On Hardball, Matthews ignored his own advice to stop "trying to see things through the eyes of the Clintons"
SUMMARY: Despite saying that "we should [not] be putting our focus... on the feelings of the Clintons," and "we got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom," Chris Matthews devoted a six-minute segment on Hardball to speculation about Sen. Hillary Clinton's motivations and preferred outcomes in the event that she loses the Democratic nomination for president, including wondering whether the "worst-case scenario" for Clinton is "[t]hat [Sen.] Barack Obama becomes the greatest Democratic president in modern times, and everybody forgets her husband and forgets she ever ran."
On the March 24 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, MSNBC Hardball host Chris Matthews asserted: "I think we make a big mistake trying to see things through the eyes of the Clintons, in a kind of a Clinton-centric world." Later in the segment, Matthews said that "we should [not] be putting our focus... on the feelings of the Clintons," adding, "It's not important what the politics of the Clinton family is now; it's what['s] important to the country. And I really think we got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom. We had eight years of this sitcom: What are the Clintons up to? How do they relate to each other? What do they feel today?" Matthews then addressed co-host Mika Brzezinski and said: "Mika, it's a sitcom ... and it's gotta end. We gotta focus on America. We're stuck in Iraq; 4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons." However, despite his criticism that morning of coverage that "focus[ed]" on "the feelings of the Clintons," during that evening's edition of Hardball, Matthews devoted a six-minute segment to speculation about Sen. Hillary Clinton's motivations and preferred outcomes in the event that she loses the Democratic nomination for president, including wondering whether the "worst-case scenario" for Clinton is "[t]hat [Sen.] Barack Obama becomes the greatest Democratic president in modern times, and everybody forgets her husband and forgets she ever ran."
During the Hardball segment, with a panel that included MSNBC chief Washington correspondent Norah O'Donnell, NBC News political director Chuck Todd, and Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson, Matthews discussed four possibilities that "would be the favorite option and the least favorite option and the ones in the middle for Senator Clinton at this point":
Matthews made other baseless speculations as to Clinton's motivation. He asked:
- "[W]ould she be happier having a McCain win the presidency ultimately, or the man she's fighting hardest right now? Because she keeps saying McCain is qualified to be commander in chief."
- "Does she really prefer Barack over John McCain to be the next president?"
- "Let me ask you this, Norah: When you look at this, do you go with Gene's theory that Hillary Clinton would like to be president someday, if she can't win it this time, she's still hopeful, and therefore, would really, deep down, prefer that the door be kept open by the election of John McCain who will only serve, perhaps, four years and certainly will be vulnerable to an attack from the Democrats four years later?"
Additionally, although he stated that "we got to stop talking about this as if this were a sitcom," in the past, Matthews himself repeatedly discussed the 2008 election in exactly those terms:
- In a February 5 New York Observer article, media reporter Felix Gillette reported that as Matthews prepared for his show on February 5, he "pondered out loud whether voters might be getting tired of Mr. Obama. 'Like a sitcom in it's [sic] fourth season.' "
- On the February 5 edition of Hardball, Matthews asked if there was "Clinton fatigue," and added: "This sitcom's just gone on too long. We're tired hearing of what Bill's doing: Bill can't talk this week; he can talk; he's in the doghouse this week; he's not in the doghouse -- are we just tired of the sitcom? ... You know that's an issue."
- On the July 18, 2007, Hardball, Matthews said to The New Republic's Michael Crowley: "Michael, do we want a spin off as our next president? Do you know how these sitcoms will go on for years and then somebody -- Kelsey Grammer or somebody shows up -- or someone's Taxi and they end up having a show of their own. Hillary was on the Bill Clinton show for eight years and now she wants a show of her own. Is that too much of a retro move by America?"
- On the January 30, 2007, Hardball, Todd stated: "Electing a woman is change. This is a change election; '08 is going to be a change election." He added: "[I]f it's about Clinton -- if it's about electing ... somebody named Clinton, then it's not a change election." Matthews responded: "Don't make it another go-round of the sitcom."
- On the March 30, 2006, edition of Hardball, Matthews asserted: "You know, we had a 10-year sitcom with these two people. Are we ready for another 10-year re-up of this program? Hillary versus Bill; what Hillary said to Bill; how Bill's acting; whether Hillary thinks he's a right-wing conspiracy or she thinks it's Bill misbehaving again, or is it Bill trying to one-up her like at the Coretta Scott funeral? Excuse me, he one-upped her."
From the March 24 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to Hardball. Now, for the favorite part of the show of many: "The Politics Fix." Chuck Todd is NBC's political director; he knows all. Eugene Robinson is a Washington Post columnist, who is one of the best columnists -- it may be decided soon -- the best columnist in the country. And Norah O'Donnell is MSNBC's chief Washington correspondent. Thank you all for joining us.
I want you all to pay close attention to this, and to the extent your reportorial ability allows you, decide what you think, based upon your reporting, would be the favorite option and the least favorite option and the ones in the middle for Senator Clinton at this point.
Number one: Senator Clinton wins the nomination of the Democratic Party, then goes on to win the general election. Is that the best scenario for Senator Clinton? Well, probably.
Number two: Obama wins the nomination, but McCain wins the general election.
Three: Clinton wins the nomination and McCain wins the general election.
Or four: Hillary Clinton -- well, Obama wins the nomination and the election. Keep that board up there while we each go through it. Please hold that up there. Gene Robinson, for Hillary Clinton, what's the worst-case scenario for her? Is it number four? That Barack Obama becomes the greatest Democratic president in modern times, and everybody forgets her husband and forgets she ever ran?
ROBINSON: Well, it's the worst case if -- you know, for her chances of ever being president, right?
MATTHEWS: OK. That's --
ROBINSON: So if she wants to be president, that's the worst thing for her. If she wants to be remembered as, you know, a great Democrat and a great figure in the party, then, you know, an option in which a Democrat wins is that.
MATTHEWS: You are so smart. You have threaded the needle here. No, I want to go -- before I get to Norah, I want to go to Chuck. Knowing the -- can we look at that again? I think people will forget this interesting bit of graphics we have. We should all watch it again. Let's take a look at it. Look at that, hold it up there, please.
Obviously, Hillary Clinton would like to win the whole shebang at this point even, when it's really a long shot at this point -- I think we would all agree -- but would she be happier having McCain win the presidency ultimately, or the man she's fighting hardest right now? Because she keeps saying, McCain's qualified to be commander in chief. He's another lover of the country, another patriot, seemingly to the exclusion of the other guy, Barack.
Does she really prefer Barack over John McCain to be the next president?
TODD: Look, she is in a fight for the nomination, a heated fight. We have gotten to the point where the two sides now hate each other more than they hate the eventual enemy. And right now, she is in an alliance, whether they have formed it officially or not --
MATTHEWS: With McCain?
TODD: McCain and Clinton are in an alliance, because McCain knows how to run against Clinton, has been preparing to run against Clinton in a general election.
Running against Obama is trickier, it's harder, it's different. It's not something he's ready for. He would love to run against Clinton.
Clinton, of course, wants to prove that Obama can't beat McCain, so needs to make McCain a stronger and stronger nominee. So, it is her path to the nomination. I think we can't read her mind and sit there and say, "Gee, she certainly hopes Obama doesn't get" --
MATTHEWS: But Gene found the outlet pass, because Gene answered the question.
TODD: But I think -- that's right. Does she want to be president?
MATTHEWS: If he wins, she'll never be president.
TODD: Correct.
ROBINSON: Right.
TODD: Pure and simple.
MATTHEWS: If he wins this, he'll get the nomination four years from now.
[crosstalk]
TODD: She'll never be -- she'll never be --
ROBINSON: With apologies to a guy who called the Davidson game yesterday, before the game.
MATTHEWS: Did you call Davidson?
ROBINSON: He called Davidson over Georgetown.
MATTHEWS: Well, that is a long shot.
ROBINSON: So, you know, Chuck does know all.
MATTHEWS: Are they going all the way?
TODD: Oh, come on.
ROBINSON: However --
MATTHEWS: OK, the Tar Heels all the way. Let me go to Norah. The Tar Heels will win the national championship, as they should.
O'DONNELL: You just had to bring up --
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you, Norah, because I know you want to talk sports --
O'DONNELL: You just had to bring up the Georgetown defeat, didn't you, Gene?
ROBINSON: Sorry, Norah.
TODD: That's right.
MATTHEWS: Georgetown has won many championships. Let me ask you this, Norah: When you look at this, do you go with Gene's theory that Hillary Clinton would like to be president someday, if she can't win it this time, she's still hopeful, and therefore, would really, deep down, prefer that the door be kept open by the election of John McCain who will only serve, perhaps, four years and certainly will be vulnerable to an attack from the Democrats four years later?
O'DONNELL: Yes, to answer your question on your test, Chris, it's choice number two, which is that she would rather have Obama win the nomination and then have McCain win the general election, so that in 2012, she could come back and run against McCain. I think that clearly would be the second best-case scenario, other than her winning the whole thing.
MATTHEWS: But that also fits into what -- their strategy. By the way, this is not idle discussion, because I have been looking at the performance of the Clinton campaign, and I completely understand why they're doing it, if this is their ambition. They are very tough on Obama. They're not cutting him much slack. I detected a little cutting in slack today, but they're really going after him this week, saying he's the one running the dirty campaign. He's the one trying to destroy her character. When they're out there really being tough with Obama, and then --
ROBINSON: Yeah.
MATTHEWS: I mean, I'm looking at how they excluded him from the cotillion of loyal Americans. That's a pretty mean --
ROBINSON: I know.
MATTHEWS: Here's -- this is President Clinton talking on Friday about Hillary and McCain facing off in the general election. It's -- he's almost a dating service here now. Look at this, he's putting them together.
CLINTON [video clip]: I think it'd be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who love this country and were devoted to the interest of the country, and people could actually ask themselves, who's right on these issues, instead of all this other stuff that always seems to intrude itself on our politics.
MATTHEWS: What's that, eHarmony? Norah, is he putting these people together? They seem like a perfect match and he's one of these people with the computer, saying, you know, you're both loyal to the country; you both love America; you're both qualified to be commander in chief. Why don't you two run against each other?
TODD: Well, look, the Clinton campaign --
O'DONNELL: Well, I mean --
TODD: -- will argue that, last Monday, she actually did criticize McCain. But there hasn't been a lot of criticism of McCain of late from the Clinton campaign. But read more carefully into what Bill Clinton was talking about. I don't think he was trying to question Barack Obama's patriotism. I think he was talking about the race issue, because the audience was older white men. This was a VFW hall.
MATTHEWS: So all -- "you won't have all this stuff"?
TODD: "All this stuff" --
ROBINSON: "All this stuff."
TODD: "All this stuff" was code for --
MATTHEWS: Means a person of a different ethnic background.
TODD: No, no, no. "All this stuff" means you won't have to deal with this extra issue that will come up in the general.
MATTHEWS: OK.
TODD: And he's almost apologizing for it. He's not saying he wants it to be that way. But you won't have to deal with this other stuff.
MATTHEWS: Excuse me for a second. When it comes to the size of the baggage load, you don't go with Clintons. You know, when they have to put their stuff on that scale at the airport, it's heavy. We'll be right back with the roundtable with more of "The Politics Fix."















Obama = Tingle up the leg.
Clinton = Tinkle down the leg.
On the other hand with modern electronics and "skull"duggery, many things formerly impossible are now possible.
Before you Obama folks use this sympathetic-to-Hillary article as an excuse to demonize the Clintons, please answer this one question:
Why do so many Obama supporters have to hate the Clintons in order to like Barack?
You rarely see Clinton supporters so motivated. Just what is it? Defensiveness or something?
Let the hate-fest begin.....
CARLIL
How goes Operation Chaos ?
Oi CARLIL
What say your Capitano El Fatbo Limpaugh ?
Why do so many Obama supporters have to hate the Clintons in order to like Barack?
You rarely see Clinton supporters so motivated. Just what is it? Defensiveness or something?
Your sooooo confused. I support Obama but I don't hate the Clintons. I've told you time and time again I don't hate them. Would I give them water if they were thirsty in the desert? I can't swear yes, but I probably would.
I started to get sick of Bill and Hill in South Carolina. Before you say what did they do, Imagine if a Republican and his surrogates ran a campaign like the Clintons and their surrogates said things like the Clinton surrogates say, you would be screaming mad. Imagine Rush Limbo saying what Geraldine Ferraro said.
I've gone back and forth with Bill and Hill but the compliments to McCain while belittling her fellow Democratic was the last straw. Did Kerry give Bush compliments? NO Did Bill Clinton give Bob Dole compliments? NO Did Bill give Bush Jr. compliments? NO
If she gets the nomination I will not vote for her period. I could give you very creative words to describe my feeling about Hillary and Bill but let me just say I don't reward bad behavior.
Car, if your an example of a Clinton supporter, motivated is not the word I would use to describe you, more like insane and irrational.
Well said Pearl
It's not well said at all.
Rush Limbaugh is a bigot. G Ferraro is not. So you can be pretty assured that if Rush had said what she did, the impulse would be racist, or sexist if directed at Clinton. That's the difference.
Plus, what she said was not that far off. If 99% of female voters were voting for Hillary, then the case could be made that there was a gender issue there. Same with race and Obama.
Pearlene obviously hates the Clintons. It seems to be a pre-requisite for many (not all) Obama supporters. They all sound like Sean Hannity...
And just what did they do in South Carolina? It was the media that drummed that up, falsely accusing them of racist behavior. Imagine such a thing.
Plus, what she said was not that far off. If 99% of female voters were voting for Hillary, then the case could be made that there was a gender issue there. Same with race and Obama
"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color), he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."
What she said about Obama was so freaking off the mark it’s pathetic. If Obama was a white man he’d be a shoo in for President. Every damn President has been a white man. How is running for President as a black man is special? Both Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton have ran for President and their race didn't seem to help them. Having a Muslim sounding name is not a plus since we are at war in a Muslim country. Heck half of the country thinks were fighting Muslims and not Islamic fundamentalist. Ferraro was lashing out because she was angry that John Lewis switched from Clinton to Obama. She should have taken her anger out on John Lewis and not make that asinine statement about Obama.
Pearlene obviously hates the Clintons. It seems to be a pre-requisite for many (not all) Obama supporters. They all sound like Sean Hannity...
How many times I have told you I don’t hate the Clintons? Anyone who disagrees with the Clintons or is critical of them becomes a “Clinton hater” in your eyes. Maybe you need them checked.
And just what did they do in South Carolina? It was the media that drummed that up, falsely accusing them of racist behavior. Imagine such a thing.
Well according to this poll taken July 20 2007 and the final election results something changed but if thinking it was the media makes you feel better.
Posted: Friday, July 20, 2007
If its numbers are true, a new CNN/Opinion Research poll of South Carolina voters is a boon to Clinton and a potentially devastating blow to Obama. In it, Clinton leads Obama, 43%-27%, with Edwards at 17%. Yet among African Americans, Clinton's lead over Obama jumps to 52%-33%. Can that be right?What's more, 15% of black Democratic primary voters say they WOULD NOT vote for Obama under any circumstance, while just 4% of them say the same thing about Clinton. And on key qualities, Clinton wins by a wide margin. By a 72%-19% clip, black Democratic primary voters say she has the right experience over Obama to be president; by 63%-29%, they think she has the better chance of beating the GOP nominee in '08; and by 48%-40%, they think she is most likely to bring change to the country.
South Carolina Primary results
Barack Obama had said of himself several years earlier EXACTLY the same thing that Ferraro said of him !! It's on his own senate web site ! He's a freaking major hypocrite.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/print.php
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
CARL:
It's true that many despise the Clintons.
It's true NOW that this number includes some Obama supporters.
If you have decided you wish to engage in Clinton hating, there are a myriad of reasons to do so provided by rightwingers, the Media, and various "pundits" who wear their Clinton hatred on their sleeves (and get very regular work because of it).
For whatever reason, very few are ambivalent about the Clintons. You either LIKE them (would VOTE for them), or you loathe them. It's basically irrational, but the irrationality is informed by concerted efforts to demonize them. Try to imagine the careers of, say, Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, or Dick Morris -- if the Clintons had not been there to provide them with their most "controversial" career material?
Bill Clinton was detested by the Rightwing, because he WON, because he governed without favor to the very wealthy, and because he governed WELL. Hillary is detested MORE simply because she's a woman, and paternalistic "conservatives" are hardwired to ridicule the notion of a WOMAN having any POWER.
From these basic loathings, an entire industry of Clinton hatred has been providing lucrative livings to a wide variety of Media types. It's BIG BUSINESS, and the cast of characters is long. And if only 5% of what they've claimed and said over the past two decades is BELIEVED, then any American has all the ammo they need to join in the hate-fest.
Since this Clinton hatred is irrational, it does no good to try to make sense of it. Today, "It was South Carolina" seems sufficient for an Obama supporter to join the Hate Hillary Express. What was actually said, how it compares to other instances of campaigning (context), how it was interpreted (distorted) by the press ... none of this matters. The Rightwing smear machine has provided 10,000 "reasons" to hate Hillary. You only need to pick ONE, and you will have joined their ranks.
I can tell you from personal experience that the pissy Obama supporters have caused MUCH damage by stating very vocally that they would absolutely note vote for Clinton if she were nominated and jumping on the Republican Clinton-bashing bandwagon. Before the first primary a coworker of mine told me that she was voting for Obama because of this threat, she concluded that Clinton was unelectable !
Check out the Gallup poll, even more Clinton supporters are now refusing to vote for Obama than Obama supporters refusing to vote for Clinton. THe poll results were 28% to 19%. It's a backlash. If it weren't for the obnoxious Obama supporters I would have voted for him. Now I will sit out the election if he is nominated.
If it weren't for the obnoxious Obama supporters I would have voted for him. Now I will sit out the election if he is nominated.
Now that sounds like an adult reason for not voting for someone, the candidate supporters.
I don't like Obama. I'm not mesmerized by him like the rest of you are. But I was going to be a good Democrat and vote for him anyway if he got the nomination, to help ensure that the next president is not a Republican.
Well no more. I've seen the dirty tactics of his supporters and I will not reward these people with my vote. I guess plenty of other Clinton supporters feel the same way.
Btw, I'm not voting for McCain either, I'll just sit out.
Pearlene, I just noticed a comment YOU wrote:
If she gets the nomination I will not vote for her period. I could give you very creative words to describe my feeling about Hillary and Bill but let me just say I don't reward bad behavior.
And you are criticizing me for not wanting to vote for Obama ??
Athesit I will not vote for Hillary based on the way she has run her campaign, the lengths both Hillary and Bill will go to just to win. I could care less what her supporter do, it's Hillary and Bill.
IMO, they have ran their campaign like Republicans. Hillary was never my first choice but I was willing to vote for her until she and her campaign crossed the line. I have watched Republicans play games with race and IMO Hillary's campaign did that. NO, I will not continue to try to define exactly what it was that I objected to, somehow justifying my decision to you. She crossed MY line of what's acceptable. Republicans crossed MY line of whats acceptable and I don't vote for them. Hillary crossed MY line of what I can accept and I can't vote for her.
Oh my goodness. You would risk inflicting another GOP administration on us over pique?
Solon, Hillary choose to inflect another GOP administration on all of us when she gave the Republicans and any 527 conservative group the perfect ad to use against Obama in the general. I'm sure there must be a temptation to say literally anything to stop a rival. But if for no other reason than the strength of the party, that temptation has to be kept in check. Hillary failed. You say this if you want to be McCain's VP not against a fellow Democrat. Before I would have held my nose and voted for her but not anymore. I simply tired of Hill.
“I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” March 1, 2008 FORT WORTH, TEXAS
She wasn't happy to say it one time she took her happy butt out there and did it again:
Monday in Toledo: “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002″ March 4th, 2008
and again:
“I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington. “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said. Washington DC on March 6, 2008
"Rush Limbaugh is a bigot. G Ferraro is not. So you can be pretty assured that if Rush had said what she did, the impulse would be racist, or sexist if directed at Clinton. That's the difference."
You can say something that is a racist statement without holding racist views yourself. I mean, the statement itself was racially motivated, and held "black" to a different standard than "white." That's almost the definition of a racist statement.
See my post above ...
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
She didn't need to bury Obama with more Rev. Wright nonsense but she saw an opportunity and she went for blood. The smart move would have been to turn her rage on John McCain, yet she chose to go after the man who'll probably be the Democratic Party's nominee.
At this point, Hillary has ruined her chances of winning against McCain. All the McCain camp needs to do is quote her recent comments about how qualified McCain is to be president.
I've been trying to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt. So far, it's been her surrogates who've been slinging the mud. Now she's doing her own flinging.
For me to believe that her and her supporters are only being misquoted and the media has been taking their comments out of context I'd have to start believing that Bush and Cheney's comments have also been taken out of context. After all , that's what they say. Why would any reasonable person not take that logical jump?
From now on, I take each candidates words verbatim. I don't care what Bill clinton says, or Geraldine Ferraro, or anyone's pastor.
And I think you're wrong with all of your accusations against Senator Obama's supporters. Most of the ones posting here have been sincere and often quite eloquent (Pearlene for one). The only hatred and rage I've seen is from you. Please don't take this the wrong way. I'm trying to be fair and not hateful.
No what Ferraro said about Obama
No what Ferraro said about Obama
wasObama said the same thing about himself that Ferraro said about him. He's a HYPOCRITE.
Notice that this came from his own senate web site.
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050626-when_it_comes_to_race_obama_ma/print.php
Obama acknowledges, with no small irony, that he benefits from his race.
If he were white, he once bluntly noted, he would simply be one of nine freshmen senators, almost certainly without a multimillion-dollar book deal and a shred of celebrity. Or would he have been elected at all?
Solon, you wrote: To imply he only has support because he is black is ridiculous.
You are embellishing Ferraro's statement. Here's what she said about Obama:
“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”
She's not saying that people are supporting him ONLY because he's black. She's saying what he has said about himself (see prior post), he is distinguished from the rest of the candidates because he is black. If he were white he would be just another white candidate. I have zero doubt that Clinton and Edwards would have been the top two then.
You are proof the media is too influential. Most people would never have found the "hidden meanings" the media did in your examples. Bill and Hillary Clinton are NOT racists, nor is Geraldine Ferraro, and none of them made comments that a listener would have read that way without the media taking them there.
Hillary has tried to keep the discussions on topic and is forced to play defense with the relentless volley of name-calling and accusations from the Obama camp.
I'm concerned about this coming election. After the terrible job Pelosi has done, the House and Senate could easily go Republican in November. I think people need to look much harder at Obama. He says he will, but he doesn't prove he can.
Hillary has tried to keep the discussions on topic and is forced to play defense with the relentless volley of name-calling and accusations from the Obama camp.
Your're right ! She has been ruthlessly attacked by Obama's campaign, Obama himself at times, and many of his supporters as well as the expected Republicans. After Kerry's experience, what is she supposed to do ? Just sit back and take it all and not fight back ? Everyone complained that Kerry didn't take action soon enough and was too quiet. Now Hillary fights for her candidacy and people criticize her ? She is a viable candidate and yet everyone declares her a loser and a spoiler. I have never seen such a thing. Just a few days ago she was ahead of Obama in Gallup's daily poll, in fact if you track back through the results you see that they go back and forth, sometimes Obama is ahead, sometimes Clinton is ahead. Hardly the kind of results of a person whose candidacy is dead.
"...I support Obama but I don't hate the Clintons. I've told you time and time again I don't hate them. Would I give them water if they were thirsty in the desert? I can't swear yes, but I probably would.
"I've gone back and forth with Bill and Hill but the compliments to McCain while belittling her fellow Democratic was the last straw. Did Kerry give Bush compliments? NO Did Bill Clinton give Bob Dole compliments? NO Did Bill give Bush Jr. compliments? NO."
"If she gets the nomination I will not vote for her period. I could give you very creative words to describe my feeling about Hillary and Bill but let me just say I don't reward bad behavior."
Since I'm the one defining the meaning of hate when I say I don't hate the Clintons I don't. You are free to think what ever makes you happy.
THIS IS NOT OK Feel free to show where Obama praised McCain and belittled Hillary. Show me where something Obama said is new and not something that the Republicans already have in their playbook against the Clintons:
Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumptive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”
Lest you "reward [the Clintons'] bad behavior," you're willing to inflict (or risk inflicting) a McCain Administration (aka Bush's 3rd term) on this country!?!
Did Hillary care about inflecting a 3rd Bush presidency when she gave the Republicans a perfect ad to use against Obama should he get the nomination? Can't you just see the Republicans ad in November using Hillary's own words praising McCain and saying Obama only offers a speech. You seem to think that she owes fellow Democrats NOTHING while I should feel responsible for another Bush III. Better check that type of logic somewhere else. Hillary in her campaign for President should NOT do ANYTHING to harm her party's nominee and we know she can't say that.
Worth another massive tax cut? Worth all the plagues and devastation another Republican administration will wreak upon the U.S. and the rest of the world? Worth losing another two, or more, seats on the Supreme Court? Are you really willing to cut their nose off just to spite your face
Those are questions you should ask of Hillary since she is determined to win NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. SHE wants to be the nominee AT ANY COST and SHE IS WILLING TO DESTROY THE PARTY IN ORDER TO WIN.
One more time I don't hate the Clintons I simply don't like them very much.
I don't have time right at the moment to gather and insert in this post all of the sh*tty things Obama and his groupies have said about Clinton ! I know you've seen and heard them all, but for some reason you are conveniently forgetting about them, or you think they were deserved. If you're going to complain about one Dem criticizing another, then at least be fair about it and attack Obama just as you are attacking Clinton.
But in the end it probably won't matter who gets the nomination, because there are enough Clinton supporters and enough Obama supporters refusing to vote for the other Dem that McCain will end up winning.
Maybe Hillary can answer that herself since she was fairly concerned about her opponent's tax returns in her senate race.
In 2000, Clinton was still first lady, and vying for an open Senate seat in New York with then Rep. Rick Lazio. Lazio entered the race in May 2000, and was almost immediately pressured to release his tax returns by the press and by the Clinton campaign. Nor was the Clinton camp placated by Lazio's promise that he would do so by the end of that summer. Instead, a man in an Uncle Sam suit dubbed "Tax Man" followed Lazio to campaign events, and Howard Wolfson -- now the communications director of Clinton's presidential campaign -- showed up at a Lazio stop in Harlem to present Lazio with Clinton's property tax bill, ask, "If he says he can release them in 15 minutes, why doesn't he?" and comment, "The people of New York have a right to know what he's hiding. Rick Lazio's 15 minutes are up -- he should stop making excuses and come clean with New Yorkers."
Clinton herself also criticized Lazio; on at least two occasions during the campaign she called his delay "frankly disturbing."
So Pearlene, are you telling me that it's OK for Obama to engage in a tactic because Clinton once engaged in it ?
You left out an important detail though ... Lazio had said himself that he was going to release his tax returns, and when he didnt he was pressured to.
Mr. Lazio pledged to release his tax returns soon after entering the Senate race in May, but had not done so, raising suspicions about whether he had the kind of financial problems that have tripped up other politicians in New York in recent decades. ... The Lazio campaign did not provide originals of the returns, and they did not include the dates they were filed.
So perhaps there was a good reason for Clinton to pressure Lazio ? What is Obama's reason ?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06EFD61E31F93AA1575BC0A9669C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
I want to add too, very important here, that Lazio was a Republican ! Not another Dem. That situation is *nothing* like the current one.
Btw, Clinton IS going to release her tax returns. If you're whining about a delay, they're not even due til April 15. If they have to pay, they wouldn't file early.
You know I was so prepared to try to answer you UNTIL you had the freaking nerve to say Lazio was a Republican.
Hillary didn’t give a damn that Obama was a fellow Democrat when she said not once but several times that McCain was a better fit for the role of commander in chief but Obama was not. Hillary didn’t give a damn that Obama was a Democrat so it DOES NOT matter that Lazio is a Republican IF were going to play by the Clinton rules.
I truly don’t care when Hillary releases her returns YOU used her returns as YOUR example of Obama belittling Hillary. THAT was YOUR choice. I simply pointed out that Hillary seem to find her opponent’s tax return VERY important in her senate race but she wants to make the release of her own in the Presidential race no big deal.
Pearlene_Scott1620 responds: "Did Hillary care about inflecting (sic) a 3rd Bush presidency when she gave the Republicans a perfect ad to use against Obama should he get the nomination? Can't you just see the Republicans (sic) ad in November using Hillary's own words praising McCain and saying Obama only offers a speech. You seem to think that she owes fellow Democrats NOTHING while I should feel responsible for another Bush III. Better check that type of logic somewhere else. Hillary in her campaign for President should NOT do ANYTHING to harm her party's nominee and we know she can't say that." (CAPS in original.)
Let me see if I understand your logic here. You maintain that Sen. Clinton’s campaign rhetoric aimed at Sen. Obama has provided potentially damaging sound bites for Republican campaign ads. And you believe that this shows that the Clintons don’t care about inflicting Bush III on the country. Thus, you need not feel any responsibility for helping a Bush III administration come to power (by not voting for Clinton should she be the Democratic nominee). So, Clinton’s primary campaign tactics are WRONG because they can help the Republicans in the general election. But your refusal to vote for Clinton in the general is NOT WRONG even though it helps the Republicans.
As for your conclusion that I "seem to think that she owes fellow Democrats NOTHING," I don’t know where you get that idea. I believe that Sen. Clinton owes the Democratic Party a great deal. In fact, I decry a growing number of Clinton’s low campaign tactics, and I think that it would be in the Party’s bests interests if Clinton withdrew and threw her whole-hearted support behind Sen. Obama. That being said, I just doesn’t see how voting against the Democratic Party’s candidate (and not voting is the same as a vote for McCain in my book), no matter how unpalatable that candidate’s campaign tactic might be, can be viewed in anything other than harming the Party’s nominee, the Party itself, and the country as a whole.
You also assert that "[Sen. Clinton] is determined to win NO MATTER WHAT THE COST. SHE wants to be the nominee AT ANY COST and SHE IS WILLING TO DESTROY THE PARTY IN ORDER TO WIN." (Caps in original.) And, yet, you seem to want to punish the Clintons for their campaign tactics "no matter what the cost." Are you really willing to diminish even slightly the Democratic Party’s chances in the general election just to avoid "rewarding bad behavior?" Are you willing to do that just because you "don't like [the Clintons] very much?" Unless you can say that you sincerely believe that the country would be better off under President McCain than under President Hillary Clinton, your decision not to vote for Sen. Clinton in the general election seems to me to be very irrational, very personal and, if there are enough voters of the same mind, potentially very destructive for the Democratic Party and this country.
You said:Lest you "reward [the Clintons'] bad behavior," you're willing to inflict (or risk inflicting) a McCain Administration (aka Bush's 3rd term) on this country!?!
You state that I’m willing to inflict or risk but you don't ask the same of a Democratic candidate running for President. You don't ask that candidate why she would compliment a Republican and belittle her fellow Democratic candidate. I get the impression that you think I should just go along becuase anything is better than another Bush. That's kind of funny becuase IMO that is the very reason the Clintons are throwing the kitchen sink at Obama. Hoping that the folks will feel exactly like you do, anything is better than another Bush. Don't pay attention to the crap I said I just needed to get the nomination, I really didn't meant it. I say if the Clintons are willing to go that low IS there a limit to what they will do or say to get what they want? In that respect they don't seem very different than McCain and the Republicans, willing to do ANYTHING to get what they want.
You said I was willing to inflict another Bush presidency as if I'm responsible. Who gave me the feeling of not being willing to vote for them? You seem to feel that I should support the party, I simply ask you why I should support the party and the Democratic nominee for President DOES NOT support the party? I should just let that go huh. Well I’m 73 and this may be my last election and I’m voting based on MY decision. I’ve spent too many years voting for the lessor of two evils. This year I will vote my choice or keep my old butt at home.
Or do you really think that McCain would be a better president that Sen. Clinton? Is punishing, or making an example of, the Clintons worth another four (or 8, or 100) years in Iraq? Worth another massive tax cut? Worth all the plagues and devastation another Republican administration will wreak upon the U.S. and the rest of the world? Worth losing another two, or more, seats on the Supreme Court? Are you really willing to cut their nose off just to spite your face?
Maybe those questions should be asked of the Senator from New York who’s seems more than willing to give America another four (or 8, or 100) years in Iraq? Maybe you should ask the Senator from New York is it worth another massive tax cut, worth all the plagues and devastation another Republican administration will wreak upon the U.S. and the rest of the world just to bring Obama down? Ask the Senator from New York is it's worth losing another two, or more, seats on the Supreme Court? IS HILLARY WILLING TO CUT OFF HER NOSE TO SPITE HER FACE? A yes vote for Hillary as the nominee means she can do anything and say anything, and it's all good as long as it's a win. I say no matter who you there are somethings that are NOT acceptable period!
PEARL:
I don't understand your claims. You say, "Those are questions you should ask of Hillary since she is determined to win NO MATTER WHAT THE COST."
COMMENT: This is vague, and strange. First off, nobody will have any use for a candidate who DOES NOT want to win. EVERY candidate is in the contest to win, and this includes Obama.
Secondly, what does "NO MATTER WHAT THE COST" mean? Will she kill her opponent? Will she drop an atom bomb on a state likely to go against her? Will she campaign with comparisons and contrasts with her opponents, and respond to questions of "character"? This latter "cost", I agree she will incur ... BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT CAMPAIGNING IS ALL ABOUT! Otherwise, there is no reason to vote for one candidate over another. This "WILL DO ANYTHING" charge is so ridiculous, it's employed constantly by Rightwing propagandists generically against ANY Democrat. It's lame, and seems to say something sinister, in total absence of "scorched earth" behavior.
You say, "SHE wants to be the nominee AT ANY COST and SHE IS WILLING TO DESTROY THE PARTY IN ORDER TO WIN."
COMMENT: This is totally illogical. If she were to DESTROY the Democratic Party, then she could not WIN anything. It makes no sense. Also, it presupposes that Obama LOSING would by definition destroy the party. Sorry, but he doesn't have that power.
To be sure, primaries can weaken, temporarily, candidates who go up against each other ... but it strengthens all candidates in the long run. After all, the Republicans will unleash every negative they can think of against the nominee in the general election. It's much better to have already dealt with such issues.
So, since Hillary will NOT "do anything" to win, and will NOT "destroy" the Democratic Party, I don't see anything credible in your post. Sorry.
TEX:
BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT CAM PAIGNING IS ALL ABOUT!
Watching years of politics I’ve learned, don’t say anything about your opponent in the primary that the opposition can use in the general. Hillary's given the Republican this ammo:
“I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” March 1, 2008
and this
she told reporters at a news conference Monday in Toledo: “I have a lifetime of experience I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain [the presumptive Republican nominee] has a lifetime of experience he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002″ March 4th, 2008
and
I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold,” the New York senator told reporters crowded into an infant’s bedroom-sized hotel conference room in Washington. “I believe that I’ve done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy,” she said. Calling McCain, the presumptive GOP nominee a good friend and a “distinguished man with a great history of service to our country,” Clinton said, “Both of us will be on that stage having crossed that threshold. That is a critical criterion for the next Democratic nominee to deal with.” Washington DC on March 6, 2008
Hillary and Bill give more compliments to McCain than his fellow Republicans.
I'm sure she wanted to stop Obama but if for no other reason than the strength of the party and the general election that temptation has to be kept in check. Hillary failed.
And by the way Tex, IF YOU DON’T SEE ANYTHING CREDITABLE IN MY POSTS WHY BOTHER TO RESPOND?
campaign with comparisons and contrasts with her opponents, and respond to questions of "character".
Thats fine. Its the unnecessary complimenting of the other party's candidate (as Pearlene had repeatedly documented) that is the problem for me.
Carlile - Why do so many Obama supporters have to hate the Clintons in order to like Barack? You rarely see Clinton supporters so motivated.
Actually, I very frequently see Clinton supporters "so motivated." And to a surprising degree on this board, which tends to be more civil than many. I'm not denying that there is a significant distaste for Clinton among some Obama supporters, but there isn't anything close to the imbalance you suggest.
Beyond that, there is something you might consider. Are the Obama supporters who are most adamantly against Clinton like that because they are Obama supporters? Or are they Obama supporters because they believe Clinton has earned their adamant opposition? I'm detecting in you a hatred of Obama that is more firmly based in your support of Clinton than in anything specific about Obama. I could be wrong, but the impression is strong and I'm not alone in it.
At the start of this year I felt that I could have enthusiastically supported Clinton, Obama or Edwards. Edwards was my first choice, and Clinton and Obama were closely tied in my mind, based on very different strengths. However, Clinton has taken a lower road during the campaign which means that my support for her if she won the nomination would be much less enthusiastic.
If you warp that perspective into Clinton hatred, I think it says more about you than about me or the candidates.
Carlileb,
When the primaries began, I was an Obama supporter, but I didn't have anything against Hillary. I would have voted for either candidate, whoever got the nomination. But once it became clear that Clinton could not win the nomination without either 1. syphoning off pledged delegates from Obama, or 2. convincing the super-delegates to swing the count in her favor, despite the will of the people, then she decided to "throw the kitchen sink" at Obama. I find this "scorched earth" policy of primary campaigning despicable and I believe that it has hurt the Democratic party and, if Obama is the nominee, has given McCain more than enough fodder to undermine his national campaign. In essence, every time she attacks him personally, she is adding more points to the McCain column. And when something comes out of the Hillary campaign, either her or her top advisers have directed that attack, because Clinton's campaign is the traditional top-down model of campaigning, run similar to a corporation. Obama's, on the other hand, is wholly from the bottom up, which is why he can win so many caucuses.
Also, her campaign has lied continuously, and has a double standard applied to it that is just out-right wrong. Case in point: The NAFTA controversy. Obama's staff weren't the ones who contacted the Canadian Government to tell them he didn't really mean what he said about NAFTA, it was Clinton's. Yet she was quick to come out and say that his staff had done this, however un-true it may have been.
Another case in point: The Ferraro/Powers comments. Samantha Powers called Clinton a "monster" in an off the cuff remark overseas to an Irish newspaper. Within 24 hours she was off the campaign. Ferraro says Obama is lucky to be in this race because he's a black man (an absurd statement, even if you think it's true) not once, but at least three times, And yet Clinton initially refused to kick her off the campaign, and in fact a lot of Clinton surrogates came out and supported that argument.
And lastly, Carville has called Bill Richardson "Judas," because he chose to endorse Obama. And why? because, as Carville said, he wanted to "brand" his act of betrayal. That kind of rhetoric tells me two things. 1. Clinton's campaign is trying to polarize Obama's supporters, and 2. the Clinton campaign believes it is entitled to this nomination. This notion of entitlement is especially divisive, because they see as their right to throw everything they've got at Obama, and the Democratic party be damned.
So no, I do not hate Hillary Clinton. I would have voted for her if she was the nominee 2 months ago. However, I hate how she has run her campaign and, to me, she may as well be just another Republican.
If, at the end of the primaries, Obama is in the lead in both pledged delegates and the popular vote, and Clinton convinces the super-delegates that he is not electable (by such faulty logic as "He wouldn't win California in the general because I won it in the primary,) then I am going to sit this election out, and I know plenty of people who are going to do the same.
DBEDEN:
Until Kerry and Kennedy switch their support to Clinton because that is "the WILL of the PEOPLE" in their state of Massachusetts, which Hillary won handily, then don't be talking about "siphoning off delegates" who should be voting with "the will of the people".
And as long as Michigan and Florida are not counted, there will be a pall on the "legitimacy" of ANY claim to delegates OR popular vote ... because those counts are artifically truncated, and through no fault of the candidates OR the voters. Making absolute statements about what's "FAIR" in a process which is so patently UNFAIR (so far) is not credible.
The Democrat's process, admittedly, has strange rules, and has been unfair to certain segments of the electorate, but even so is run much more "democratically" than the more-sure-to-avoid-conflict Republican process of "winner take all" (I don't know who would be favored in delegates if the Dems had this process, but probably the candidate who won California, New York, Ohio, and Florida -- and that ain't the current "front runner").
So all this talk about "changing the rules" and how delegates "SHOULD" vote is just nonsense at this point. Both Hillary and Obama are great candidates, either would make good presidents, either would be light years superior to Bush or his 3rd-Term proxy, McCain.
So let the process unfold, and we'll have a good and winning nominee. The only "HURRY" seems to be coming from the MEDIA, who love to call outcomes without any input from actual American citizens and voters.
My personal choice is Hillary (with Obama as VP set to take HIS two terms at the end of Hillary's two terms), but I'll be happy to support Obama should the system sort him out on top.
"Until Kerry and Kennedy switch their support to Clinton because that is "the WILL of the PEOPLE" in their state of Massachusetts, which Hillary won handily, then don't be talking about "siphoning off delegates" who should be voting with "the will of the people"."
Ahh but Tex, are they not super-delegates? And was I not talking strictly about pledged delegates? Because that is the talk right now from the Clinton campaign, in that pledged delegates don't HAVE to vote the way their electorate voted.
Super-delegates can do whatever they want, that I do not have a problem with.
And I don't see how Obama can be Clinton's VP, unless we just forget that Clinton said Obama has no experience, and hasn't passed that "Presidential threshold test." I mean, she doesn't think he's ready to be President, but he can be Vice President? What if something happens to Hillary and he becomes President? He won't be prepared!
DBEDEN:
First, you say, "Because that is the talk right now from the Clinton campaign, in that pledged delegates don't HAVE to vote the way their electorate voted."
Am I missing something? Where do I go to see where it's spelled out that "pledged delegates" DO have to vote the way of their "electorate"? It's "traditional", to be sure, but is is iron-clad? Is it MANDATED?
Second, Hillary could easily tap Obama for the VP slot. Campaigning creates distinctions, and makes comparisons of DEGREE, but in the final analysis, Obama is more qualified than GW Bush was, than Dan Quayle was, or any number of "top spot" holders. Bottom line, half the voting Democrats think Obama IS qualified to be President, and in America, campaigning does not determine who is qualified ... the VOTERS decide.
Third, Obama will gain the high-level experience he needs as VP, which will position him perfectly to run for the top spot in eight years, and he will still be a young man. THAT would be "best" for the Democratic Party in the long run.
So let the process unfold, and we'll have a good and winning nominee. The only "HURRY" seems to be coming from the MEDIA, who love to call outcomes without any input from actual American citizens and voters. - Tex
Interesting perspective on the media. Many others (including myself) are of the opinion that the media is drawing this out, trying to milk it for all the excitement they can. I'm of the opinion that they trumpeted the Wright non-story as much as they did for the purpose of bringing the race closer.
I am in agreement that we should just let the process unfold. I don't believe it's hurting the party as much as others do. If I were Clinton I definitely wouldn't quit the race at this point. Even with the odds against her, it would be foolish when we all know that unforeseen factors could quickly change everything.
DBEDEN: I could quibble with several points, but I will stick to the case where you are demonstrably wrong: the so-called NAFTAgate. You must have stopped paying attention to this a day early.
An Obama advisor named Austan Goolsbee made the original contact about NAFTA, saying don't worry about the campaign rhetoric. The Canadian consulate wrote a memo about the meeting and sent it up.
For what I can only guess are Canadian internal political considerations, Ian Brodie, the chief of staff of PM Stephen Harper, then claimed the Clinton campaign had been the culprit, not Obama's.
Whereupon the Clinton campaign issued an unqualified denial and gave Canada "blanket immunity" to reveal the name of the Clinton staffer who supposedly made the contact.
The next day, Harper's office issued a statement correcting Brodie, saying that no Clinton source had ever contacted Canada about NAFTA, and that the Goolsbee contact on behalf of Obama was the only one.
It's not a good idea to accuse someone of being a liar when they have indeed told the truth. It makes your stronger points against Clinton seem less credible.
I guess I did stop paying attention to it a day early...but I will look that up to make sure, thank you for pointing that out.
While I will concede that point, I will make another. When Clinton claimed in her Bosnia trip that she undertook sniper fire, when in fact she did not and her account was wrong on that matter, why did the Clinton campaign come out and say that it was because of "exhaustion" or that she was tired. Does this not refute her 3 a.m. ad that she is ready to take that phone call? What if she's tired?
Oh, and the whole NAFTA-gate deal was a bust for both candidates, according to Newsweek. So from now on, I'll leave that point alone.
I miss the news, with all of societies advances its sad to see that news has regressed
I certainly did not start out disliking the Clintons.
I voted for Bill Clinton twice and supported him through Lewinskygate (better than Hillary did but then he didn't cheat on me).
But when he as much as sold pardons to some very unsavory people at the end of his presisdency, the bloom was well off the rose.
However, the despicable gutter politics -- ex-Clinton friend and official Bill Richardson got that smack on -- engaged in by the Clintons, the not-even disguised racial strategizing, the attempts to marginalize Obama at the expense of the party... these things can not be forgiven.
I wish Obama supporters would spend more time talking about his qualifications to be President and less time repeating the same old garbage about the Clintons.
To Pearlene ....is it necessary to call people "insane" because they don' t agree with you.
His qualifications to be President are about the same as Clinton's, which is why Obama supporters and Clinton supporters focus on the negatives of the other.
In truth, there is no real difference between the two. Their voting records are very similar, but Obama's is slightly more liberal. Both have little to no foreign policy experience, and both have laid out almost identical plans for health-care, education, and other domestic policies. (Yeah, there are some differences, but from what I've seen, those differences negate each other.)
Obama has one major advantage: He did not vote for the authorization to allow the President to wage war. Yes, he was not in the senate at the time, but he was vocal in his opposition to this vote at the time. And yes, Senator Clinton perhaps believed that she was only voting for the weapons inspectors to be put back in to Iraq, and war as a last resort, but that just tells me she didn't actually read the whole bill, or did and voted anyway as a matter of political expediency. The 23 senators who voted against the war must have read it and voted on principle.
And yes, Obama has voted for the funding for the war since he came into the Senate, but so has Clinton, and it's my firm belief that both did so to make sure the troops got what they needed on the ground.
First, I want to sincerely thank you for writing "vote for authorization to allow the President to wage war: instead of writing, as most Clinton haters do, "vote for the war".
Clinton does have more Senate experience. Also, she was in the White House for 8 years, and you know this smart, well-educated, and motivated woman was privvy to ALL info, even if she wasn't an official. She might as well have been a junior Vice Prez. We should never discount the knowledge and experience those 8 years brought.
Clinton does have more Senate experience.
But she is still referred to as THE JUNIOR Senator from New York.
Also, she was in the White House for 8 years, and you know this smart, well-educated, and motivated woman was privvy to ALL info, even if she wasn't an official. She might as well have been a junior Vice Prez. We should never discount the knowledge and experience those 8 years brought.
LOL
She didn't have Natl. Security Clearance and IF Bill told her issues of Natl Security HE WAS BREAKING THE LAW! She never attended a Natl Security meeting, she NEVER read a Presidential Daily Briefing and she could be in the ROOM when Natl Sec. issues were discussed.
To Pearlene ....is it necessary to call people "insane" because they don' t agree with you
Yes it is. Car keeps insisting that I hate the Clinton no matter how many times I tell him that I don't. He thinks that being critical of the Clintons means I hate them no matter how many times I explain that I don't hate anyone. THAT meets my definition of insane. Anything else?
I agree with Chris Matthews and the panel's view on the Clinton's intentions. It is evident that the Clinton's do not care about the Democratic Party or our great Nation but onlymotivated by power and self exaltation !
This country should have enough of the Clinton's divisiveness. Wherever they are, there is division and discord. To cite a few of the many examples: During the Clinton Administration the Democrats lost the majority in both houses- continuous fighting amongst themselves (Democrats). Look at the list of persons associated with Bill and Hillary, who have died under a cloud of suspicion. What about Whitewater and Bill's extra martial activities, which dates back to him being the Governor of Arkansas?
How quickly America forgets about all of this and is ready to plunge back into the drama. I am not surprised at the recent challenges Obama, the lead candidate for the Democratic Party, is now experiencing. Hillary said she was going to throw the kitchen sink at him, recklessly disregarding the wounds she is afflicting on the party. The words to describe this is pure selfish ambition.
WAKE UP DEMOCRATS BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE !
As long as we are talking about insanity, Loisscoon's comments fit the bill. Anyone who mentiuons Whitewater is a Republican stooge. That whole thing was a fabrication by Jeff Gerth of the NYTimes, and the bipartisan hack Ken Starr spent millions and millions investigating trhe Clintons over Whitewater and found NOTHING!
Also tasteless is this accusation that the Clintons committed several murders. There is no evidence of this, it is just tin-foil hat shit.
The founder of this site, David Brock, used to be one of the main right-wing hit men spreading those stories. Loisscoon, I suggest you read Brock's book, "Blinded by the Right," where he confesses to making up all of these wild stories and anything else he could think of to destroy the Clintons as part of a group called the Arkansas Project. Brock's work here is an attempt to atone for his sins.
Whitewater? Murder? You are a nut.
Can't Obama supporters see how the right wing attack machine is manipulating the democratic party.
The evil mind of Karl Rove:-
Why is the media soft on Obama?
Because corperate america (media included) want Obama to win the nomination. He is a pawn for them to squash...he dosen't' even see it coming.
Why else did Karl Rove give advice to Obama on how to win against Clinton
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dee0a6e8-a109-11dc-...
Karl Rove knew from the begining if he could keep the democrats at bay ...spend all their money and hopefully split the party base... BINGO
Rove did get lucky when moveon,org backed Obama over Hillary after the Iowa caucus. Money and supporters moved in.
Obviously he knew about Obamas church... the crazy evangelicals now call Obama the Anti Christ.
McCain dosn't even need to worry about "his base" any more...just keep whispering Jerimiah and they are Roves and faux news to manipulate.
Now McCain can choose a moderate as his running mate. Someone like lieberman to pull the independents over. They will think him wise for not taking on a evangelical nutter. they will even think him a moderator rather than a divider.
...
Why is Rezco or John O Brennan Passport scandal) not in the media yet ?.....simple they don't need use that card yet.
Rove (and media) knows that Hillary is starting to gain momentum.
Back off time. That can come later.
Clever wouldn't you say.
If the neocons get in this time.....at the rate they are eroding the constiutuin it might be the last time we see a democratic election.
While everyone was harping on about what Hillary was doing 12 years ago Pentagon admits mistaken missile shipment to Taiwan.
The lies and treacherous acts hide in the small print while the media feeds us all the gossip of the day.
It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.
Winston Churchill