Scarborough: Clinton campaign is "at war against African-Americans, and now they are at war against the Democratic Party"
SUMMARY: MSNBC's Joe Scarborough said of Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign: "They are at war against African-Americans and now they are at war against the Democratic Party." As evidence, Scarborough and Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson falsely claimed that the Clinton campaign "sued the Democratic Party" about caucus sites in Nevada. In fact, the Clinton campaign was not a party to the lawsuit.
During MSNBC's January 26 coverage of the South Carolina Democratic primary results, MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-NY) presidential campaign: "They are at war against African-Americans and now they are at war against the Democratic Party."As one piece of evidence of the Clinton campaign's purported "war against the Democratic party," Scarborough and Bloomberg News columnist Margaret Carlson falsely claimed that the Clinton campaign "sued the Democratic Party" about caucus sites in Nevada. In fact, the Clinton campaign was not a party to the lawsuit about caucus locations.
From MSNBC's January 26 coverage:
SCARBOROUGH: A year ago everybody decided in Nevada there would be caucuses. Where? In casinos. The second they [the Clintons] didn't get the endorsement they wanted --
CARLSON: They sued!
SCARBOROUGH: -- they sued the Democratic Party.
CARLSON: They sued, right. Suddenly --
SCARBOROUGH: They are at war against African-Americans, and now they are at war against the Democratic Party.
But contrary to Scarborough and Carlson's claim that the Clintons "sued the Democratic party," the Clinton campaign was not a party to the lawsuit about caucus locations. The plaintiffs were Dwayne Chesnut, John Cahill, Vicky Birkland, John Birkland, Patricia Montgomery, Lynn Warne, and the Nevada State Education Association (NSEA). Warne is president of the NSEA. On January 12, The New York Times reported: "The Nevada State Education Association has said it would not endorse any Democrat, but some of its top officials have endorsed Mrs. Clinton." According to a January 12 post on the Reno Gazette-Journal's "Inside Nevada Politics" blog, the Clinton campaign's Nevada chairman Rory Reid "denied the Clinton campaign had anything to do with its filing." The Gazette-Journal further noted that Sen. Clinton said: "I have no opinion on the lawsuit."
Similarly on the January 13 edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Sen. Clinton said that "I don't think it's supporters of mine" who filed the suit:
RUSSERT: Many people, minorities particularly, supporters of yours, have filed a suit to try to stop having those caucus locations at the workplace. Do you support that suit?
CLINTON: Well, first of all, I don't think it's supporters of mine. There seems to be some misunderstanding about that. I was asked yesterday in Reno. The teachers union who brought the suit has not endorsed me, and so I think their concern is to have as many people participate as possible, which is certainly what it should be. This is now in the courts. The courts and the state party will have to work it out.
Scarborough's assertion that "they are at war against African-Americans and now they at war against the Democratic Party" was previously noted by blogger Todd Beeton in a January 26 post on the blog MyDD.
From the 8 p.m. ET hour of MSNBC's January 26 coverage of the South Carolina Democratic presidential primary, which also featured MSNBC political commentator Pat Buchanan and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson:
DAVID GREGORY (NBC News chief White House correspondent) : And our panel led by Joe Scarborough has been thinking about Bill Clinton.
SCARBOROUGH: How can you think about anybody else? And in fact, Bill Clinton is still, at last report, holding the audience in Missouri hostage. Still talking about himself. There he is. His first five minutes -- and we wrote it down -- Bill Clinton was talking about himself, talking about his presidential library, talking about that library's legacy, talking about his Harlem office, talking about his Arkansas governorship, talking specifics about his Arkansas governorship, talking about everything involving Bill Clinton. But, Margaret, most surprisingly --
KEITH OLBERMANN (MSNBC host): Joe?
SCARBOROUGH: Yes?
OLBERMANN: If you were Bill Clinton tonight, would you want to be talking about how the senator did in South Carolina?
SCARBOROUGH: Well, if I were Bill Clinton --
OLBERMANN: Wouldn't you rather talk about all those things first?
SCARBOROUGH: I would not want to talk about how the senator was doing, especially since the exit polls show she's doing so poorly because of the guy who is still talking. It is fascinating, Keith --
OLBERMANN: I apologize, Margaret.
SCARBOROUGH: -- that he continues to talk. Now here's what's so fascinating, though. If you're reading the tea leaves, right? They send out a pre -- they put out a press release after the defeat. They say, "On to Florida." Bill Clinton, when not talking about himself, says, early on, "On to Florida." Margaret Carlson, once again, the Clinton campaign -- bulls in a china shop. They have offended African-Americans this past week. Now, who are they offending?
CARLSON: The whole --
SCARBOROUGH: The Democratic Party.
CARLSON: Yeah.
SCARBOROUGH: They're blowing this process up because they got routed in South Carolina.
CARLSON: Call me naïve, but you'd think that they'd play by the rules this time, but --
SCARBOROUGH: The rule that all Democrats have?
CARLSON: They set it. They said Michigan and Florida delegates not being seated. We're not -- there's no primary there because they moved their primaries up against the wishes of the rest of the party. However, now they've decided because South Carolina doesn't count, but they did lose it, on to Florida. And that is --
SCARBOROUGH: OK, but wait a second. This happened last week. A year ago everybody decided in Nevada there would be caucuses. Where? In casinos. The second they didn't get the endorsement they wanted --
CARLSON: They sued!
SCARBOROUGH: -- they sued the Democratic Party.
CARLSON: They sued, right. Suddenly --
SCARBOROUGH: They are at war against African-Americans, and now they are at war against the Democratic Party.
CARLSON: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. They're willing to disenfranchise restaurant workers, casino workers, and everybody when it doesn't go their way. Now they're willing to go against all the -- everything that everybody's been committed to do in Florida.
SCARBOROUGH: You know what they call this when Republicans do this, Pat Buchanan? Dirty tricks. And you know what makes me sad? You endorse it.
BUCHANAN: Sure.
SCARBOROUGH: And you think the Clintons have been doing the right thing by blowing up the rules now because things aren't going their way.
CARLSON: Mr. Tough Guy.
BUCHANAN You know how many people have already voted in Florida, Joe? Four hundred thousand Democrats have already voted. Barack Obama ran ads on cable TV. They played in Florida. That's all the Clintons needed to say, "Let's go in there." They're going to run up the score on him in Florida. You saw Bill Clinton. Did he look like a loser to you? He is laughing, friend. The strategy has worked. Barack Obama got --
SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait, Pat Buchanan.
BUCHANAN: Let me --
SCARBOROUGH: Do you know he was laughing? Because he had a microphone and nobody could take it away from him.
and you are a fool.
Scarborough didn't say they ENCOURAGED a lawsuit.
He said the Clintons SUED the Democratic Party, and then concludes based on this ABSOLUTE LIE, that the Clintons are now "AT WAR" with the Democratic Party. He also says the Clintons are "AT WAR" with African Americans, about as nuclear a charge as can be made. Is his "PROOF" of this second WAR as reliable as the LIE about the supposed lawsuit? We don't know ... he OFFERED no proof.
And NONE of the panelists CORRECTED Joe's lie.
Idiots and fools. Idiots are LYING to us, trying to SMEAR Hillary Clinton in blatant displays of partisan hatred, and only FOOLS believe the Media's SPIN on everything. They are LYING, people, and not a ONE of them is interested in correcting the record.
That's right Tex-- he indeed did say that. But that was only one of the many nutty things he said last night. All the rest of them-- except Buchanan-- were cackling along. It was nuts.
Only Pat was rational about the Obama victory.
But don't try to reason with most Obama supporters here. Look what happened over at Digby-- they were so awful (90% of the problem was their fault) that she had to SUSPEND all of the comments for a while. All of them, on every thread!
I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but this bias, and these lies, and the mindless mania of many Obama supporters-- is going to lead to a big repub victory in November, if we don't watch out.
At one point during SAT night I yelled out "I can't believe Pat Buchanon is the only person I agree with". This might sound naive but I truly think it is what is going on: Bill Clinton is too honest for the media in America. He says women will vote for Hillary because she is a woman and blacks will vote for Obama becasue he is black but that people will not vote against either of them for those issues. This is a spot on analysis of the modern Democratic Party and the fact that SC has over 50% black voters in Dem primary means "Hillary won't win". Again, he was spot on accurate and the media knew Obama would win big but win it actually happened, the pundits started spinning that Bill Clinotn caused all of this. However, if you look at the exit polls, the people who said Bill's campaigning affected their vote, ended up voting for Hillary. Too be honest, MSNBC appears to despise the Clintons more so than FOX despises Democrats. I mean, they cut off Clinton's speech after three minutes and said "all she could say was two lines of congratulations." Common sense demographics is what explained Obama's impressive victory on Sat night but those demos were as tailored for Obama as Iowa was for Huckabee. We will see how that plays out on Feb 5th but I don't think the demos will be as favorable for him in any other state. That is not racial politics, that is reality politics.
Yes, it is amazing how Republicans try to insinuate themselves into the Democratic Party with these wild statements, meant explicitly to muck up cooperation among Democrats. All this silly talk about the tension between Black and Hispanic Democrats is so stupid. Look, Los Angeles elected both a Black and a Hispanic mayor. Seems pretty much like they all can get along. But believe me, Republicans will never rest from trying to stir up animosity between all branches of the Democratic electorate. Whether anyone in the party hates a particular other group is an issue pushed by Republicans in their attempt to split the Democrats. If we allow this to happen, we do so at our own peril. There will be a lot of close calls and perhaps even change in who is the leader in delegates, BUT still Democrats need to avoid falling for this divide and conquer stuff being pushed by very committed Republicans like Scarborough et al. I love every last Democratic candidate and think any one of them that gets elected would run circles around the dolt that is in the White House now. Sooooooooo I say, "May the best man, woman, black, white etc win!!!!"
While things do get heated here, for the most part the conversations are congenial. Many of us lefties (this is a liberal site) really look forward to getting conservative perspectives and debating in a reasonable way. I, for one, am more than willing to engage you on an intelligent level if you are willing and capable of doing the same.
Someone, please, convince these guys to shut the hell up. I know that Hating The Clintons is their favorite pasttime, but pasttimes are really not supposed to intrude on your work.
As for Nevada- if the Culinary Worker's Union had endorsed Clinton, we would have heard all about the "Clinton Machine's Mob Ties" strong-arming helpless Latino hotel workers- hell, we heard all that ANYWAY. The fact is, Obama had everything going for him in Nevada, including some caucus locations right there in the casinos- and he lost anyway. So of course, it was because the Evil Clintons cheated, or something.
Obama and his supporters simply refuse to accept any defeat as legitimate. If Obama wins, it's because people are voting for Hope and Change and Changing Hope and Hoping Change. If Clinton wins, there must be something sinister going on; it's just not right. It's racism, or voter fraud, or little gremlins invading voters' brains and convincing them to vote against Hope, or something.
And the Clintons are bad losers?
It's the national media inspired by 15 years of war by the right wing against the Clintons who are pressing this narrative.
Bill Clinton tried to again marginalize Obama and the importance of South Carolina by saying that 'Jesse Jackson won' there in 84 and 88.
The Clintons are bad losers? YES!
Hillary Clinton loved the Iowa caucus system until she came in third. When she got to New Hampshire she basically complained that whole first day about how she was glad to be in a place where they don't disenfranchize the voters. Essentially saying, 'screw Iowa!'
They won in Nevada, but spent the entire week and a half preceeding the event complaining about the system again. And they won most of the 'at large' locations!
In SC, they lose, but say it's no big deal because it's a black state, and they'd vote for Jesse Jackson.
Why wouldn't they complain? When Obama loses, he's within five points. When Clinton loses, she gets blown out. People want to vote for him. They don't want to vote for her.
And as much as I thought she was the nominee no matter what happened last night, I'm not so sure anymore. Especially with this whole Kennedy thing tomorrow.
It may be morning in America, again.
Let's see, where to start?
When Obama lost in NH, all I heard in the MSM was "racist voters" and "voter fraud" and "Hillary manipulated the voters by choking up."
When Obama lost in Nevada, all I heard was "strong-arm tactics by the Clintons" and "racist Latino voters" and "mob ties."
When Obama wins in South Carolina and Bill Clinton points out that candidates have won there and not gone on to win the nomination, and that in fact Obama isnt even the first black candidate to win there, the Clintons are "racist." In fact, the Clintons are "racist" for daring to oppose Obama in the first place. Don't they know that they are standing in the way of history and are supposed to withdraw instantly?
Give me a break. I don't know if you are an Obama supporter or just a Hillary hater, but stick to the facts, please. There will be plenty of time for your diatribes when Hillary wraps up the nomination on February 5.
Complain about the MSM all you want, but the fact of the matter is that Hillary Clinton accused Iowa of disenfranchizing voters; the campaign spent the entire week prior to the Nevada caucuses complaining about the system; Bill Clinton made the spurious claim that he witnessed voter intimidation (and did nothing!?!); and last night, when it was clear Hillary was about to be crushed, Bill Clinton suggested it was no big deal because Jesse Jackson had won there twice (in caucuses, not primaries).
These are things the Clintons did and said. Complain about the MSM all you want. Personally, I think there probably is a bias against them, but they bring a lot of the bad press upon themselves. The comments last night played directly into the narrative that they'd been race baiting. And it certainly showed that they were bad losers.
Hey Breaker, there's absolutely nothing CULPABLE about any of those things you cite the Clintons doing.
You're expressing a phony sentiment.
The rule is: Obama campaigns: good for him. Hillary campaigns: how dare she!
Talk about non-sequiturs.
Okay, first: Actions are not culpable. People are culpable due to their actions. Second: if you believe the Clintons are not deserving of blame for A: rationalizing losing a contest with a record turnout by criticizing the process you'd previously and repeatedly praised as being inherently unfair; B: supporting a lawsuit designed to disenfranchize caucus goers; C: making an obviously false claim that Bill Clinton had witnessed voter intimidation; D: trying to marginalize Barack Obama as the black candidate with no more viability or significance than Jesse Jackson, if you want to say that, then say that. If you want to defend that, then defend that. But please, defend it on a point-by-point basis.
BREAKERBAKER: “Actions are not culpable. People are culpable due to their actions.”
RESPONSE: Petty. A distinction without a difference. Bad start.
BB: “Second: if you believe the Clintons are not deserving of blame for A: rationalizing losing a contest with a record turnout by criticizing the process …”
RESPONSE: BLAME for “rationalizing”? Go ahead. Blame them for rationalizing their loss by saying Obama ran a “good campaign”, too, if you like. They said that, TOO. Are these your list of offenses for which Hillary should be disallowed for consideration for President? If so, you’re past STRIKE ONE; this is silly. If NOT, what are you TRYING to say here? Maybe we’ll learn later …
BB: “… by criticizing the process you'd previously and repeatedly praised as being inherently unfair.”
RESPONSE: Is the charge here hypocrisy? Flip Flopping? If that’s your charge; you haven’t specified WHAT “process”, and if it changed, and if that change brought unintended consequences. All necessary for your charges to be valid.
BB: “ (DESERVING OF BLAME FOR) …supporting a lawsuit designed to disenfranchize caucus goers”
RESPONSE: The issue was making the system EQUAL for ALL voters. If one set of voters has an easier time of voting, they have an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, which serves to DISENFRANCHIZE other voters. Those SUING wanted to be treated equally with the other voters, and be ENFRANCHIZED equally. This is the American Way, is TRUE democracy, and this is what Clinton agreed to: NOT disenfranchisement, but ENFRANCHIZEMENT of ALL … equally. Mischaracterizing what the argument was about does not serve your Honesty well.
BB: “ (DESERVING OF BLAME FOR) … making an obviously false claim that Bill Clinton had witnessed voter intimidation …”
RESPONSE: Here, you MIGHT have a point. What WAS that claim, and how has it been proven FALSE? That’s PROVEN false, because you say it was “obviously” false, as if you’re stating a FACT. If you do NOT have that proof, you are again harming your OWN honesty. How are you certain that what Clinton claimed happened did NOT happen?
BB: “ (DESERVING OF BLAME FOR) … trying to marginalize Barack Obama as the black candidate with no more viability or significance than Jesse Jackson “
RESPONSE: When one examines prior primaries, one looks for TRENDS, and what they might MEAN. Candidates and their (official) surrogates are asked CONSTANTLY to interpret and explain what is happening, and how they explain it. Looking to previous examples is ONE WAY of putting events into perspective, and it’s entirely VALID, if only an exercise in trying to answer reporter’s questions. Jackson WON in South Carolina, that is a FACT, and then Jackson went on to NOT get the nomination. This is also a FACT. Will it be predictive of Obama’s chances? Who knows? It might, it might not. Yet, in ANY campaign, ANYWHERE, it is one candidate’s job to try to “marginalize” all OTHER candidates. That’s what a primary is all ABOUT: Trying to WIN, by marginalizing all opponents. If there is something about the process that confuses you, maybe you need to be more specific.
There may be something Clinton (the campaign) is “DESERVING OF BLAME FOR”, but you’ve managed to STRIKE OUT with the examples you have presented. Your examples have ranged from petty to silly to “business as usual” to outright mischaracterizations. NONE is compelling.
So, Bill Clinton, asked of the importance of Obama's WIN in South Carolina in the overall bid for the Democratic Nomination, noted other historic wins in SC that were not determinate of the final nominee.
Based on THAT, we should have another Republican "ushered into the White House" ... any one of the possibles of which will continue Bush's Iraq war policies. If McCain, another 100 years' occupation, and "many more wars" in addition. Romney and Giulliani saying the war's going great, and was a great idea in the first place.
Will the American Voter be so outraged that Clinton mentioned Jesse Jackson, that they will condemn this nation to four more years of BUSH?
I don't think so.
TOMMY:
I am not so naive as to think the Rightwing would let pass ANY OPPORTUNITY to paint a remark as "racist". It's what rightwingers DO. And you don't disappoint.
So, Bill Clinton, asked of the importance of Obama's WIN in South Carolina in the overall bid for the Democratic Nomination, noted other historic wins in SC that were not determinate of the final nominee.
The problem with this is simple: Your premise is a false one. Clinton wasn't asked about the Obama win. He was asked about the assertion that it would take two Clintons to beat Obama. He responded to that with a non sequitur about Jesse Jackson winning a caucus (not a primary) for 20 years ago (for which he was a native son and received less than 10 percent of the white vote) for which none of the candidates campaigned all that hard.
BREAKER:
I dealt with the substance of what he said. The QUESTION was asinine, and deserved no response ... any more than Obama should be asked if it will take him AND HIS WIFE to beat Hillary. It's a loaded and insulting question, and a "non-sequitur" to anything.
Petty. A distinction without a difference. Bad start.
Petty? Perhaps. Still, there is a difference between people and their actions. You don't blame somebody's actions. You blame the people.
BLAME for “rationalizing”? Go ahead. Blame them for rationalizing their loss by saying Obama ran a “good campaign”, too, if you like. They said that, TOO. Are these your list of offenses for which Hillary should be disallowed for consideration for President?
No. These are my arguments in favor of them being sore losers. I've got all sorts of reasons she should not be President. Being a sore loser I guess could qualify of one of them. How you deal with loss is an expression of your character. As for the rationalization in question, Hillary Clinton made the argument that she lost the Iowa caucus because the caucus disenfranchizes voters. Cast aside the fact that the Iowa caucus had double the 2004 turnout, she didn't do well because not enough people were allowed to vote.
RESPONSE: Is the charge here hypocrisy? Flip Flopping? If that’s your charge; you haven’t specified WHAT “process”, and if it changed, and if that change brought unintended consequences. All necessary for your charges to be valid.
Read the entire thread. I'm pretty sure I cited Iowa directly if not in the post you're responding to now than in the previous one. All of your subsequent 'change' to the process talk is not relevant. The process did not change.
BB: “ (DESERVING OF BLAME FOR) …supporting a lawsuit designed to disenfranchize caucus goers”
The issue was making the system EQUAL for ALL voters. If one set of voters has an easier time of voting, they have an UNFAIR ADVANTAGE, which serves to DISENFRANCHIZE other voters. Those SUING wanted to be treated equally with the other voters, and be ENFRANCHIZED equally. This is the American Way, is TRUE democracy, and this is what Clinton agreed to: NOT disenfranchisement, but ENFRANCHIZEMENT of ALL … equally. Mischaracterizing what the argument was about does not serve your Honesty well.
Caucuses and, any voting for that matter, is inherently unfair. It's always going to be easier for some to vote than for others. That being said, we should be trying to make it easier for people to vote...not harder. That lawsuit was brought nearly a year after the rules were in place, barely a week before the caucus, and, most tellingly, the day after the Culinary Union made an endorsement. This was not a good faith lawsuit, and everybody knows it. Had the lawsuit succeeded, given the date in which it was filed, there's a good chance none of the people who voted in the 'at large' precincts would have been allowed to vote. They wouldn't have been able to ask off from work because the judgement didn't come until a day or two before the caucus. The intent was to actively disenfranchize voters. There's no argument around that.
Here, you MIGHT have a point. What WAS that claim, and how has it been proven FALSE? That’s PROVEN false, because you say it was “obviously” false, as if you’re stating a FACT. If you do NOT have that proof, you are again harming your OWN honesty. How are you certain that what Clinton claimed happened did NOT happen?
It's obviously false because it's entirely unbelievable. The notion that people would be so bold as to follow the former president around and intimidate voters, and the further implication that the former president would do nothing about it, but would instead sit on that observation, not file a complaint, not do anything about it other than complain, it's ridiculous. If it's true, why didn't he, the former president of the United States do anything about it?
RESPONSE: When one examines prior primaries, one looks for TRENDS, and what they might MEAN. Candidates and their (official) surrogates are asked CONSTANTLY to interpret and explain what is happening, and how they explain it. Looking to previous examples is ONE WAY of putting events into perspective, and it’s entirely VALID, if only an exercise in trying to answer reporter’s questions. Jackson WON in South Carolina, that is a FACT, and then Jackson went on to NOT get the nomination. This is also a FACT. Will it be predictive of Obama’s chances? Who knows? It might, it might not. Yet, in ANY campaign, ANYWHERE, it is one candidate’s job to try to “marginalize” all OTHER candidates. That’s what a primary is all ABOUT: Trying to WIN, by marginalizing all opponents. If there is something about the process that confuses you, maybe you need to be more specific.
That's just a long rationalization of what was at best a non sequitur. The question to Clinton was what his response to the notion it took two Clintons to beat him was. His response was, "Jesse Jackson won here" twice, so forget about. It doesn't even remotely address the question. Instead, he likens Obama's win to a campaign that has nothing to do with his own other than the fact that both candidates are black. He's saying, "Of course we lost, he's black."
There may be something Clinton (the campaign) is “DESERVING OF BLAME FOR”, but you’ve managed to STRIKE OUT with the examples you have presented. Your examples have ranged from petty to silly to “business as usual” to outright mischaracterizations. NONE is compelling.
Culpability was not my concept. I was arguing about the Clintons being bad losers. Are they culpable for running a nasty campaign? Yeah, but that wasn't the original argument I was making.
BREAKER:
Thanks for the comprehensive response. The reader can now judge, if he or she wishes, the validity of the points we made.
The rules established by any caucus system is going to prevent some from voting. Nevada also kept Seventh Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews from voting. The problem with the complaints about the 'at large' locations was that they were established rules that the union/Clinton supporters wanted to get changed once it APPEARED they might not advantage from them. Ironically, they did pretty well in those areas, and Obama did pretty well in rural white Nevada.
Also, the problem was that the lawsuit was trying to solve so-called 'disenfranchizement' with actual disenfranchizement. It was pretty offensive.
However, Bill Clinton's remarks about Jackson were tone deaf.
He should have just said "good game, sir" and left it at that.
Why?
Oh, I forgot. Hillary supporters are not supposed to say anything minimizing, critical, or --god forbid-- negative about Obama, right?
The South Carolina primary is over.
What does HRC have to gain by commenting on what happened?
MARI:
Those times are only "gone forever" if Republicans prevail.
And I agree the eight years under Bill were pretty good, but NAFTA and the gutting of welfare were very non-Progressive measures.
but NAFTA and the gutting of welfare were very non-Progressive measures.
I agree NAFTA was a bad idea. But it wasn't gutting welfare, it was reforming welfare. You know helping folks off the welfare roles...shouldn't that be the goal?? Are you saying that keeping generations of families on welfare is a Progressives dream?
Sorry Roundhouse you ain't gonna win many Americans over with those type of policies.
I said he gutted welfare, as in did little to fix it. Kicking people off the rolls after a fixed time span is not helping folks off the rolls. It's kicking people to the curb.
Anyway, in the same way social security can be made stronger by empowering workers, so can welfare. Where's the incentive to get off welfare when the benefits of staying on welfare outweighs the prospects of working a low wage job with no retirement or medical benefits? That's the Progresive way. It's using the inherent power of our government to see to it, through appropriate reguations, that our market economy works to the benefit of as many working Americans as possible. He did succeed in helping raise the min. wage and that helped to strengthen welfare, but it was only a half-measure.
Bill failed as a Progressiv in some areas and succeeded in others. I'm alright with that, at least he gave it a go.
"If Obama wins, it's because people are voting for Hope and Change and Changing Hope and Hoping Change."
Jamele, I love that! It's so true. His rhetoric is indeed that ridiculous and empty.
MSNBC's coverage of the South Carolina primary was one long Clinton bashing spectacle. From Joe Scarborough to Tim Russert to KEITH OLBERMANN. Tell me folks what do you think of St. Keith now? Hate to say I told you so...
I've been saying here for weeks that the media wants an McCain-Obama general election. The question is why? The media & McCain have a mutual admiration thing going on here & the media wants to help their guy into the Oval Office. They may not savage his nearest opponent Romney like they do Hillary, but they spend a fair amount of time poking fun at him & referring to him as a flip-flopper when McCain is just as bad if not worse. And Tim Russert planted the idea last night that if Romney should somehow win the nomination & the White House that folks will feel that he bought it. Hey Tim, last time I checked no one can buy an election, we the people get to VOTE.
Many in the media hates or is simply tired of the Clintons & Obama is the new exciting kid in town. The gushing over him by what should be a non-partisan media is quite frankly, nauseating. The media jumping on anything either Clinton says & defining it as racist is getting ridiculous.
Last night these idiots were wondering how Hillary would be able to control Bill in the White House if she can't control him now...
I have a question. If no one can be critical of Obama or make a benign comment about him without being accused of being a racist, how will anyone ever be able to question or be critical of him if he gets to be President? I don't know about anyone else here but the idea of this nation having to weigh every comment or walk on eggshells for fear of being called a racist is not only a daunting prospect, it's downright scary...
It pains me to agree with you- in fact, it really, REALLY hurts to agree with you, and I hope I never, ever have to do it again- but I am thoroughly disgusted with Olbermann and pretty much ready to write him off as another member of the MSM hit squad determined to bring down Hillary Clinton.
Air America is the same way, and I have written them off too. Funny, AA was the reason I purchased XM five years ago. Now that it's Bash Hillary 24/7, I don't even bother anymore.
That's too funny. The progressives at Air America don't like Hillary, so that's their problem. They're dummies to be written off for disliking Hillary.
(Maybe it's Hillary with the problem and not the rest of the liberals?)
Wow, you know ZERO about journalism, do you? Or living in a Democracy, for that matter. You don't like Hillary, so you have no problem with the media bashing her over the head. How would you feel if it was a candidate you LIKED that was being bashed? Are you so fricking clueless that you can't see how dangerous it is to have the media basically picking our candidates for us?
Nope, my guess is that you are so blinded by your hatred for the Clintons that you are perfectly willing to accept media manipulation of politics to get rid of them. Don't come crying when it's your ox being gored, ok? Because you have no credibility on that score.
I'm a Democrat. Most every candidate I have ever liked gets bashed.
Are you trying to say that Hillary is the only candidate gettin' a beat down by the press this election season?
Jeter, you're so right.
The media have been pumping for McCain for years-- and Obama is the dream opponent-- it'll be a sexy story for him to run and--- this is the best part-- he'll lose, and that will make their bosses very happy.
It's all such blatant manipulation. Can't Obama supporters see that?
Carl,
You nailed it. The media is pulling for McCain, & if Obama should secure the nomination does anyone seriously believe that a guy like Scarborough will continue to sing his praises? Ha! Not bloody likely!
The MSM simply finds Obama a fascinating story for now, but they'll abandon him for their guy McCain. Watch for them to start questioning his lack of experience, & using those alleged *code words* they are accusing the Clintons of using.
I like Obama, I'm just not sure he's ready for primetime. I won't vote for McCain. I could live with Romney, though I'd rather not. Hillary doesn't thrill me but I like her enough & more importantly I feel like she could be ready on Day One. And I don't mind Bill back in the White House, I see that more as a positive than negative.
Imbedded in your statement is the premise that Obama is somehow unelectable or that McCain is electable. Most voters are looking for authentic political leaders who are guided by a consistent set of core values. I'ts a long way to November. Who the hell knows who will be electable come November.
Roundhouse,
I'd say that was a good beatdown. The "how would you like it if it was one of your candidates blah blah blah" tells me all I need to know. It seems the casting call for being the victim is never ending in the Clinton Campaign and its supporters.
I would like to see all the campaigns start taking aim at the Republicans. If you have watched the Republican debates you'll notice that they have used a substantial amount of time taking shots at the left, running away from Bush and laying claim to the Reagan mantle.
The Dem debates? Well they sure have taken a big bite out of their own name brand.
Are you so fricking clueless that you can't see how dangerous it is to have the media basically picking our candidates for us?
JJ, the media did not pick MY candidate for me I DID all on my own. The reason that the media finds Obama so different is because he has a colorful history. He by all appearances and standards established long before even I was born (1 drop measure), a black man. Yet this black man with a African father and a white mother appeals to all. His audiences are a mix of America, White, Black, Latino, Asian and Native American. He is reaching a segment of the voting population that everyone has been waiting to appear, young voters. His speeches are about Americans not any one particular race, just Americans. He, as a black man appeals to white men which IS something extremely rare. His race did not matter to a state, Iowa, with a 95% white population which is extremely unusual in racially divided America. He offers an extreme contrast to the other black candidates that have ran for President before (Jackson & Sharpton). His South Carolina win was the highest win by ANY candidate in ANY party thus far. Obama's win number was more than the TOTAL voting number for the ENTIRE South Carolina Democratic primary in 2004. The media is not picking our candidate they simply find THIS black man unusual in many many ways.
The danger lies with those who cannot say nor see ANYTHING positive about another Democratic candidate while still choosing another. I have no problem with those who choose Hillary, she is an extremely smart woman who 3 weeks ago would have received my vote if she won the nomination however belittling Obama and what he has accomplished is more dangerous. It actually plays into the game of divide and conquer.
PEARL:
You say, "... belittling Obama and what he has accomplished is more dangerous. It actually plays into the game of divide and conquer."
RESPONSE: Do you REALLY think Obama should not be challenged on his RECORD? What he has accomplished?
Do you REALLY think that candidates should not run AGAINST their opponents? Campaigns are about what each candidate stands for, and intends to DO ... but they are also about the candidates distinguishing themselves as THE BEST in comparison and contrast with all the OTHER challengers.
It has always been thus, and if Obama thought his "message of HOPE" would carry him through to the presidency, he should think again. What his fellow Democrats are challenging him with is NOTHING compared to what he will/would face if he WINS, and has the GOP smearmongers AND the Media AND his opponent ALL taking shots at him.
He'd best be prepared for that. It's as inevitable as a new day dawning.
Tes, Obama’s record is open season but keep in mind when Democrats are running against Democrats in ANY primary you don’t beat up and attack you opponent to the point where both they and there supporters won’t be there for you IF you get into the general. It’s not a smart idea since you need their support to win. If Bill & Hillary can win without, hey no problem let them keep on doing what they are doing but in checking the stats from the primaries thus far there are over 50% of people combining Obama and Edwards who don’t like Hillary. Seems like she might need them and seem like they should save the nasty, dirty for the fall when they run against Republicans. If you think that all that Bill & Hillary and their surrogates have done is challenged Obama, then we have heard and watched an different primary thus far.
And you are right a new day is dawning but I think it will be the Clintons who are the most surprised.
PEARL:
I seem to recall McCain getting SAVAGED by GW Bush's smear machine in their last South Carolina meeting. What did McCain do? He went all lovey-dovey and kissy-face with Bush ... decided he supported Bush in his policies and became number one cheerleader.
If the GOP can "come together" after a vicious primary season, there is no reason why the Dems cannot do it as well. I expect Hillary to, should she lose. Obama and his supporters will easily "get over" the comparatively 'mild attacks' this primary season has brought. There will be no lasting damage.
And WHY? You aren't suggesting Obama's supporters, should he lose the nomination, will be so vindictive they will relegate this nation to four or eight MORE YEARS of Bush's policies (which will come with ANY of the GOP candidates). Are you? Say it ain't so...
Tex, that smear machine WAS NOT headed my former President Bush, and that’s my point. If you think that former President Bush campaigned for his son the way Bill has for Hillary then we simply a difference in what is attack dog mode. That is the reason that I’m furious with Bill & Hillary. Bill worked out great for her and I had not problem with him UNTIL he went over the line. Heck, even Hillary knew he went over the line.
I have watched for more years that I care to count, subtle race baiting by Republicans. Can I explain it? Probably not and I’m tired of trying to. I'm tired of being told that what I know to be true is really not true or I I'm too sensitive or it's politics as usual. It may be politics as usual but I know race baiting cause I’ve seen it before and that is what Bill was doing, before, during and after South Carolina.
Will Obama supporters be as you say "vindictive" and allow 4 or 8 more years of Republican rule? It's an automatic response to call Obama supporters vindictive WITHOUT ANY accountability to Bill & Hillary for their OWN actions. Could it be that Bill & Hillary ran such a divisive campaign that THEY allowed 4 or 8 more years of Republican rule by dividing the Democratic party?.
Am I still pissed? You bet I am. It may take me a while to get over being pissed. When November 2008 rolls around if Hillary is the nominee would I vote for her? Let me just say with absolute certainly, I WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN and I WILL DO whatever I can to make sure that we DON'T have 4 to 8 more years of Republican rule.
Aw come on jjamele was it really that painful? ;-)
You're correct J2! And THEY are to ones who are at WAR with the Dems.
Well, obviously your premise is false. People make benign and critical comments about Obama all the time without being called racist. Try again.
I criticize him often for his stances on trade and his ambivilence to organized labor. Nobody bothers me about criticizing him.
And no, I'm not an Obama supporter either, so you can stop barking up that tree.
Clams,
Hillary's remarks about Civil Rights & LBJ/MLK was BENIGN, yet it got MIS-interpreted, then blown way out of proportion as being somehow racist. Sorry but I don't feel like having that sort of thing repeated for the next 4-8 years.
Lynn ... with all due respect, I don't share your pessimism. Maybe I am overly optimistic ... but I feel with all my heart that the country is ready to embrace an Obama presidency. Sure, there's a wingnut fringe that would never vote for him ... and will try to destroy him ... but we have to be ready to kick these people in the teeth when they slither out of the sewer.
Look at the video of Obama's victory rally last night and look at the video of McCain's rally last week. Look at the rainbow of people behind Obama ... that's America. A changing America.
The media will probably turn on McCain if he gets the nomination. He's a loose cannon, and one outburst away from being done. Maybe there's a Macaca moment in his future. I wouldn't be surprised ...
Why is McCain really running anyway? Mainly because he thinks it's his turn. I respect his sacrifice and service ... but not his shameless sell-out to the people who destroyed him in 2000, and not the way he has sucked up to the rabid right wing after decrying them in 2000.
I would much prefer Romney. McCain gives me the heebee jeebees.
Agree with ya 100% !!
Julia,
Loved your Chris Mathews imitation Ha! ;-)
Yeah you warned me...last night my wife & I were talking, no make that yelling at the idiots on our TV screen we were so floored at how biased the MSNBC crew was and Matthews wasn't even there! Buchannan was the one exception, he was reasonable. We switched over to CNN & they were almost just as bad. Then to FOX, which surprisingly was the least offensive :-O
Those things are often forgotten once the campaign is over and it comes time to govern.
If McCain can get over what Bush supporters in South Carolina were saying about his adopted kid in 2000 anybody can get over anything.
I don't think it's a coincidence the recent South Carolina primaries of both parties have been rough affairs. That seems to be the way politics are practiced there. Just last week during the Republican campaign in South Carolina a group was passing out flyers calling McCain a traitor and someone was passing around a fake "mormon christmas card" from Romney.
However, I do expect the press to put these things in proper prospective and not fuel the fire by being hysterical.
So far, they're is part of the story instead of being the ones covering it.
Olbermann is a shill for whatever way he feels the party is going. He tried to argue that Hillary wasn't out on the night of Iowa, then when Hillary started with the fear campaigning, he totally wrote her off. Then she came back, and he was all about HRC again. As recent as this past week he said that Obama "did say the Republicans had all the good ideas."
All of that said, the fact of the matter is last night was a bad night for the Clintons on a number of levels. And they didn't handle it well. And they deserved bad press.
What with Kennedy endorsing Obama tomorrow as Clinton breaks her pledge not to campaign in Florida, I have a feeling she's in for a fairly bad week.
hillary has not been campaigning in florida. the primary is tomorrow. she has done some fundraisers, but they are not public events. she is way ahead in the florida polls.
An appearance in Florida, whether closed or open, becomes a statewide news event. Seeing as she's the only one going to Florida, it creates the image of her campaigning there.
An appearance in Florida, whether closed or open, becomes a statewide news event. Seeing as she's the only one going to Florida, it creates the image of her campaigning there.
Sue, you know how I often disagree with you, but I think you were right about Olbermann. I know that Scarborough was a phony a long time ago; he's one of the reasons why I don't watch MSNBC. But Keith Olbermann really disappointed me last night.
Congrats on the baby!
I see it too J2...
I see the Conservative Wing and K.O. of the media begging for this to happen. Last time the media tried to predict Hillary would lose... The voters came out to prove them wrong. So now instead of pronouncing her dead they're trying to defeat her with their news and commentary and spin.
Even Bill Bennett was gushing over Obama at CNN. I almost feinted as I looked for a soft place to land. I was spinning with confusion. BUT... If it's McCain vs. Obama who's going to get the Republican base exited about voting? It'll take the Hillary haters to do that.
Some Non-Partisans like myself like McCain, Obama, and even Hillary & Edwards. Many Independents and young voters are voting for Obama. McCain and Obama seem to show promise to voters of all more than just one party.
The other Republican candidates talk of Reagan, but are more like GWB in that they will force Conservatism on the rest of US. Obama & McCain say they'll lead more from the middle.
I don't know who would win vs. McCain but he seems to have the best chance among the Republican candidates.
Last time the media tried to predict Hillary would lose... The voters came out to prove them wrong. So now instead of pronouncing her dead they're trying to defeat her with their news and commentary and spin.
Sam I couldn't agree more with that statement. I was really shocked at how blatantly ANTI-Hillary the MSNBC crew was, Buchannan being the only exception. We finally turned the channel but CNN wasn't much better. Fox, believe it or not was probably the best of the 3 & that ain't saying much...
I'm sort of just wandering around without a candidate to support, though out of all of them, Democratic or Republican, I'd be most comfortable with Hillary at this point.
It never hurts to agree with you or anyone else here who is correct AND... these Hillary Haters might be the big losers.
Voters on February 5th SUPER TUESDAY may just respond with a revolt against the Anti-Hillary Media and deliver an AWESOME WIN for her. A win similar to her New Hampshire comeback when the Media had sent out funeral invitations and her obituary.
Hillary's very serious loss of Endorsements IS very damaging though. JFK's daughter and many other important endorsements are jumping on the Obama train. I like Hillary too but she's the experienced "Stay the Course" lead from the left choice VS...
OBAMA... Who's a fresh face and says he'll lead from the center with the advantage of YES... Less Experience. Experience was the Rumsfelds, the Cheneys, the Darth Vaders, Etc. Etc. Then there's those YOUNG VOTERS..? Advantage-Obama!
In the final analysis, I really hope for a Hillary/Obama ticket or Obama/Hillary. I'm daydreaming of course.
SAM'S COMPUTER:
Keep in mind, "LIKING" McCain means you're on board with being in Iraq the next 100 years. It's what he'll do.
It's Bomb, Bomb, Bomb...
Bomb, Bomb, Iran!
He's my favorite among the sorry group of white males gathered to run for our president. He should of never said that cause now he's payin the price. Even Republicans are having problems getting excited over these choices.
The last few weeks has shown me that America is not and probably never will be ready for a Black president, If the so called Liberal politicians can't resist attacking a Black candidate with the race card which is exactly what Bill Clinton has done over these past few weeks race still trumps everything. Who is kidding who. That old politically savvy Buchanan not only acknowledges this but he admires the Clinton race-baiting tactic as a very smart political move and Pat loves divisive politicking. I agree with Buchanan Bill played the race card and it has worked and worked quite well. It's a winning strategy and it’s been an illuminating few weeks. I also agree with the poster Carlile, Obama can’t win this, so Carlile and my friend Jeter won’t have to worry about Obama talking hope and love and unity and no one will have to walk on eggshells during the Obama presidency because there won’t be one. He won’t win the Democratic nomination and the next president will probably be John McCain, and it will be business as usual. I've read racially charged commentary from MMFA “Liberals” and “Liberals on other blogs railing against and chastising "Obama" supporters for simply supporting him. They’ve made statements like "The Clintons have done more for Black people than...." "Why are Black people supporting a “half-Black guy and what has this half Black guy done for Black people? " They've made sure to let everyone know all the things they've really been thinking about "the Blacks" for a while. Now I always assumed that what I found appealing in Obama was the same thing that a White Obama supporter found appealing in him and that was his message. It had nothing to do with his race, but an ex president and the ferociously angry supporters of his wife all tell me that the only reason I support Obama is because he's Black and I'm Black and therefore my support of him is silly, meaningless and probably even an example of reverse discrimination. Obama's speaks of a reality that I want for this country and if supporting that notion is contemptible and stupid and naive then I am all of those things and I'll admit that. I am a silly little idealist that no matter how much disappointment I encounter I still long for the kind of country that Barack Obama speaks of, a place where people can have political disagreements without demonizing each other, and always fighting and ready to ready to attack each other. I’ve accepted the reality that this probably will not happen in my lifetime, but I will continue to support Obama until this great Clinton calculation is completed and Obama exits the race, as he will since judging by some of the HC supporters the Clinton’s have successfully portrayed Obama as the “black” candidate akin to the hated Black rabble-rouser Jesse Jackson. He’s just in the race getting in the way of the "real" candidates, the “serious” candidates and stirring up the emotions of "our " Black people. He seems to have cynically either dismissed the Black electorate all together or he figures so what if I piss them off who are they going to vote for John McCain? Of course the Clintons have concluded that’s not likely because the Blacks know the Republicans hate them. They figure hey will lick their wounds and come back home and vote for them. Amazing absolutely freaking amazing, maybe the right wingers were correct when they said that some Liberals were simply paying lip service and pandering to Blacks with fake sentiments of inclusion and pretending to want an America were race isn’t all consuming and not a fragmented society divided along ethnic lines where Whites move out when Blacks move in and Blacks and Hispanic duke it out over the crumbs of crumbs. Maybe the right-wingers were correct when they accused White Liberals of seeking to control Blacks by feigning outrage at the not so overt racism and political divisiveness that I thought was the sole domain of the right. Over the last few weeks I’ve seen White Liberals railing against Black replete with little anecdotes about their negative experiences with Black people. They are outraged at the audacity of Blacks to support the candidate of their choosing. They have called “Obama” supporters silly, stupid and thinned skinned because they were disappointed and hurt that an ex President whom they greatly admired and supported for years decided to use a political trick right out the RNC’s southern strategy manual. How dare they speak out and how dare they do what they want after all the White Liberal establishment has done for them. Hilary Clinton said as much it wasn’t the Black and Whites that risked their lives on the front lines of the civil rights movement and made our society more open for people that it was previously pad locked to, OH no it was the White Liberal political establishment that did that and now they must forever be grateful and fall in line and support whomever they are told to. Oh well, I’ll think I’ll take a hiatus from this political crap for awhile, this has been very disappointing and I’m tired of it all at least for now.
BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO! BRAVO!
Lynn, thank you doesn't seem enough. You have eloquently expressed how I've felt over the last week. I'm a little tired of being call stupid, pissy, whinny, dumb and a whole host of names for simply having an opposing opinion. I too always thought liberals were 'tolerant" individuals. Once I uttered the words 'I won't vote for Hillary" I found out how very wrong I really was.
It's funny in a sad kind of way but I thought things had really changed. I mean I'm 73 years old and it's 2008, shouldn't things have changed by now? Sadly not in my life time, not in my lifetime. Ken Hughes said it best "Obama is one of the few African Americans willing to stand toe to toe with the white political community and ask for no special privileges. Obama may be naive and inexperienced but he's a man who DESERVES RESPECT! "
I've decided to change my voter registration to Independent. Not that it will make a significant difference in who I vote for but after years of being a proud Democratic I find no desire to call myself a Democratic anymore. Who would have thought that Democrats could succeed in doing what Republicans have been trying to do for years, move blacks away from consistently voting for Democrats.
why would you ever think that liberals are tolerant, they are the most intolerant of all. Who attacked Clarence Thomas - liberals. Who calls Condoleeza Rice an aunt Jemima-liberals. Who imposes speech codes on college campuses-liberals. Who wants to abridge the second amendment, force religion from our lives, tell us what kind of light bulb to use, whether we can not a rope in a certain way, remove a cross from the LA County seal, etc. etc. - liberals.
Finally, who will attack this post as if it was made by the devil himself. Well, you know.
how can you a rope? apparently you can not a rope? therefore, you must be able to a rope ;)
But in all seriousness, there are people who are tolerant on both sides of the aisle. It's called the middle, and it's where most of us reside in America. Focusing on the fringes of the left and the right only furthers the "Great Divide."
I am Jewish, but I think of the US as a Christian nation and I don't like to see the ACLU go overboard to remove every vestige of religion from the public square. Actually, that separation of church and state came from some words of Hugo Black in a sup ct. decison and everyone has gone to town on it. I don't think it's called for.
I find I have a lot in common with conservative Christians, less so with those from the liberal churchs, such as the Presbyterians (my wife's church) and Episcopalians, particularly when it comes to Israel.
I was at a dinner for the RJC - the Republican Jewish Coalition - and sat with a group from Salen Communications, a conservative radio concern. They host for example, Dennis Prager and Michael Medved, both of whom are religious Jews. It was a very pleasant evening.
When I go to friends' houses here in L.A., it is best not to talk politics. They are not very tolerant of opposing views and usuallly use words like idiot, thug, a--hole, etc. when referring to non-liberals.
I can understand that. Like I said, there are intolerant people on both sides of the aisle.
So you do know why there is a coalition between the Jewish and Christian communities as pertains to Israel, yes? The fact that Christians see the establishment of a Jewish state in Israel as one of the last signs of the second coming of Christ? You do realize that, according to them, as a Jew, when the Armageddon comes, you must accept Christ or forever be left out from the kingdom of heaven? Does that reconcile with your religious beliefs?
The only reason the modern GOP is entrenched on backing Israel is they think it will bring about the end of the world. I wish I was kidding.
in the interest of full disclosure, I grew up Southern Baptist (which is at the heart of the Christian Zionist movement) but have since become agnostic.
And I'm not trying to be critical of your views, I hope you can expand on this topic and provide me with some insight into how you can reconcile your beliefs in Judaism with Christian support for Israel.
I am not very religious, in fact in the last 20 years I have been to my wife's church many more times than I have been to a synagogue. I did it so she would have someone to go with, but when the pastors started slamming Israel and supporting the Palestinians as Jews were dying everyday at the hands of suicide bombers, I stopped going.
I lived in Israel from 1972 to 1976, and have visited several times since then. During the intifada, also called the Oslo War because so many of us think it was a direct results of the Oslo Accords, I visited Israel twice. Tourism was almost non-existent except for some diehards like me, and Conservative Christians.
So, perhaps they want the end of the world, or all of us to convert (I know my wife would like that). As for the former, I don't know, as for the latter it won't happen. In the meantime, I'll take the support where I find it.
I do know this. The U.S. is the best friend Israel has in the world. The liberal nations of the world, hate Israel. Witness the U.N. It is only the U.S. that keeps the Securty Council from passing resolution after resolution against Israel. The UN Human Rights Commission passed a resolution last week condemning Israel for cutting off supplies to Gaza without mentionng that tens of rockets are fired every day from Gaza into Israel cities.
The UN in my opinion exists primarily to encourage anti-Semitism and destroy Israel.
Back to the intifada. It was not only liberal churches that supported Palestinians, it was liberals, including Jewish liberals as well. It is conservatives, whatever there motives, were on the right side of the issue. Everytime Israel did anything to protect it citizenry liberals howled. They didn't like Sharon, they didn't like the security barrier, they didn't like targeted killings of terrorists, but they had nothing to say about Jews dying in a bus or pizza parlor.
Anyway, that's enough for this post. Hope I answered your query, at least in part.
Very interesting. I, for one, believe the Jewish people should have their own state, but why does it have to be there? You do realize that the majority of Muslim extremists are the way they are because the US backs Israel, and it's almost all because the three major religions believe that that one spot is the holiest spot on Earth? Would you be willing to have a Jewish state somewhere besides where it is now?
As far as the U.N. is concerned, I would have to whole-heartedly disagree with you. the U.N. took over the League of Nations role in order to prevent war. Period. That's its purpose. Sorry, but that's a bit of an extremist view, seeing as how most European countries take a neutral view of Israel, including France, Germany, and Russia. It's a constant battle in the U.N. because the Dome of the Rock is the most hotly contested piece of land on Earth.
D,
Could not disagree with you more. Mohammedans have been rabid since 632 a.d., well before the U.S. and Israel existed.
You call Russia neutral. The country that spawned the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, forced Jews to serve 25 year terms in the Army, that conducted pogroms that forced Jews to flee to Palestine, that refused to let Jews leave for Israel, etc., is hardly neutral. It remains as anti-Semitic as ever.
The U.N. does not stop war. It is feckless. Almost all resolutions of the UNHRC are against Israel. The Durban Conference turned into and anti-Israel, anti-Semitic rant. Durban II will end the same way.
Nobody but Muslims care about the Dome of the Rock. Christians care for the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, among other sites, and Jews care primarily about the Western Wall.
That's your view thru a Conservative, NeoConistic Shaded Lens.
My view as a Non Partisan is more clear and accurate. Both sides are intolerant. Of the 100's of people I've known during the past half decade, the Cons are by far the most intolerant on the entire spectrum of issues. One good example for you...
Jesus was a tolerant liberal. The folks who killed him have historically proven that they were intolerant Conservatives. And the beat goes on...
I started as a liberal, Jews are programmed like that. I was called a kike because I wasn't for Ike. That was junior h.s. (now called middle school).
Jimmy Carter got me to switch. Now I think Obama is a nice guy, although he would frighten me as pres. I don't think HC is a nice person.
Really, you were called a "kike" because you weren't for Ike? Couldn't it be that that's an ethnic slur, and that you were called that because you were Jewish?
As far as Jesus being Liberal, I wouldn't use that term, I'd say "socialist."
Sam,
It is hard to sit in Gethsemane, gaze upward towards the walls of Jerusalem, and not feel pain and sorrow. But why do you describe Jesus as a liberal and those that killed him as conservatives? I don't think the terms as we use them today apply to Judea of 2000 years ago.
If Jesus were here today he would be NON PARTISAN... BUT...
History Buff, I venture to say, would call him a socialist, progressive or even a liberal... But Jesus would not curse Conservatives, he loves his enemies.
You're more correct Mr or Mrs Dbeden. Jesus was more a socialist than liberal. I only used the term in answer to Buff's swipe against liberals. Buff said Liberals were the most intolerant of people. Jesus was maybe not the best example but I now say Jesus would be a very tolerant Non Partisan and Cons would be crucifying him on the Media today for being a humanitarian on todays issues.
Please take another look at my post. See where it says... ( I VENTURE TO SAY ) That means I'm speculating, going out on a limb. I ventured to say what you MIGHT SAY, NOT what you WILL SAY.
I see your posts. I saw your attacks on Liberals. I see where you take cheap shots at grammatical errors. I saw when you were labeled a Troll etc. etc. I could understand your comments and I made my reply. If you would not have said that ( it's ) fine with me. Did I do my IT's right? And....
Instead of asking HOW DO I KNOW, please, will you just say what you would really have said. I'm all ears, I mean eyes.
Hstybuf:
If you call yourself a history buff, you should actually study history. For example, you should examine the Bill of Rights, and you should figure out that the government has no place advocating ANY religion. The U.S. is NOT a Christian nation. Claiming that liberals want to "remove religion from our lives" is ridiculous and shows a lack of understanding. Claiming that liberals are intolerant is ludicrous. Look at how many rights that Bush's administration has taken away before you start spouting off about how liberals want to abridge the Second Amendment. And please remember to take things in context, such as the condemnation of Clarence Thomas and the reasons for which he was criticized.
Well, I did go to Stanford Law, so I have a passing familiarity with the constitution, although I am no scholar. The first amendment says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . .
I think the defenders of purity go way beyond what this amendment says. Having a creche in front of a fire station does not, in my mind, equal the making of a law respecting . . .
Thomas was attacked because he was an uppity black who did not tow the party line on race, affirmative action, and, dread perhaps, abortion. So he had to be destroyed.
Buf:
Again, I suggest examine what the accusations against Thomas were, examine who made the accusations; use multiple sources, not just Fox News.
Lynn,
Up until three or so weeks ago Barack Obama was a candidate who happen to be Black. To Obama's credit he never made his candidacy about race & tried to reach out to all of America, & it appeared that America was embracing him & his message of inclusiveness, hope & change.
Due to recent factors he now is being portrayed by many as the Black candidate. When books are written about this election, and I'm sure there will be many, I'm hoping they honestly point to the pivotal moment when everything changed. I believe that moment was when Bill Clinton defined Obama's Iraq war record as a "fairy-tale". On the face of it this should not have been anything more than the usual political rhetoric. There was nothing at all racist in Clinton's words.
There might have been others who MIS-interpreted Bill Clinton's remarks BUT the voice that was quoted & began the firestorm to follow was that of Donna Brazille who somehow heard Clinton's words as suggesting Obama's candidacy was a "fairy-tale". And thus it began...
In the weeks that followed every statement was scrutinized for racial overtones. And the media sharks smelling a bloody fight between the Obama-Clinton camps plunged in highlighting every charge & counter-charge.
Some felt the Clintons were deliberately trying to marginalize Obama as nothing more than a token Black candidate, perhaps to play into the fear that he could never win a general election because when push came to shove White America would not vote for a Black man.
Lynn I understand your pessimism, but it's still early enough & Obama may still be able to rise above all this nonsense. I'm not convinced the Clintons are playing the race card though I will admit Bill Clinton's remark about Jesse Jackson winning South Carolina seems to imply that any Black candidate will win here, thus marginalizing Obama's victory. However it's becoming abundantly clear that it's the media [and others] looking under every rock & around ever corner for proof that they or their surrogates are injecting race into this primary.
My fear, as I wrote earlier is that if Obama should reach the Oval Office that certain ears & eyes will always be perked/focused to hear or read something racist in every question asked of or criticism leveled at President Obama. This country does not need this kind of distraction as it attempts to pull itself out of the mess Bush has left this nation in.
I have to say your pessimism saddens me. I understand it, I can relate to it.
Don't let the ugly politics get you down, it's an attempt to knock Obama off his game. It's an effort to drag him down so doubt can be cast on his sincerity as an optimist. It's a character assault.
He needs his supporters to stay positive, to stay on message. His base is his best hope to bring more people around to support him. To get cynical and negative is self-defeating.
Keep your chin up, Lynn.
Voters on February 5th SUPER TUESDAY may just respond with a revolt against the Anti-Obama campaigners. YOU SAID: "Obama may be naive and inexperienced but he's a man who DESERVES RESPECT! " SO... That is one of his biggest advantages. These are the Primaries and no hold are barred. Hillary is being attacked much more that Obama is. The conservative Media wants to defeat Hillary because they believe McCain will defeat Obama.
Are you going to join the Media in their war on Democrats? That's exactly what they want!
Hillary's very serious loss of Endorsements is very damaging, such as JFK's daughter and many other important endorsements all jumping on the Obama train. I like BOTH Obama & Hillary. She's the experienced "Stay the Course"- "Politics as Usual" -"Lead from the Left" choice vs OBAMA ...
Who is a fresh face who leads from the center with the advantage of YES... Less Experience! Experience was the Rumsfelds, the Cheneys, the Darth Vaders of the GWB Era who the voters are rejecting. Then there's those YOUNG VOTERS..? Advantage-Obama!
In the final analysis, I would really love a Hillary/Obama ticket or Obama/Hillary. I'm daydreaming of course but I refuse to abandon my Non Partisan fight to take back our country. If you register as a Non Partisan you can vote Democrat, AIP or NP but please don't be so negative. The BUSH VS McCAIN primaries were uglier than this and when it was done, they made peace.
If a young Obama isn't nominated, so what, he will be president or vice president in your lifetime. You don't have to be a Democrat to help take back our country.
-Sam I Am -
This just makes me sad for the state of our political system.
You do realize that 75% of what you are using to attack either Obama or Clinton, was created by the media and the pundits. The actual individuals have not allowed themselves to be drawn into this petty garbage. And if you mention, "but, on CNN a top Obama official said.... " please realize the nature of those titles and how the media throws those titles around.
As far as my choice. I would still like to see a Hillary/Obama ticket, either combination. The technical, experience based leadership of Hillary, combined with the idealism and "hopiness" (tried to find a great word, but oh well) of Obama.
Unfortunately the side effect of this long primary, combined with the LARGE number of pundits laying around with nothing better to do, is causing the party to fracture.
Its really sad, especially when people are using the words, "I hate...." based on the opinions of others and feelings about actions made by a candidate. (BTW, even if something is offensive: is it still okay to make mistakes? or are we at the point that public figures can not speak without a team of speech writers and consultants? Can you imagine that debate? Candidate X and his/her 30 writers and consultants, debate Candidate Y and his/her 30 writers and consultants.)
Well at least it means with my Poli-Sci and American History Degrees I will have a job after college.
This absolute hysteria around black issues and Bill Clinton said JJ well he did win and he also was black that your Liberals are SCREAMING social in justice is not what I am interested in sorry, kitchen table issue for all the other 75 percent of the Party somehow I just don’t see the black community at risk for damage because of bigotry from the Clintons.
If Obama gets the nomination, the slime machine will bing him down...
If Hillary gets the nomination her negatives wil suppress oterturnout and usher in another Republican....
In poll after poll Edwards beats any Republican schlepp with ease. Polls are unreliable for sure but I'm just sayin'...
A note to everyone:
You don't know. You just don't, simply know. No one does, especially the media. That's why one of the narratives this election season is how the polls are so wrong.
I mean, remember after Iowa? Hillary was done with, right? and three months before, she was all but sworn in. and then in NH, it was inevitable again. And everyone here (myself included) has made contradicting predictions in the past 6 months. It's just the nature of politics. No one knows until after the results are in.
exactly what I was saying (I think, still getting over the flu).
A. nobody knows what will happen
B. far too many people are making judgments based on "feelings" and not facts
C. both people here and in the media are judging the candidates on pieces of speeches....not as a whole.
D. saying you dislike or hate a candidate based on anything the media (i.e. pundits) tells you at this point.....well tells many of us a lot more about your reasoning abilities than provides any insight into the candidate's nature.