“This year my party had a united and fairly good run ahead of them. However, our power brokers decided to misuse the strengths of the party that might have given that good run to do a power play. They probably destroyed our party's two top stars for their own petty reasons. Howard Dean, the party leader, took sides early on and made it all possible. First as a party we all wanted both of these people to have a turn at the top. We believed they would. First, our popular democratic workhorses would fix the damage to the nation. While the first stars achieved the repairs, our popular new star would get a bit more experience to be in a position to come up when he was needed in future years at the top of the ticket. Sadly our older leaders are not free of the prejudices they are claiming the American people must deal with in this election. Some of them did not want a woman on the top of the ticket, some of them did not want a clean Clinton legacy in history as it would again eclipse other democratic family traditions. So they put a plan in motion that has wasted our talent in an exhausting primary.
These selfish and shortsighted party "leaders" Kennedy, Kerry, Daschell et al. have destroyed our party over and over again for their own power grabs, but this is their worst treachery yet. Now they have forced the whole party to choose between the two great unforgiveable sins to democrats; vote one way, appear to be a misogynist, vote the other way, appear to be a racist. Just as the party was saying unite, in steps another power grabber, Pelosi, and pronounces unification is dead on arrival. Why? First, unpopular in our party and seeking popularity, she's made an open secret of backing Obama, second she does not want another female first. Currently she holds the first for the highest national political power seat for a woman. She is aiming higher at the Vice Presidential spot on the ticket. Now she has been trumped for that on the Obama ticket by Richardson. Powerful people in the party are destroying each other and climbing over the bodies to find a new leg up on a ladder falling away from the building.
Left over for all of us is the place everyone will most likely land. If our candidates make it on the ticket, bloody or not, we will vote for them. If not many of us will not vote or we will cross lines to try to change the other party. The damage is probably already too great for that slim margin of voters who actually win general elections to swing it to the democrats. In the end, all the candidates will retain their current titles and spend a lot more time in the senate as also rans. The party destroyers who have been buying the bullets for our circular firing sqads will start planning and restocking bullets to kill the next successful candidates that might expose them for the useless status quo supporters of their trust funds that they are, and President McCain will be under pressure to do the right thing and fix the damage his party did to our nation. Another turning point in history will have turned the wrong direction thanks to a revered democratic party traditon of power grabbing self destruction.”
dawlishgal on Mar 23, 2008 at 19:58:41
“Don't forget....if there is a war with Howard Dean, it was started by the Clintons and their creepy little slimer, James Carville. They tried to get Dean fired even after his strategy led to the Democratic congressional majorities in 2006. The Clintons have their own group, the DLC, the corporate Republican-Lite version of the Party. The corporate-kissing branch of the Party even held meetings in which duly-elected members of congress were bullied into voting to fund Bush's war. Their case for the right turn: "who else are the progressives going to vote for anyhow." I guess they were so arrogant that they didn't consider the risks in their takeover attempt and their coup to shift the party FAR to the right. Re"who are progressives going to vote for anyhow:: I suspect that the war-loving, corprate-sucking Clintons are finding out the answer to that question.
I was told about these meetings on good authority...a chief aide to a congressman who actually thought I would be happy about this conservative crapola gaining ascendence. They seem to think that the more they suck up to Bush and blame it on the small size of the majority, the bigger the majority they will get in November. Nevermind that voting WITH Republicans for Bushie stuff and Bush vetoing Democratic stuff are two totally different things. Let me repeat this: THEY, the Clintons and their fellow triangulators bullied a policy through in which our elected officials, especially the newly elected ones, chose to VOTE with REPUBLICANS to give Bush what he wanted to pursue his war. And they want Democrats to believe that this is a good thing. They think they can successfully blame their capitulation to Bush on their small majority even though they had a plenty large enough majority to stop Bush.”
JohnHB on Mar 23, 2008 at 15:34:05
“I'm probably just not following ... Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your point.
It appears that you're suggesting jealousy has led old-line party traditionalists (Pelosi???) to nix Clinton's generous offer of a veep slot to Obama. Clinton was of course ever so kind to offer the slot, given that she's behind in delegates, popular vote, and states won.
Or do you think Clinton would ever have accepted the veep slot?
How about just recognizing that Obama's broad popularity and delegate lead is his own achievement; the Dream Ticket is just that - a dream that was never going to happen. The person doing damage to the party is Clinton; she can't accept that she's not simply entitled to the presidency.”
“Erica we know how you feel. However, I won't confuse graciousness with submissiveness. Hillary was gracious last night, she was not submissive. That is why so many people are so mad at her. They want her to submit, act humiliated, accept the pride of the winner and the gloats of his followers. Hurry, up, hurry up Hillary submit so we can walk you through Rome in front of the jeering crowds and then move on. That is not the kind of person she is and we all know it. The fact is if any male candidate curried as many votes and wins as she did they would be negotiated with as a power broker in the party and given respect for their position. Sadly, in the current Washington power circles there is a determination to remove the Clintons from Washington and if possible the party. How come none want to give the woman time to plan what she wants to ask for? She has been working 24/7 towards the goal of the top of the ticket. Why can't she have a little time to reset her goals and plan a gracious change of direction? Doing that won't change Obama's role in history except to possibly make him look like a wiser more experienced candidate.”
“Clyburn is very nice indeed, putting out this story and not saying what was said. He knows what word people will insinuate Clinton used. Nonsense. This is just part of the effort in the Obama camp, which Clyburn has been in as quickly as he could find a reason to make public, part of the effort to make Pres. Clinton an issue so Obama can shaft Sen. Clinton at the Convention and up until the convention. I hope Pres. Clinton trumps him and makes the conversation public. Obama's surrogates have wanted to run a campaign against Bill Clinton from day one, shopping around that flimsy stuff that Vanity Faire finally printed after every TV pundit said they turned it down despite daily calls from Axelrod. The Obama camp needs to find a good, powerful and complimentary role for Sen. Clinton in the party or the new administration, stop running against good democrats and set their sites on the republicans. I think the Obama folks need to get a reality check, the convention is over a month away and it is a bit early to be throwing out 18 million extra blue state votes.”
ErinOK on Jun 4, 2008 at 17:49:37
“Yes, Obama has been out to bring Bill into this since day one. My God, he mentioned the impeachment so many times. Back to reality now...Obama has been gracious toward the Clintons most of the time. Yes, there were times that he went off message and he owned up to it. I has stated many, many times that he is not perfect. When was the last time either Clinton admitted a mistake? When it really comes down to it, it is Obama vs. McCain. If people want to vote for more war, more recession, less women's rights, and an even more negative reputation across the globe, their vote should go for McCain. Did you listen to the speeches last night? Obama gave Clinton tons of kudos and she could not even congratulate him for getting the delegates needed to clinch the nomination. Stop trying to make it out that Obama has been attacking the Clintons because it is just not true.”
Heru1 on Jun 4, 2008 at 17:24:52
“Pro-choice feminists ain't going anywhere unless they'd like to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Your threat is more like a whine.”
Independent voter on Jun 4, 2008 at 17:24:22
“Paranoid a little? Shaft clinton at the convention? What are you rambling about?
The clintons SHAFTED THEMSELVES with the way they acted during the campaign.
If the 18 million that you quote are Democrats, then they will support the Democratic ticket
By the way, I think that a very appropriate role for senator clinton would be Ambassador to Bosnia.”
UpstateNY on Jun 4, 2008 at 17:06:56
“The Primary season is over - we have an nominee. The Obama camp is no longer running against Clinton since has the delegates for the nomination and he is now running for the Presidency.
I hope that President Clinton makes his conversation public as well - should be interesting! And no one is throwing 18 million votes (they are democrats and, hopefully, most with vote for the democrat) At least they will give him a chance and listen to what he says. He is really very close to Hillary on all the issues - McCain is very, very far on the issues.
That should be it 'case closed!" - unless you think it is okay to hold a candidate ransom?”
cyndeewi on Jun 4, 2008 at 16:58:27
Do you people ever blame anyone else besides Obama? I bet if you stumped your toe, you would swear Obama was underfoot. God forbid if your computer does not work, you would swear Obama broke it. When is it not Obama's fault? If the Clinton's look sick, Obama gave them something. If Bill makes a mistake, Obama made him do it.”
PhDiva on Jun 4, 2008 at 16:55:54
“So now it's Clyburn's fault that Clinton called him a name?”
Bullyness on Jun 4, 2008 at 16:50:40
“At some point in both Bill and Hillary's life they will have to accept, it is NOT everyone else's fault. Hopefully, their apologist will soon follow.”
“His win in Iowa had not one thing to do with race. Iowans could care less about race. They always pick the democratic candidate who is in their estimation the most liberal one the Kennedy wing of the party puts up. I don't think they even care much about message as long they are very liberal and they also have to have one other qualification. A love of pie and coffee. I remember one Iowan saying he would not vote for a candidate who would not call him back personally or who he had not eaten pie with. It is that simple.”
“You did not hear the Obama camp infer even once that she wasn't electable due to her gender? Good grief. I chose not to support him in the primaries but even I listened to more of his speeches and went to more of his events than a lot of his supporters apparently did. Did none of you Obama folks listen to what he actually said??? Of course he said that and a lot of other unflattering stuff. Speech after speech he said Hillary should not be the candidate because too many people said they would never vote for her because she was a woman. He had to fire a surrogate for calling her a bitch and worse to a reporter on the record. Not because she did the wrong thing, only because she got caught on record.
His speeches in events were covered on tv in full, her's seldom were allowed more than a soundbite. The only reason I even got to hear a complete Clinton speech before the primary here in CA was she did several events here. Now he needs our votes too since there are not enough republicans and independents to swing it. Still you are all online kicking Hillary and her voters with her. Next summer she and Sen. Obama can hash it all out together in the Senate lunch room while they work on President McCain's proposals.”
Apr 19, 2008 at 16:25:08
“Performance artists can be a phyically dangerous group using fireworks, gunpowders, chemicals to create effects, even self mutilation but this, good grief. Not even edgy or gross, just sad. Clearly this young woman needs some counseling and her professors need to lead the way. She could have made this point and this "art" by simulating this stuff without risking her life, which she did, or risking what many believe to be another life. (I say that as a pro -choice dem). Some herbs that cause abortions are extremely dangerous and can kill women too and cause permanent damage to the body. That is a great part of the reason for our abortion laws. There are many herbal abortion victims lying in their graves today. Our bodies deserve better than to cheapen and risk themwith dangerous and questionable class projects.
I have always said all art is not for all people, and felt edgy art should push boundiaries but this time it would be good if Yale got some medical help for this woman before she starts emulating more talented but equally insane persons in the art world and seriously hurts herself or others. Also why did no one in this controversy mention the dangers of bringing untested bodily fluids into potential contact with the public? Yale Med School is a leader in Aids treatments and research, I hope they spoke up against it.”
Roomer on Apr 20, 2008 at 00:33:47
“That you discount her as "broken" doesn't really help the discussion.
I think we need a few of these daring types to challenge our conventions every once in a while.”
“Who cares? If the voters won't fight to get those machines banned as they did in many places here in California, they can't complain at the election. Besides there has not been an election yet where Clinton was favored where Obama did not claim some kind of fraud. His camp just cannot accept they don't win all the time.”
“Wow, imagine a president who coldly and clearly analyzes problems and searches out effective solutions. Nah, we sure don't need any of that in the leader of the free world. Emotions should override every issue. I never realized before that our White House problems all these years have been caused by a lack of self help books and tissue dispensers at Camp David and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.!”
Ajita on Apr 20, 2008 at 13:13:21
“Nice attempt to obfuscate the issue. Clinton "coldly and clearly" analyzed the blue collar voting public, not the issues. There is a big difference. Now go back and look at how she has dealt with the issues and you will see that her every move is designed to speak to some interest of hers and not the interest of the public in general.”
“Not only are they not "working class" they are mostly not registered voters. Yep it's true, these reporters generally DO NOT VOTE. They don't register and vote to keep up the illusion of non-biased participation in our elections. They do their best to influence our elections but they don't vote.
People should ask when they interfere "what possible interest would so and so with his/her slew of degrees many of them Ivy League, with million plus a year salaries have in stopping a candidate I like?" It comes down to this, if they are not registered, and don't vote, then they will try to influence the election to best support their paychecks. That means they want either the Republican, since they are clearly in the top circle of earners, or the corporate interests of their employers to succeed to protect those checks. They promote the weakest possible democrat, attack and weaken the strongest oppenent to the corporate Republican.That is that.
The inside Washington press circles are the anti -Clinton club. It diverts attention away from Bush's failures when they openly refused to seriously cover or call for investigations on, or some cases, like Iraq, shamelessly cheer. They know if Clinton is nominated it will be an unbeatable team of Clinton/Obama. If Obama, his people will block Clinton on the ticket. Another weak opponent for Republicans to destroy like Gore and Kerry. Press tax brackets, jobs, and pay stay protected thanks to the "working class" press.”
jade7243 on Apr 19, 2008 at 21:51:02
“they assume that because they are not the "idle rich", that because they show up for their gigs everyday, that's "working class."”
“Luckily for all the Black communites in the US, and Africa that the various Clinton foundations pour money and effort into, the Clintons still keep working to help out even when they are being so badly slandered.”
“Biased? When for months the MSM has run dabtes that allowed Obama to run on forever and then always come back and change answers when he did not do well? If Clinton wanted to come back to correct herself or re-answer questions it was always "we will return after the break". Get over it. He needs to toughen up. Saying he rejects the "old style" tough politics while at the same time saying he wants to play "Chicago style" politics just shows he is not ready. He is tough only if the opponent is not allowed a fair playing field. If Obama has to answer tough and trivial stuff well welcome to American politics. The Obama camp is in daily overdrive slamming and sliming Clinton. The press talks about their cell phone calls to reporters constantly. If he isn't tough enough to be clear and upfront about his stuff then he needs a few more years of practice outside the White House. The day he can get through a debate with a short, clear answer that does not need half a dozen follow up corrections and rephrasings there might be better reasons to start to have some confidence he could be a leader not a compromiser. Right now he looks wishy washy and weak. The debate just revealed that he is thin skinned and cannot take the stuff that politics dishes out.”
Sabreen60 on Apr 20, 2008 at 00:33:55
“OR, the debate showed he was unwilling to get low down and dirty. It's what's in your wheelhouse.”
“He did not compare to Edwards because prior to that the reporters had been discussing Clinton's previous wins and they had also been discussiing Jackson earlier in the conversations. That is a good example of out of context selective reporting. Too bad you and many others fell for it. I like Jackson, always have, I was surprised so many consider his name some kind of insult to black voters.”
Sabreen60 on Apr 20, 2008 at 00:01:24
“I'm sure Rev. Jackson is a good man. However, it just goes to show you that African Americans don't just vote for someone because he happens to be black. I heard that ignorant Bob Johnson (I don't care how much money he has) denigrate Black Americans by saying that they vote for Sen. Obama simply because he is Black and they have some emotional non-objective reason for voting for him. Bob Johnson also lied when he said that 90% of African Americans voted for Obama when he first entered the race. African Americans didn't know Sen. Obama so they went with Sen. Clinton. Only after Sen. Obama became known did he attract voters. Of course, CNN let Bob Johnson say this without any rebuttal. I guess when you're a billionaire and you, with others, write a threatening letter to Pelosi (which caused her to back off) you get a pass to say whatever the hell you want.”
“Got news for you "activists" who think you are the only voters who can win this election year. NOT. This past year the "activists" teamed with money, MSM, and the blogs to block the majority of posts that don't fawn over Obama. This has given many "activists" the mistaken impression our elections can be bought and bulllied into specific outcomes. They have painted his "activist" turnouts in red states where no dem will win as huge victories, and the "activists" have fllooded local venues and the internet with the most offensive sexist, ageist, stuff I have ever seen. Not to mention the disdain and cruel comments aimed at those hardworking americans who cannot afford those Ivy league towers.
Posters at this site and others have attacked non Obama voters as ignorant, old, uneducated, called voters who would not support the Obama camp racists and other offensive names. If that is what these "new activists" bring, keep it. No party in America needs it in any election. The voters and leaders you disdain dumped that stuff decades ago for good reason. That is really what weakens, divides, and destroys political parties, it eventually remade the Republicans into failures and it won't help the dems. This buy it and bully it "activism" has given many Americans a vision they wil be happy to reject if Obama is the nominee.”
“Both Clintons are from poor families. Bill's dad died when he was an infant and his stepdad did not survive his childhood. He worked his way through college and was raised by his widowed mom who was a nurse. Hillary's dad was a coal miner and factory worker. They did not get silver spoon childhoods. They did not buy their first home until leaving the White House.
The Obama's, who are Ivy league attorneys, as well as politicians, have tax returns that showed a million a year in income and salaries. That is not poor by any standards except Oprah Winfrey's and Donald Trump's. If they earned that much, just paid off their student loans, and still can't buy arugula and piano lessons in the midwest then what has America come to? I know a lot of people who earn just above the poverty line who slowly pay off their student and house loans, get their kids through schools, eat plain iceberg lettuce, and find a way to get piano lessons for the kids. Who is the Obama piano teacher, Rachmaninoff?”
“Obama's placement on a state government committee overseeing hospitals by a governer on trial for corruption that had potential benefit for their billionaire friend Reszko, while Mrs. Obama served on the board of one of those hospitals does not bother you? It is shady too, very shady.”
“More noteworthy that a Harvard professor wants to back up Obama, the first Harvard grad in years, if ever, to have a chance to win the dem. nomination for Pres.. I wonder what that win would do for Harvard's enrollement and esteem?”
VicPerry on Apr 14, 2008 at 00:19:58
“Yeah, it's a big conspiracy because like Harvard needs the prestige real bad”
“You haven't been around many democrats who are centrists and there are a lot of us. She is acting like a democrat but most of the Obama supporters with their over the top attacks on fellow dems are certainly not. Our party has never been about bullying fellow dems with purient name calling or attacking people who are older, or less educated, or poor.
A lot of new voters whose first election votes were with the green party and its radical platform don't get that. The people doing all the hard democratic party work, women, older -persons, blue collar voters, people of color are not rich uber- educated persons. They're poor, or middle class people hoping their kids will have a better job or education than they got. When the Clinton's were in office those people achieved their goals in greater numbers than any time in post WWII history.
The Obama voters have done more damage for their candidate with their cruel and eliteist comments about Hillary and her voters than any ads. On these lists and blogs we keep saying that if Obama knew what his backers where posting in his name he would be shocked. His latest comments about small town Americans just prove he has been leading the pack in this stuff not working without an understanding of it. If this is how Obama "unites" we are all in deep trouble. No one can win an American election without the votes of middle class Americans and women.”
LaurenST on Apr 14, 2008 at 21:23:51
“She has done the damage all by herself.
Bosnia 3 times she repeated her lies.
Between her and Bill pumping up John McCain while putting down Barack.
She is a self center egotistical maniac.
with her attitude that she owns the white house.
we no longer live under Monarchy Rule,
we fought that along time ago.
she cooked shut off the stove.”
Disparaged on Apr 14, 2008 at 06:10:05
“westview, If you can't follow what Obama said in SF or you can't read or listen to the tapes which actually explain every word, then I suggest you get an education so you can understand. Until then, just go to bed! You are obtuse! Please look it up so you will be sure to understand exactly what I said. I have had enough of people like you and I am sick to death of reading your stupidity.”
“Who is the carpetbagger? The handpicked candidate of the billionaire political corrupter from Illinois who grew up in Hawaii or the candidate that was born and raised in PA?”
Pupster on Apr 14, 2008 at 01:36:13
“Hey, does that mean you are willing to take Hillary off our hands? Why did she run here in NY when we don't even want her. Why didn't she run in PA? Please take her!”
JavaCityGal on Apr 14, 2008 at 00:25:25
“according to Wikipedia:
Since 1900 the term has also been used to describe outsiders attempting to gain political office or economic advantage, especially in areas (thematically or geographically) to which they previously had no connection.
Hillary Clinton = carpetbagger”
disgusted48 on Apr 13, 2008 at 22:39:23
“Born in PA, raised in Illinois, lived most of her adult life in Arkansas, million dollar townhouse in Georgetown, Senator of,but not from New York. Carpet bagger or jet setter?”
Peteyman on Apr 13, 2008 at 22:39:08
“"The handpicked candidate of the billionaire political corrupter from Illinois who grew up in Hawaii."
I'm still searching for the meaning of this phrase......... and I have found nothing except a bunch of gibberish being hastily thrown together into a sentence.”
“Everybody weeps that Gore was cheated out of his turn as president. It was only close enough for that because so many voters ran to vote for either Nader or Bush because the press said Gore was an untrustworthy liar who claimed to "invent the internet". They said he lied about his mother's social security. None of that would have mad him a worse President than Bush. It was all campaign crap to distract voters and help a jaded non-voting press play gotcha. The fact is Bosnia is another gotcha piece of crap that the press, the republicans, and Obama are blowing into a fake controversy to play gotcha and hurt a candidate in the election.
In Ireland, one sexist politician on one side of the treaty is attacking Clinton, several top Irish leaders on the other side have backed the Clinton assertions that she had a key role in helping to bring that treaty to agreement. As to the Bosnia stuff from years ago, it is not important now. I think it is odd that so many soldiers were needed on that runway if it was so incredibly safe. Safe greeting ceremonies have soldiers lined up in dress uniforms not surrounding every member of the group in camo with guns and helmets.
And the press at NBC? Russert, Matthews etc have an agenda, it backs Obama. Their actions do not qualify as journalism, their choices of topics and coverage are campaign ads to favor one candidate.”
EosBlue on Apr 14, 2008 at 01:46:50
“My theory as to why the 2000 election ended up so close was the BOMB in the closet that a Democrat unleashed the weekend before the Tuesday election in November. If you've forgotten, it was the "undisclosed" DUI that Bush got in his younger days. If I remember correctly he was leading nationally by around 3-5% before this bomb exploded and he ended up actually losing the popular election by a point or so.
However, as our elections are via the Electoral College, he "won" the election anyway, squeaking out a victory in Florida. However, a footnote to that result would have to mention the infamous butterfly ballot designed by a Florida Democrat. Most experts would agree that the "butterfly" probably threw the election to Bush.
I'm holding my breath and FULLY expecting Billary to pull out a 2008 bomb version of some dirt and try to blow Obama away. The big question is do they do it just before the Pennsylvania Primary or wait and try it just before the Convention IF the Super Delegate count still has the nomination in play. I'm thinking they will try it now as waiting would be a crap shoot.”