Good on the Clinton talking points! Maybe you and the BET CEO could compare notes.
Posted by Bill R. at January 14, 2008 06:55 AMHhhaaaaa-hhhhaaaaa-hhhhaaaaaa-hhaaaaaa.
Wait. I thought you guys weren't a pro-Hillary blog...
Seriously. Why not just put her campaign banner at the top of the site?
Next up: a post that blames Obama for Bob Johnson's racist screed!
Posted by Patrick at January 14, 2008 06:58 AM"stupid remarks by Clinton supporters or surrogates are not the views of the Clintons."
Are you really that naive? Are you really that clueless about how politics works?
Any fools can see this is a conscious strategy by the Clintons:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063544.php
"stupid remarks by Clinton supporters or surrogates are not the views of the Clintons."
Are you really that naive? Are you really that clueless about how politics works?
Any fools can see this is a conscious strategy by the Clintons:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063544.php
The Clinton record on helping African Americans..
How about the case of Charlotte Perry, a well qualified African American woman with three children at home, who was passed over for a job with the state of Arkansas so that an unqualified Gennifer Flowers could get the job instead. A review of the case found then Gov. Clinton had intervened in the case to get a job for his unqualified girlfriend and had acted improperly. Words and actions... Talk is cheap. This was reported on by none other than Murray Waas at Salon, not exactly the wing-nut hit man. http://www.salon.com/news/1998/09/11newsa.html
Expect us all to be discussing the scandals of the 1990s again if Clinton is the nominee. Bill Clinton is front and center in this campaign, and Hillary's candidacy is about Clinton Dynasty 2.0 .
Posted by Bill R. at January 14, 2008 07:08 AMDid the cocaine that Obama put up his nose get brought in the country through Mena?
Just asking.
Getting ugly is ugly.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at January 14, 2008 07:28 AMJeezuz,what is it with you obama supporters? Why do you act like it is illegal for there to be a blog, anywhere, that doesn't support Obama and is willing to consider other candidates? I get it that you like obama but oddly enough your preferences don't rule the world. And as for b'b in pacifica--if you want to dig up right wing lies and throw them at the clintons as an example of what you hope obama will do well, you are simply proving the point of the original post which is that obama and *his* surrogates are not above lying and smearing to get a little political advantage.
I would like to see both campaigns stop this right now, come together, and promise to fight it out on policy issues alone. I'd *really* like to see them hammer away at what they propose to do now and in the next eight years rather than asking their constituencies to take it on faith that they will either live up to, or better, their past records. Neither Clinton nor obama has a great record in the senate on the war. Obama, to my mind, refused to stand up and be counted and so did clinton. If I have to forgive one for preserving his political viability I have to forgive the other. But at this point I'm not interested in who did what when but what each will do in the future.
to the patricks and the other obama trolls--you prove nothing and you move no one by your continued viciousness. The clinton's arent and were'nt perfect but they were never racists and to pretend now that they were is damaging to the coalition that obama himself insists he wants to create. If his supporters and obama can't accept the good that the clintons did in the past they sure as hell can't be trusted to accept into the fold new democrats who have previously voted republican or independent and whose history of anti racist activities are either nil or in the negative column. This won't stop any of you from attacking and trolling this web site but it should. You don't do your cause any good and you are enough to turn the stomach of any serious voter considering obama on his merits. The viciousness with which you are attacking clinton is experienced by potential voters as an attack on generic white democrats and liberals whose basic good faith is also being traduced. Its a stupid strategy on your part.
aimai
Posted by aimai at January 14, 2008 07:38 AMeriposte, another nice post - you can tell by the increasingly shrill whining from the 'bots here. Sadly, showing the fraud on Obama's part won't make headway with Patrick, who obviously has no shame since he's been outed as a fraud, a liar, and a name-stealing asshole who whines about code words, then uses them in the next sentence.
Frankly, I hope Obama and Clinton cancel each other out, and Edwards wins by default.
Posted by iamcoyote at January 14, 2008 07:39 AMIf you guys are true Democrats and want to see if Whitehouse is not occupied by a Republican, you better pressure the Democratic party leadership to stop this bickering between Obama and Clinton. It appears that the Republicans are falling behind McCain and will be united for the general election. However, the Democrats will be divided and when time comes to vote, they will stay home if their candidate is not the nominee. The lack of displine in democratic party will do them in. Wake up guys.
Posted by suresh at January 14, 2008 07:58 AMWith his dishonest performance on Sunday, Timmeh! has secured his place in history with the rest of the talking head lice.
Posted by TIKI AL at January 14, 2008 08:00 AMGospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who has detailed his struggle with gay tendencies and vowed to battle "the curse of homosexuality," said yesterday he'll perform as scheduled, despite controversy over his view that sexuality can be changed by religious intervention."
So are these really Obama's views? They must be, right? Because that's how politics works, according to Patrick.
Obama gets away with this flagrant in-your-face pandering to the haters, spreading ignorance and homophobia which adds to a climate of discrimination against gays --but who cares if it wins him votes in South Carolina? (After all that's the way politics works).
And Mr. Hope & Change didn't apologize, didn't drop McClurkin from his gospel show, and now has the nerve to accuse others of bigotry because of something that someone associated with them said? With the help, of course, of media distortion and lies. So what's the deal? Is racism bad but homophobia is A-okay?
I guess the rules (including parking enforcement laws--oops!) are only for other people, not him.
Posted by cc at January 14, 2008 08:35 AMYeh, it's just a big coincidence that the Clintons and their surrogates keep "accidentally" stumbling into racially toned remarks. I agree that a few of them were contrived by the media, but not all of them by a longshot. The Clintons are WAY too savvy to make this many mistakes about one thing in such a short amount of time.
But I guess it's just a lot easier to blame Obama supporters than take an honest look at the Clinton campaign. It's called ad hominem -- attack the Obama supporters because there's no way to attack their position on this issue. The part that makes me sad is watching an ex-president that I like and respect tarnish his legacy by so clumsily playing the bad cop to Hillary's good cop.
Posted by turtleguy at January 14, 2008 09:18 AMBullshit, turtleguy. Bill Clinton said absolutely nothing that was racially toned. Not a word.
I am sick at how cynically Obama is trying to divide this party by flinging racism accusations. Including Michelle repeating the smear by saying that some think the dream of a Black president is a fairytale.
Bill never said that. No one has said that. The Obama camp is flat out lying and smearing him with one of the nastiest smears possible in this country. It is sickening.
Posted by WMCB at January 14, 2008 09:35 AMI cannot belive some of the blog sites like OpenLeft and dkos are so filled with comments terming President Clinton and Sen. Clinton as Racists. Questioning their authenticity about employing African-Americans in his Cabinet positions. I hope African-Americans do not fall for this kind of BS and vote based on people's strength and policy initiatives. In Today's NYT, Dr. Krugman question about Obama's economic stimulus package and compares to Edwards and Clintons. This is kind of discussion we need to have not about gender issues or race issues. Hope we stop this BS and start concentrating on important issues like economy, Iraq and HealthCare.
BKK
Posted by BKK at January 14, 2008 11:17 AMWMCB is correct.
Posted by jwrjr at January 14, 2008 11:18 AMNot going to happen, nope, read my lips... What a commedy this Democratic race is becoming. Wow.
Posted by peter at January 14, 2008 11:27 AMI don't like the way the Clintons are campaigning. Bill, in particular, is making me sick.
I don't want them anywhere near the White House again.
Posted by judeca at January 14, 2008 11:43 AMGuess you're going to have to move to Canada, then.
Posted by cc at January 14, 2008 12:29 PMThere was no 'Bradley' effect in NH, since voters could have voted for Edwards. But Obama supporters should watch the 'Bradley' effect right now. How many whites will speak their minds on Obama's race-baiting? If they voice their disgust, they'll be called racist like the NH voters. So they keep smiling and nodding, and saying 'this is just a black thing' -- and then they'll vote.
Of all people, arch-Neocon/inveterate Clinton-Hater/Obama endorser Bill Kristol couldn't contain his offense at Obama calling the Clintons racist. "I can't believe I'm defending the Clintons." Kristol is used to being called a racist (though he's not, he's just a Neocon; he endorsed Obama and loves black Neocon Alan Keyes) -- so there's no Bradley effect on Kristol.
But Kristol's disgust at Obama's tactics runs even deeper than his hatred of the Clintons. That's a big red flag.
Is Kristol willing to say what millions of whites won't say, for fear of being called racist? My experience tells me yes.
Playing the race card doesn't change people's minds, it only changes what they say in public.
Obama has no gauge on how his race card will play out -- and he knows that. Why the risky strategy? He plays the race card to defend against Clinton's game-changer: that he's all talk/no action. Pity he can't point to enough action to rebut that charge, and instead has to hide behind the greatness of Martin Luther King.
Obama is no Martin Luther King. Martin Luther King did more than make speeches. Martin Luther King did not use 'hope' to pursue his own power. Martin Luther King never played the race card -- he was too busy fighting the Klan.
Posted by whoframedrudy at January 14, 2008 04:55 PMI am brand new here but feel comfortablly at home, much like a traveler who has plodded through miles of unfriendly territory and finally finds a welcoming glow at an open door; in short, I confess to being an admirer of Senator Clinton and have felt all alone on the moors of the internet for a long time. Salon, Kos, everywhere, I find only hateful distortions of Mrs. Clinton's character and record. Here, it looks as if some thoughtful people who support both of our excellent leading candidates can come together with at least a basic amount of comity. I look forward to discussions and disputes, and to the insights I think I will find here.
OH MY GOD, I am soooooo glad I was not the only one to notice Russert’s attempt to pull out the race card again on MSNBC tonight. The democrats are not going to play into this on MLK weekend. His hatred of Hillary is making him seem unhinged recently. He brought up the Sista Soilder comments from years ago tonight as if we as blacks support that bigoted rapper that most of us never even heard of before. He is clearly trying to stir something up in the media and among voters. It would be suicide for dems to bite b/c Obama needs to pick up more white voters and women and Clinton needs more black voters….
I hope the other liberal blogs focus on Russert and Brian “Limbaugh doesn’t get enough credit” Williams anti-democratic party media bias and the glowing coverage of Mr. “Bomb Iran” McCain.
Also, please notice Andrea Mitchell’s hateful coverage of the Clinton campaign, I love Olbermann but if she continues to cover Clinton I will turn to CNN or ABC w/ Charlie Gibson.
The whole panel on Fox News was doing this tonight (after the South Carolina primary). The republicans are going to use this against Hillary if she's the nomniee, and its not even true.
This is the fault of the Obama campaign and the left wing blogosphere. Nothing the Clinton campaign did was racist, not even bringing up cocaine use. Thats something the republicans could use against Obama in the general election; theres nothing wrong with saying that. The only thing that came close was Shaheens drug dealer remark. That was him freelancing though, that wasnt the Clinton campigns idea. And he was only trying to point out what kind of stuff the republicans might do. But then you have the fairly tale comment and the MLK remark too. This is Obama supporters imagining racism under every rock. It has hurt his campaign too, especially with hispanic voters.
People dont want to vote for a whiner that constantly plays the race card. Thats not what the Obama candidacy was suppose to be about. He really made a huge mistake, or rather his supporters have. They dont realise that their politically correct nonsense doesnt play to people that arent obsessed with race like they are, and thats the majority of voters.
Posted by Jonesy at January 19, 2008 09:48 PMObama appears ready to tackle a job which will keep him much busier than the Presidency. Talking about Hillary's disbarred hubby's most recent falsehoods, he said:
"This has become a habit, and one of the things that we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's making statements that are not factually accurate," Obama said.
If Obama is going to confront Bill every time he lies, he will be a very, very busy man.
Posted by Tony Iovino at January 20, 2008 08:04 PM