I think HIllary has nothing but ambition. According to one blog by Alec Baldwin (who attended a 2000 Senate Race celebration party, an aide of hers asked his what he thought about her running for POTUS.
She's a bright women, but like my ex (who teaches at Princeton, no not Melissa, but black, sometimes Hilly can be a little bit too bright. She and Billy want to be in the history books. Folk like that w/ very little soul and knowledge about the continunity of spirit do everything to win, to make their mark.
But, she's not bright about how her actions come across to others...like my ex, the narcissist, Hilly cannot abide to see or acknowledge anything that doesn't fit into her view of the world. And, until the majority of American people wake up 2 grow up...well, I'll be in Denver on August 25.
Again, keep up the good work.
(And, I say as a joke when I'm about to begin a longer story than necesssary..."Whaat Had Happened Was..."
This is a piece I wrote and wanted to share with you. It actually came to me after listening to Senator Clinton give a speech in Pennsylvania about being one of us.
“You are not one of us”
You were not raised by a single
Mother with four mouths to feed.
“You are not me”
You never had to wonder when you would be able to spend time with your mom due to her having to work a lot of hours to support the family.
You never had to catch city transportation to get from point A to point B.
You never had to put your own hopes and dreams on hold in order to see others have theirs.
You never had to eat Ramen noodles everyday and only when you worked overtime you could afford the delicatessen of hotdogs to go along with it.
You didn’t step out on faith, like strong women do, after your husband disrespected you in front of God and man.
Instead, you chose power, fame, and wealth over dignity and respect.
You haven’t lost your mom to over zealous Doctors trying to get rich.
Your word is all you really have to give to another human being, when you choose not to tell the truth, you’ve failed.
Let’s face it, you make millions, how can you be…………
ONE OF US?
Jennifer Wolfe
Hillary Clinton will fight to the last breath while hoping for a miracle. That's what Clintons do. The fight. The fight when the odds are against them. They fight when everyone has counted them out. They fight until all hope is gone, then they keep fighting and they sue to have the contest re-opened (remember Clinton protege Al Gore?) They were willing to burn down the Constitutional system in order to win then. You can bet your bottom dollar they are willing to burn down the Democratic party before they will let someone else lead it. But this isn't news, they have always been this way.
PS - Obama's no different, he just hides it better.
I wish someone could publish what Jennywb wrote. How powerful is that? I'm pretty well to do now, but after reading her post, it brought back the memories of where I came from and how little we had.
Hillary is the dilution of a dehydrated sun-baked brain.
She's not one of us and has never been one of us. Shots in a bar, pumping gas, riding with a family to work? What a phony! When she rode with the family to work Hillary sat in the front seat and talked on the cell phone the entire time. She couldn't figure out how to operate the coffee machine or pump the gas and looked about as comfortable as a fish out of water.
Hillary one of us. Yeah Right!
Lier lier pants on fire!!
Verycherry,
That was NOT cool to bring your ex-wife into your comments. Ick.
Jennywb, what drivel. You think Obama has any idea what it's like to go without? What part of "raised by white grandparents in Honolulu and sent to exclusive private school" did you miss? Columbia University, Harvard University, and the luxury to engage in community organizing because, hello, wife (Princeton and Harvard) had the 6-figure income career? And when has Michelle been through the wringer? Her sensibilities were offended at Princeton? Oh: did someone prevent her from attending Howard, if that's what she wanted? The Obamas have zippy in common with regular black folks. Zip.
It has also been discussed on cable news that Hillary, knowing she can't win is trying very effectively to dirty Obama up so that McCain will win in November. My guess is that as mild as Obama has been with Hillary, he will be a Lion with McCain. I feel that essentially she is cheating, and the news media is letting her get away with it. Huffington post has an article that states that her campaign has partnered with the same people who harrassed the Clinton presidency (the right wing) to churn out negative attacks on Obama. You don't see this on cable news.
ARE YOU SERIOUS? NEITHER CANDIDATE CAN GET THE NOMINATION AFTER A GOOD AMOUNT OF BACKROOM DEALING FOR SUPERDELEGATES.
WHY IS HILLARY THE PROBLEM?
WHY HASN'T OBAMA WON THIS ALREADY?
WHY SHOULD HILLARY JUST GIVE IT TO HIM BEFRE MILLIONS OF AMERICANS HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO VOTE?
IMAGINE IF THE SITUATION WAS REVERSED. WOULD YOU WRITE THE EXACT SAME ARTICLE WITH OBAMAS NAME INSTEAD OF HILLARY?
NO, YOU WOULDN'T.
WHY?
BECAUSE HE'S BLACK.
SHAME ON YOU.
Does this seriously constitute a legitimate article? Sounds like a satirical guffaw that should be best left in a series of Post-It notes or bathroom stall gibberish.
Did you hear her most recent unfortunate analogy, to the filly Eight Belles from the Kentucky Derby over the weekend?
She told folks to "bet on the filly" since she was the only female in the race, just like Hillary. Unfortunately, after losing the race--to a horse named *Big Brown*, you can't make this stuff up--the filly broke both ankles and had to euthanized on the track.
She should really stick to the issues, since her analogies just keep getting worse and worse for her. And I'm still not entirely convinced that she didn't jinx the poor horse.
yep. Doc....you're right, Rocky did lose to that "cocky black guy" and remember....Elizabeth Cady-Staton and Susan B. Anthony ALSO lost their first real fight to the OTHER "cocky black guy" (read Fredrick Douglass) in 1868(?) and the passing of the 14th(?) amendment! So, here we stand again....Hillary is no fool and she will fight to the bitter end just as the white feminist movement did. Again....historically speaking, the fight between white womans' liberation and agency has been posited in direct opposition to the black (peoples) liberation and agency while the almighty white man (read McCain) looks on WITHOUT even so much as fake contrite bemusement. In fact, the jokers that are benefiting from both Rocky and the "cocky black guy" knocking each other's brains out --- and all that money thier making, is never brought to the center of the conversation. It does make one dizzy!!
Hey Richmond–
I think you should check Obama's Biography because you've got a few things wrong:
Barack got a scholarship to a private school because he got good grades. His mom woke him up at 4am to supplement his education. They worked hard. His Grandma took the bus across the island to go to work. His Grandfather was a not very successful salesman—he thought Hawaii would be the Holy grail but it didn't really work out that way.
Hello, he was a community organizer before he met Michelle and before he went to law school, before Harvard. He drove around in a beat down old compact car.
And Michelle—she grew up in Chicago's southside in a working class family. I think her dad was a garbageman (don't quote me on that). She got into Princeton also through hard work not privilege.
Check it, my friend.
Marc! You asked:
1. Is Hillary hanging around because she’s delusional or devious?
If delusinal means that she really believes she can win, then delusional it is.
If devious means she'll morph at will to make voters believe she is something she is not, then devious it is.
2. Is her Rocky analogy a window into her twisted plot?
By calling her plot "twisted" you confirm what you postulate in question 1 above.
3. What are the political consequences of such a strategy?
To whom?
4. Do I merely have way too much time on my hands?
I don't think so, since you don't write that often. I wish you would some more.
Bless!
Most of the comments here are quite insightful. Here are my thoughts:
1. We're giving Clinton way too much credit. She's a NY politician by way of Arkansas (think about it folks), not Machiavelli. She entered this contest presuming victory, as a beloved incumbent seeking reelection. Her campaign hasn't worked because both the candidate herself and her advisors lack vision. If she is as seasoned and ready as she claims she should have kicked the snot out of Obama months ago. But many Americans refuse to be ruled by the sound-byte and may just make a statement not only to her but to all Washington insiders.
2. No POTUS candidate in modern history has been one of us, Obama is the closest to the everyman. If he cannot win we should seriously consider whether to continue to lie to little Johnny by saying he too can grow up to be President. For far too long only certain bloodlines need apply. Of the people, by the people is a nice sentiment but not at all the current reality.
3. To the screamer who asks why hasn't Obama closed this thing out? For the same reason the Cleveland Browns have never won a Super Bowl...everyone wants it, only one will win. No one has implied Clinton should give her opponent anything. However, for someone who claims to be a patriotic strategist, the damage being done to her party and the process itself can't go unnoticed. The issue isn't whether she runs but HOW she runs.
4. I disagree w/ Radovich. In the mid 1800's America was at a similar place. The nation could work on advancing the cause of women's sufferage or civil rights. At the Seneca Falls Convention Fredrick Douglas and others anti-slave leaders agreed to galvanize behind the cause of securing women's equality with a promise to redirect that energy toward ending slavery once the women's movement was launched. The Civil Rights act was signed into law in 1964, more than a century later. (Fall for the Okey-doke again if you want to.)
5. The Dems (for now) just like the nation in past elections and this fall is a house divided. And who remembers what the good book says about a house divided?
. Hey Lamont P, it seems you are up on your African American autobiography..while you are at it, why not check out Clarence Thomas's memoir because the same that can be said of Barack Obama, can also be said of Thomas without the help of a woman, but a Black Man!!!!!!!
Re: the original article and speculation that Hillary is running for 2012: Two weeks ago, I thought comments like that were presumptuous, and due to Florida and Michigan, they still might be. I did, however, post on this website, two or three weeks ago, that Hillary is in it to toughen Barack up. He's never, ever had to fight like this, and she knew that from the start. At the end of the day, Hillary cares about people, and there is probably no one she is more concerned about (in the matriarchal/ thus white patriarchal sense) then Barry. She's not a mean spirited hater.
It will be a great thing if Barack can beat McCain in November. It will be an awesome thing, but part of me thinks that he cannot do it without Clinton on his ticket.
She who laughs last, last best.
PS.
that poetry crap (jennifer?) celebrating single parenthood was demented--- More proof of why women and men should work on keeping their families together and why the AA community needs to stop touting single women and single parenthood as the ideal, the norm , or an acceptable American societal value.
It pretty much sucks to be a single mom. Parenting children is definitely a two people "thing."
Drew!
You were going guns till you ended with "Parenting children is definitely a two people "thing."
It's not!
It's a whole village thing! Bless!
ahem, littlechica911....i'm not sure what happened to the rest of your history lesson when you write "4. I disagree w/ Radovich. In the mid 1800's America was at a similar place. The nation could work on advancing the cause of women's sufferage or civil rights. At the Seneca Falls Convention Fredrick Douglas and others anti-slave leaders agreed to galvanize behind the cause of securing women's equality with a promise to redirect that energy toward ending slavery once the women's movement was launched. The Civil Rights act was signed into law in 1964, more than a century later. (Fall for the Okey-doke again if you want to.)" ----you are right that Douglass did initially "galavinze" support behind the suffragist movement in like 1848 at the Seneca Falls convention----but by 1866...things were getting pretty thick and the radicals were suggesting that the vote for the black man was more pressing than for white women; to which Ms. Susan B. Anthony is quoted saying that she "would sooner cut off [her] right hand than ask the ballot for the black man and not for woman". Douglass's support for Ulyssess Grant in 1868 helped seal the deal. Although Douglass would come to call for an amendment to enfranchise women voters, that call would not come until AFTER the 15th amendement had been signed and passed (at least temp.) in 1870; which, as you know, is a long far cry away from August 26, 1920 and the 19th amendment.
Rad,
Your comments notwithstanding, my point remains unchanged. This moment in history is amazingly similar to the decision facing the nation in 1848. One cause was given priority over another. We tend to view advancement as an either or proposition. Were there backroom deals and political opportunists then? Absolutely. Their children's childrens' children are still operating the same way today.
I'm a newly registered member just today.This is my very first comment.I've been watching you make your rounds on the major news outlets.I saw you just this morning speaking on FOX News with Shepard Smith.I heard him ask you whether or not there'd be an Obama-Clinton ticket,and you said you were pretty sure that would not happen.Why? I'm a proud,and intelligent black woman,who happens to be proud of Hillary Clintons strength,tenacity,fighting spirit and dare I say,"testicular fortitude". I just find it a little racist of you to envoke the Rocky senario about the "cocky black guy" beating Rocky in the end.In a time of racial division,this is not particularly helpful,especially in such a heated Presidential contest that is being split along racial,social,gender,and religious lines.
I've just been infuriated about how Hillary's being treated in the papers,media and on the web.Yesterday,I watching MSNBC with Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzinsky when they were interviewing Penn Gillette of the famous magician duo,Penn & Teller,when I heard something come from his mouth that was not only sexist,but downright derogatory.He recalled a joke that he said seemed to get lots of laughs when he tells it,and it went something like this: When Obama won in February,I said it was because of "Black History" month,and when Hillary won in March,it was because it was "White ***" month.Well,needless to say,I was shocked,even Joe and Mika appeared to be shocked and appauled,that they did not find it funny.They tried to stop Penn from going any further as they broke for a commercial.I looked at my husband and said,did you hear what I heard? We both had our mouths open in shock and disbelief.And I could'nt help but wonder if this had been a joke referenced to Obama being the Black (expletive),it would have been a nationwide outrage!!!!! Why do the media find it so easy to say these horrible things about Hillary,and get away with it,when everyone else seems to handle Obama with kid gloves? I'm really disolussioned over this whole race and how divisive it's become.The Dems are so anxious to show that they are the all-inclusive party by trying to be the first party to have the first African American Presidential nominee,thus going on to be possibly the first African American elected President,that they have all but burried Hillary Clinton.Although I'm very much aware that the Dems do not want the Clintons in office again,but why put a lesser known,unexperienced,and illprepared candidate out there only to get clobbered by the Republican attack machine? And furthermore,why dismiss Hillary as not having an opportunity to share the ticket? With the way the supporters have planted themselves firmly in the camps of their respective candidates,would this not be the best way to bring the party together? And would Hillary have damn well earned this spot? Who would'nt want such a strong,tenacious,experienced,and smart person on their team?I mean,she would be Obama's very own "*** Cheney". I know there's a lot of bad feelings on both candidates part,and a lot of angry and hurtful words have been exchanged throughout this long campaign,but why not start healing the party with a show of unity,besides is'nt the main goal here is to win in November? Think about it.......
Marc,
Whether Hillary is hanging around because she is devious or delusional matters not for Barack Obama. In either case, whatever Hillary is plotting, Barack Obama will be taking the oath of office in January 2009. "Marc" my words -- it's gonna happen January 2009.
Richmond,
I beg to differ with your contention that the Obama's have nothing in common with regular black folks. You also need to get your facts straight about the Obama's background.
In terms of regular black folk I come from a working class black background and my parents managed to send both me and my sister to college much like Michelle Obama's family. My parents not only sent me to college but law school as well and in both instances to expensive private universities. This is precisely what Obama is talking about in his campaign -- returning the institutions and power of government to a place where everyday working people have a chance to fulfill the so-called American dream. Families like the one I grew-up in, like the one Obama grew-up in, like the one Michelle grew-up in and like that of many of my peers, who grew-up at a time when working class families could send their children to college. Over the past several decades the distribution of wealth, power and resources in this country has squeezed out the working and middle class and all but abolished any ladder to help poor people climb up. Maybe this is why it difficult for you to believe there was a time in this country when working class people could send their children to Havard and Yale or school their child was capable of gaining acceptance to.
In your post you suggest that Obama had the "luxury" of working as a community organizer because Michelle was making big bucks as an attorney. Obama worked as a community organizer in 1985 shortly after he graduated from college, He didn't even meet Michelle until 1988 when he entered law school. They didn't get married until 1992 after he graduated from law school. Michelle's father started out as a maintenance worker for Chicago's Department of Water and eventually worked his way up to a higher position at the municipal water department.
Likewise Obama grew-up in a family of regular working people. He was raised by his single mother and his grandparents. They wound up in Hawaii because that's where his grandfather was stationed and decided to stay after the war. His mom had to go on food stamps for a period during his upbringing because of their economic hardships. His mother also experienced the stress many everyday black folks and Americans period have experienced being in between jobs and going for stretches without health insurance as a result. Obama's mom found herself in that position (no health insurance), made all the worse by the fact that she was diagnosed with cancer. She ultimately died from cancer.
There was a time in America when working class people had better ecomonic opportunities for themselves and their children. You are mistaken to think that because Michelle and Barack went to elite universities or exclusive private schools that meant they were well-to-do. Trust me when I tell you there are many black folks from Michelle and Barack's generation and beyond who went to exclusive schools though they came from a working class backgrounds. I'm one of them.
Sistafriend,
In my estimation Hillary is not a suitable running mate for Obama because she belies the core message of his campaign.
Hillary represents status quo Washington politics and Karl Rove style political tactics. Hillary refused to forego taking money from federal lobbyists and PAC's unlike Obama who is not taking their money to fund his campaign. Hillary is the consummate political operator always acting on the basis of political calculation rather than principle (e.g., voted for Iraq war; proposed gas tax holiday). This is precisely what Obama is saying we need to change. Obama believes the American people are ready to hear the truth and want honest, intelligent political debate -- not gimmicks and gamesmanship, not distortations and distractions aimed at manipulating voters rather than facilitating an informed debate. The Clinton's want to use the Karl Rove playbook and Obama wants to throw that book out.
Hillary's approval ratings in the country at-large are consistently low and her reputation for honesty and trustworthiness is very low (e.g., dodging imaginary sniper fire in Bosnia).
Having Clinton on the ticket would be anathema to Obama's message of change. Not to mention, I don't know any candidate who would want Bill and Hillary back in the WH as their VP because you know they would both try to upstage Obama.
I think it would be a mistake to put her on the ticket.
To Robino8:
While I understand your point about Hillary's negatives and taking PAC money,Obama aint exactly squeaky clean neither,take the people he's been involved with and influenced by that I mentioned in my original response. If Obama was all about the kind of change he's been talking about,then why is it that he has so many former Clinton aides,advisors and supporters working in his campaign?It seems to me that if he was going to make change the central theme of his campaign,he should have sought out independent thinking people who were not particularly associated with the "status quo" of Washington.Obama obviously started his bid for the presidency when he spoke at the 2004 Dem. National Convention,he knew that he had to bring a new message of "change" if he wanted to be taken seriously in this campaign.He also took a page from Bill Clinton's Presidential race,by being that candidate of "change".
As for the comment you made about Obama being truthful,I wish you go back and look at key moments in the campaign before you make that judgment.For instance,take the run-up to the Ohio Primary,Obama was all over Hillary about her approval of Nafta during her husband's presidency,he was confronted on his plane about a meeting that took place between his top advisers and Canadian officials giving them the ol wink-wink,saying that they actually liked Nafta,but had to oppose it for political reasons.Now this is not a direct quote of what was said,but it was along those lines.Anyways, Obama was confronted about the alleged meeting on his plane and he denied it took place at the time,but when the memo of the meeting surfaced,then and only then,did he fess up.That's when his so-called message of change wheels came off,and revealed that he's just another politician just like Rev. Wright suggested.Then you have the comment he made about people in rural small towns in a Private Fundraiser in none other than San Francisco.He tried to spin it best he could,but the cat was out of the bag.He ment what he said,cause he said it when he thought it would not be heard outside that Fundraiser.I advised you to go to:www.factcheck.org,and you will see where his campaign donations come from,he's taking some of the same money from the same donors as Hillary,in some cases,he's taking more money.The difference is that his faults go unnoticed,because he's the newer more unvetted candidate,where as Hillary has been around the political block more than a few times,and she gets way more scrutiny than Obama does.Plus,as a woman,society tends to be less forgiving of you when you make mistakes,as opposed to a man,take her husband for instance,he had indidelity problems throughout their marriage,but who got more scrutinized?Hillary was the victim,but she became the villain because she chose to try to make her marriage work.Given all the trysts her husband had,as well as the attempted impeachment,he still left the White House with high approval ratings,imagine that? I often wonder,had it been Hillary that had the affair,how would she have been treated by society.
In conclusion,Obama will feel obligated to choose Hillary not only to heal the wounds of the party,but because she would have earned her a spot on the ticket,and for all the women, economically disadvantaged,elderly,and disenfranchised who have supported her,will all feel that she should have a shot at being VP,and she too,would make history.Obama's message of change would still resonate,and he won't be overshadowed by the Clintons.Besides,we need to win,so that we can begin to make the changes everyone yearns for,together.
Hey all, just needed to address a few comments here, first of all thanks "firewire" for you props, much appreciated. Secondly, Richmond, I didn't say Senator Obama knew what it was like to go without, but what I did say was, my piece was written after hearing Senator Clinton speak in Penn. about being one of us. But I think if you took the time to read one of his books you would realize he was at one time more like us than she was. Thirdly, "Drewreason", inregards to the poetry crap, that's my life not poetry. I'm not praising single family home, I'm praising my mom for not being afraid to raise her children alone. Instead of turning a blind eye to what my dad, her husband, was doing, she turned her back and left, because she said she could do alright by herself, no man on this earth is worth the heartattack to my kids. This move she made, made all three of my brothers the best husbands and fathers they could ever be. So, before you down someone, check yourself.
Robin08, Amen. One of the many great post I've seen here lately. A lot of people don't realize that this election isn't or shouldn't be about them but about the people that are still struggling to make. And I think since a lot of us have made it, we need to do as much as we can to see others succeed as well.
I suspect you and I will have to agree to disagree, but I’ll respond to some of your points nevertheless.
The fact that former Clinton aides, advisors and supporters are now working for Obama is not inconsistent with Obama’s message of change. Clintonistas supporting Obama is simply recognition of the wisdom in his message of change. In order to change the way Washington works, to realign our political priorities, to eliminate the undue influence corporate money currently has over policy decisions in Washington, D.C. you still need the same kind of expertise and advisors that work in any administration. The fact that former Clintonites are onboard with Obama indicates that they share his philosophy of government, governing and the kind of change he wants to bring.
I completely disagree with your suggestion that Obama began his bid for the presidency when he spoke at the 2004 convention. I also disagree with the implication that his message of change is somehow a cynical ploy. To begin with Obama was “invited” to speak at the 2004 convention because the Democratic Party wanted to showcase their raising stars. From what I’ve heard he didn’t have any intention of running for the presidency in ’08 until throngs of people began urging him to run in light of the way he connected with people through that speech. His message of change is real because the country really is fed-up with the status quo.
Regarding the NAFTA flap with the Canadian official your story is inaccurate. On March 3, 2008 the Canadian consulate in Chicago issued the following statement:
“The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect."
http://geo.international.gc.ca/can-am/chicago/menu-en.asp
Moreover, NAFTA represents another example of Hillary’s lack of political integrity. She was pro NAFTA during her years in the WH when Bill was trying to get it passed. Now that it’s politically expedient to be anti NAFTA she claims she was against it from the start. We’re suppose to be stupid enough to ignore all the documented evidence of her speaking in favor of NAFTA prior to this campaign.
Regarding the comment in “none other than” San Francisco I don’t disagree with Senator Obama’s remarks and seriously doubt if Hillary did either. It seems to me Hillary, the media and then McCain jumped all over that comment as part of Hillary’s kitchen sink strategy – searching for anything they could find to slam Obama. What didn’t make the mainstream media during coverage of “bittergate” and thus contradicts your contention that Hillary is so thoroughly vetted are the comments made by Bill and Hillary concerning working class whites.
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach. "Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html
"The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death," Bill Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.
I don’t see how any fair minded person can look at this campaign and conclude that Hillary has been “more” scrutinized than Barack.
The press has damn near ignored a whole host of “legitimate” issues concerning Hillary. Where was the in-depth non-stop reporting on Mark Penn and the Columbian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA)? Here you have a high ranking member of Senator Clinton's campaign engaged in business activities and lobbying in support of the CFTA while Clinton publicly claims to be against the agreement. What kind of in-depth coverage did we get of Bill Clinton’s ties to the CFTA? We know he has received large sums of money from parties who have a vested interest in seeing the agreement pass. Why didn’t we hear anything in the mainstream media about Hillary’s “screw em” remark or Bill’s economically insecure, scared to death white people comment when they were lambasting Obama over his remarks on the same subject? The Clintons have been named in a $17 million dollar fraud lawsuit in L.A. Superior Court. The appeal is set to go to trial in November 2008. I haven’t heard a word about that in the mainstream media. Do you think that would be the case if Barack or Michelle were named defendants in a fraud lawsuit? I think not. The Clinton’s refuse to name the donors to the Clinton library in Littlerock unless and until Hillary becomes the nominee. There's a concern that there could be conflicts of interests between some of the donors and various American policy interests and the Clinton's may be beholden to these donors. Why isn’t the press digging into that? Hillary Clinton tells a bald faced lie to try to hype her foreign policy toughness credentials, she apologizes only after getting caught in the lie and the story is over. Obama has given a historic speech and unequivocally denounced Rev. Wright yet the media will not let it go. Moreover, unlike the Bosnia story where the actual candidate is straight-up, intentionally lying to try to gain an advantage with voters, Rev. Wright isn’t even a legitimate issue with respect to Barack. Wright is nothing more than a phony guilt-by-association trumped-up non-issue controversy designed to bring Obama down. If the sermons and comments of pastors endorsing candidates is a legitimate issue where are 24/7 news clips of Rev. Hagee, Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell saying similarly controversial things?
As I say, I don’t see how any fair minded attentive observer can look at this campaign and conclude Barack is getting a pass. There is so much mess on the Clinton’s that the Republicans will bring up if she were to win the nomination. I have only scratched the surface here in the interest of time. While Clinton operatives feed right wing media with half-truths and non-truths about Obama (e.g., he’s a Muslim, he’s a secret terrorist, he hates white people a la Rev. Wright, he doesn’t salute the flag, he secretly hates America – and there is evidence that this information is coming from the Clinton campaign) Obama advocates elevating the political discourse and rejecting Karl Rove type tactics. Obama is talking about change and has not engaged in this kind of kitchen sink distract, distort and deceive type of politics.
Clinton is mired in the kind of politics Obama is running to change. For that reason she does not belong on the ticket and Obama is certainly not “obligated” to choose her as a running mate.
Fraud suit against the Clintons: http://www.paulvclinton.com/pp_complaint_022504.pdf
Unlike Rocky, Senator Clinton is letting herself go down in flames and in the end there will be no one even attempting to pull her back onto her feet.
She and her campaign has the rest of this week to put her divisive low road USAToday comments in check and taking the high road instead by helping to unify the democratic party to take on Senator McCain.
Otherwise, she and the Clinton Brand will be relegated to the trashbin of history with no Rocky come-back in sight as undeclared superdelegates immediately step in and put and end to her racially divisive comments by declaring for Senator Obama prior to June 3rd.
Marc, I love your analysis of HRC's Rocky analogy. However, I think her ploy to align herself with the white working class is unfounded. I do not know how she has been able to continue this false notion of personal struggle for so long. Why hasn't Barack successfully rebutted her claim of his supposed "elitism?" If memory serves me correctly, it was she who put a stop on the release of her financial records. The Clintons have been basking in their millions and their net worth trumps Obama's.
We know his story; we know how he grew up in a working class, single parent home. His life is the typical rags to riches story; however, why is he painted as an elitist? And what is really preventing the white working class from casting their vote in support of Obama? My answer is RACE. I do not understand why people think that the rift between the white working class and the black working class has gone away. There is a long history of racial riots and pure contempt for both groups and it is sad to say that these feelings have continued well into the 21st century. However, nobody is talking about this. The political pundits deny that race is at the core of this issue.
I do not know how Barack is going to appeal to the white working class, but he needs to think of something. CNN cited a recent poll, which stated that 47% of white working class HRC supporters would not vote for Barack in the general election if he won the nomination. If that outward rejection of Barack is not racially motivated, then I don't know what is.
