign-trail-2008-03-05.html
snoopdawg,
Will either Clinton or Obama leave the Senate? What's the difference if they do anyway?
It's not about whether or not they leave, it's about the republicans making all sorts of claims about them missing votes because they are running for the presidency as they turn around and give a free pass to McCain who is purposely missing potentially embarrassing votes as he runs for the presidency.
Snoopster,
Isn't that called......politics? And isn't ironic that Mrs. Clinton won't release her tax returns now but chided Rick Lasio for not doing it during her senate run?
http://www.electiongeek.com/blog/2008/03/05/history-during-senate-campaign-clinton-demanded-opponent-reveal-tax-returns/
I am really sick and tired of African-Americans or Feminists to threaten to opt out or vote republican or whatever if THEIR candidate isn't nominated. And politicians (and politician spouses) who don't say that "of course, I will vote and work for whichever Democrat wins the nomination" is beyond disgust. Aren't you people bothered about what eight years of George W. Bush has done to this country. What another four years of John McSame could do?
Imagine three more Justice RobertsClones or Justice AlitoClones would do to this country?
How low do you want to push the Dollar? 50 cents per Euro? 10 cents per Euro?
And how about prices? Ten dollars for a gallon of oil? Ten dollars for a gallon of milk? Ten dollars for a load of bread?
Do you just want to roll back Medicare? or do you want to destroy social security, and the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts of 64 and 68, too? How about clean air and clean water acts? And do you really want to eliminate federal meat inspectors and substitute BlackGuard private inspectors?
What in hell is the matter with You People? If Barack loses, Hillary will be a lot better than the alternative. And if Hillary loses, I would sure rather have a Barack presidency than one headed by St. John. Although I do have one I would rather see nominated, I am perfectly willing, yea eager, to support, work for and vote for either one. Enthusiastically. Because I have suffered through Nixon, and Reagan, and a couple of Bushes.
You folks threatening to burn, or sit out or whatever. Are you really that stupid?
I'm certain that whoever wins will hold out a hand to the other and to the other's supporters. And I'm sure that the losing candidate will suck it up and accept that hand. And ENTHUSIASTICALLY work to defeat John McCain. But if you idiots, so damn sure of yourselves and so full of expectations and so "hurt" because your candidate didn't get the nomination, want to make John McCain the President. Well....you'll have your snit, and we will be able to spend the next four years, or maybe eight years complaining about it.
It will be difficult enough for President Obama or President Clinton and a clear majority in the Senate and the House to begin to undue the damage this country has suffered in the last eight years. (Particualrly against the will of an activist Supreme Court with a majority that will be fighting this all the way. Because I don't think that this Court will be listening to the 'liction returns. And it will take at least eight years to restore a reasonable balance to the Judiciary. )
Get off your rears. Work hard for the candidate of your choice. And then come together under the banner of the nominee, whoever it may be, to save this country. Anything else is disaster.
You know, I really hope I'm not right about this, but unless Clinton bows out early, the DLC and the DNC will give her the election.
It's gonna happen, just watch.
Burn down the mission.
If we're gonna stay alive.
The number on national republicans who've decided to leave office, and forgo the next election. Is it up to 20 yet?
Gee, and I thought it was that buttwipe Newt Gingrich who struck the match on that one. Well, that bit has played itself out, so I doubt it would be effective if tried again. Sorry, I'm not convinced Hillary Clinton would be bad for the party, at least with Barack Obama on the ticket. Put them together, and they rend the red/blue divide asunder. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they got together over lunch (Philly cheesesteak, natch) and decided that while neither one of the should withdraw from the race, they should both use their considerable resources and start tag-teaming John McBush.
I can dream.
Bollocks!!!!!!!!!!!
I am a progressive and every post I have left here has been liberal. I voted for Al Gore, I voted for John Kerry and hopefully I'll soon be voting for Obama.
Olbermann calls it like it is, if Obama was using dirty GOP tricks then he'd be the one Keith picked on. Let's refresh a few memories here with some facts:
Hillary plays the Bush Al Qaeda card http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/08/558650.aspx
Hillary camp puts out pic of Obama in a turban http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23337141/
Hillary wants delegates that don't count seated http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23499719/
Hillary's Daisy cutter 3am GOP style fear ad http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/02/29/718431.aspx
And lets not forget that Hillary can't even add http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu6JOetBHQiEBj09XNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTFhamlqbGltBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMgRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA1lTMTk0XzEyNwRsA1dTMQ--/SIG=1227tsirn/EXP=1204931534/**http%3a//www.newsweek.com/id/118240/output/print
The FACT is she cannot win unless she drags this until June and somehow a bombshell drops out of the Obama camp, yet she continues anyway out of pure ego. Just look at the posters on THIS board that all used to agree and are now sniping at each other over who they want to run for the Dems, this is happening all over the country. This unchangeable contest IS tearing the party apart and ANY REAL DEMOCRAT should be able to see that. If Hillary is the nominee I'll stay home. Why? Lets start with the Iraq vote, then the Iran vote, then the compliments to John McCain and the dirty campaign tactics used so far.
You Hillary fans are only lying to yourselves
Obama can beat McCain, Hillary cannot.
Well now that you've settled that,see you. AKA I wouldn't accept a wingnuts mind reading powers, why should I accept yours? Opinion duly noted, a few contestable positions also. Takes more to make up my mind than you show.
While I see some negative tactics that I don't care for, this is a looong way from a truly ugly campaign. I rather they give John some attension. Both of them.
Was that a reply? If so pretty weak.
Where are your links to dispute my links?
I love how Hillary supporters are fine with the Al Qaeda card, fine with the 3am fear ads, fine with the muslim nuances, fine with the drug references, fine with the comparison to GOP nominee...these are the very same folks who go nuts every time the Bushies do this exact same crap. Where is the consistency!!!!! I voted for Bill and up until this race I liked Hillary but that is over now. If I hate it when Bush does it then I hate it when everyone does it. 8 years of irrational fear was enough for me, thanks.
It will be the Clinton apologists that we can blame when McCain picks apart a bloody Obama, not Nader.
An off hand reply perhaps. No I'm not fine with dirty tricks, but I see them as stupid rather than evidence of an evil or pure ego type of person. There is some amazing sensitivity to dirty tricks among democrats this campaign cycle. Ignoring this is merely stupid not evil.
Nobody in the middle of a presidential campaign is lacking for ego or not trying to win with everything they've got.
We both agree that John is getting a free pass over this. Its the pits, not the end of the world. With all the effort the noise machine put out in the last couple elections, easy and clear victorys have been abscent dispite all the noise. Their effectiveness is a shadow of its slightly inflated maximum. Where ever you might want to date that maximum.
If your vote was the difference between John or Hillary putting up the next candidate for the supreme court, you'd be ok with that. It would show us all the depth of your anger
and it will all be our fault.
Not trying be be insulting there. Whats going down in your eyes is intolerable. I don't doubt your links, not sure what kind of information I could put up to counter public testamoney. I do doubt the relevence of predicting a winner versis John. The only one my memory can shake out, gave Edwards the best chance against him. Hillary came out shaky on that one. If she'd concentrate on John, it would be to her advantage. The same can be said for Barack. If large enough segment for either candidate sits it out or votes for John from anger we all deserve what happens. Not me, not you, not Hillary nor Obama, its all of us.
And on that important note I end with a quote from Chairman Walt Kelly,"Tain't no need to take life so personal. Tain't nohow permanent."
Look at these threads man...posters that used to agree now bickering and over what? Obama has the delegate lead. The Dem primary is proportional. Unless by F'n magic she starts blowing his gorram doors off in every single state left then they will rise in delegates PROPORTIONATELY and Obama still F'n wins. So what is this all for if not ego? What is the point in dragging on the mathematically locked decision? Maybe bloody him up until June, throw out something scandalous to net the last few states and sway the superdelegates, maybe then Florida and Michigan put you over the top. THEN WHAT? How will we all look each other in the face as we post here knowing our party did what the bad guys do on the right? And sensitive???????????
Dang mang; fear, borderline racism and islamaphobia...I'm being sensitive when the 3am ad comes on and it wasn't by Rove it was by Clinton?
I'm saying this is all gonna feel REAL when we wake up to President McSame and we wonder how we lost......again.
Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge et ilk, are doing their very worst to incite and fuel Democratic infighting.
Does anyone believe Matt Drudge's story about who sent him that photo, for instance? Or Insight Magazine's alleged source for their "madrassa" story?
The only way the rightwing media elites can effectively use their smears against the Democratic candidates is by planting them and then blaming the other Democratic candidate as the source. Just watch Hannity.
Stir in some internet concern trolls to tsk tsk tsk one candidate or the other for all of it and it's the GOP's only best hope of a 3rd Bush term.
The Republicans' only hope is to "burn down the Democratic Party" and plant the matches on Hillary or Barrack.
Is it just me ? I find this VERY ODD that Media Matters makes it LOOK as if they are pointing out a wrongdoing aganist Clinton "Are the Clintons going to Burn Down the House again"
then provides the entire tape of a FREE OBAMA COMMERICAL pointing out 10 minutes of negative political slander talking points FREE so everyone can hear them!!
I have been up all night so someone another Hillary Supporter weigh in on this. Obamabots.. I know, I know ... she is Hliter, Satan and everyone else you fear and project on to.