Wait - You can never, ever leave out the Monica Lewinsky mess. 55 year old man diddling a girl his own daughters age and wife, the feminist does nothing, knows nothing. I would have so much more respect for Hillary if she had showed her spine, dumped his hillbilly ass. But instead she showed she is weak. People say dont dig up the past, well i say this is the ultimate character assemssment of the both of them.
I was watching a republican tv show that listed felony charges against Hillary from the late 80s, failed real estate pyramid schemes she was involved that she got of on some leagal technicalites ( not whitewater) Obama so far has been weak in his attacks on her - the republicans wont be so nice. I cant wait to see who they pull out of the woodwork for round Clinton's V.3.
vamure, I agree with everything you say, I expect it and have to confess I even enjoy good attacks as they make fun political theater.
The use of race is what is shocking. Tell me how to read Bill's comments about Jesse Jackson? He is saying that SC blacks do not have a serious political voice and we should ignore it. silly blacks, serious voting is for whites.
I think it's whistling past the graveyard. Bill wants to dismiss this win by Obama, but at the same time he knows it could signal the death knell of his wife's campaign: he can't be sure. Please note that he also praises Obama's campaign while sneaking in a not so subtle dig at this win. I just don't see such racial evil in that comment, rather just insecurity and defensiveness.
vamure, let me ask you something when Al Campanis former president/gm of LA Dodger goes on Nightline and tells america the reason why there are no black managers in baseball is because perhaps they lack the skills, or when the NFL makes the lame argument that the reason there are were no black head coaches is because they "lack experience" is that racist or just simply stating facts? point is, people that really listen to the underlying message of bill clinton, hear just that same kind of logic...jesse jackson was not an elected senator, he was and is a reverend, equating the two is just by association an attempt by clinton to marginalize Obama and the victory in SC.
oh, in case you wanted to know, i voted for clinton in 1996 and would have lined up to vote for hillary at the end of this, if she did become the nominee, but after these tactics, i don't know if i can in good conscience do that. even at the peril of not seeing a dem take over the white house. i will still vote Obama, on principle alone.
i maintain it is the barack's supporters, i.e. all of you, that have made race an issue and not the clintons. period.
and beta,
trying to understand something, Obama supporters ARE the campaign, but Bill Clinton's words and actions are not? and criticism of him and her = Billary are not good form? your logic is so convoluted it almost begs for psychoanalysis.
aside from being simply rude, which you often are, i would argue that there are two campaign methods going on. hillary is running a traditional campaign where she and other notable supporters, like bill, are featured on television, radio, and newspapers; obama's campaign is made up of young internet savvy bloggers, like yourselves. now there are problems with this: a.) we rarely get to hear obama actually speak, only occasionally after a primary or a debate; instead he is represented by the blogosphere who in essense speaks for him. we never know exactly where obama stands on anything, and that actually works in his favor. he is so neutral as to not raise the slightest hint of controversy, but at the same time, he really stands for nothing. b.) the second problem is that while clinton is making a traditional campaign through the mainstream media, she never gets to respond directly to her critics, i.e. the blogosphere. therefore the blogosphere can make allegations against her (i.e. she is racist, weak, what have you), but she can never respond directly and thus her response is always too slow; the allegation spreads like a nasty rumor in alarmingly quick fashion. this democratic race is not shaping up to be black versus white (at least not unless the blogosphere says so), but instead, young versus old, gen-x versus the baby boomers, and at this point, gen x, at least in its presence on the internet, is kicking ass.
If Hillary and John McCain become the nominees, what percentage of democrats do you think will defect and vote republican?
My dad is a lifelong democrat, as is my wife, but both have suggested that if Hillary is the nominee, they don't think they can in good conscience vote for her.
The events this week with her husband just solidified that fact for them.
eli, post the specific quote you are talking about. that clip you posted above was a 15 second soundbyte. i have no idea what the context was, and honestly, no, i heard not the slightest hint of racism in what bill said. he simply said something about jesse jackson winning s.c. in '84 and '88. big deal.
so it is CNN's fault that Bill compared Obama to Jesse, who is seen by many as a fringe figure? There is no context, you saw it all, he was asked a simple question, which frankly is important to know.
-Why do you think it is taking two of you to beat Obama?
To which he answered:
"This is is bait" basically blaming the media and Obama for his next statement, because Bill cannot take responsibility for his actions
"Jesse Jackson won here in '84 and '88" Obama is obviously just like Jesse, both are black, right?
Why didn't Bill compare Obama to John Edwards? Or perhaps a better comparison would have been to one William Jefferson Clinton, the new face that won the state in '92. He chose Jesse because:
"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," - Bill Clinton in SC
obviously Obama can only win among blacks, at least in Bill's logic.
okay, the opening question, "Why do you think it is taking two of you to beat Obama?" was condescending and antagonistic. i don't know how you can deny that. it immediately put bill on the defensive as you can tell by the pause and the smile before he spoke. i interpreted what bill was saying was that jesse jackson, a black candidate won s.c. on two different occasions, but did not win the party's nomination (mondale and dukakis did). explain to me why that is racist. is it racist to simply talk about race?
Look hes not a racist. He knows there was more to obamas win down there than just his race, but hes intensionally explaining that victory in racial terms in order to marginalize him. Let me say that again, hes marginalizing obama on the basis of race. Are we connecting the dots? That really doesnt bother you? So fine, by 1950's standards thats pretty acceptable, but shouldnt we expect more from a president who owes his political existence to strong black support than to make an organized effort to use race as a wedge issue?
At any rate it looks like were banging our heads against a wall here.
Hopefully the numbers from SC can kill this issue so we can talk about real shit.
Like jafidler, I didn't find what Clinton said racist. He was pointing out that the last major black candidate to run had been nominated twice in South Carolina. So South Carolina democrats have a history of supporting black candidate who don't go on to win either the party nomination or the presidency. This is a fact.
I'm an Obama supporter. While I found what Clinton said a little testy, I don't think it was in any way racist.
oe, he's not marginalizing obama. he's saying that race has had a significant impact on the voting history of south carolina and its effect on the democrats' selection process of its presidential candidate. good lord, if this is the extent of the clinton's "racial tactics" then obama's supporters are certainly making a mountain out of a mole hill.
My favorite part of this thread, besides all the crazy at the top of this page, is all of the negative platitudes that jafidler keeps whipping out to put everyone else on the defensive about Hillary. If a person comes on this thread and tries to ask legitimate questions about the way that Hillary (and now, Bill) are conducting their campaign expecting to try to formulate an opinion, do you think that calling complete strangers "rude" is going to help them change their mind? Or disregarding the question asked while discounting whatever the other candidate does by referring to an ever-changing set of political rules? It's just unhelpful, jaf.
As for Hillary, I don't think Bill did her any favors this week. I like Bill and I have a lot of respect for what he's done for the country, and the world, but she needs to stand on her own.
ja, you are wrong. bill is a grown ass man, former president and supposedly this wickedly intelligent person, but yet some naive baiting reporter got him off his game? give me a fucking break. 2-1, Barack got 2 times as many votes as hillary, more people came out to vote in SC than did in the 2004 election, and this is a primary. that had nothing to do with 1984, 1988, bill clinton or hillary clinton.
political campaigns get nasty. they should get nasty. these people want the second most powerful job in the world dammit. i want a goddamn brawl since i get no choice in who gets the nomination i want to see who is the most politically savvy to fuck the republicans over or they will do it to mr/mrs nambypamby in the election.
wonderk, here is an assortment of quotes from mr. beta in this thread:
hey Nazi, eat me, hill brought this on herself. post nazi someplace else.
ja just for you babeee!
funny thing is i searched this thread for something substantive that either of you might have contributed to this thread, and the only thing worth responding to is the shiite you have thrown at moi. so put that in your hookah and puff.
nazis.
ja, you can let the NYT think for you and speak for you, i'll let the man - Obama - do it for me; he's much more eloquent.
then there are the quotes from the obama thread, but i don't feel like looking for them. real stand up kinda guy. i'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for hillary, least of all you or beta.
People, people, let's keep it civil! (that includes me)
There's a lot to respond to here, but let me just harp on some faulty logic being used by some in this thread. Emilemech, you wrote:
" "As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," - Bill Clinton in SC
obviously Obama can only win among blacks, at least in Bill's logic."
Well, if you believe that Bill's statement implied what you wrote, and shows him to be racist, then he also insulted his wife and is also sexist, because he said race AND gender, twice. So in another state with a majority of women, Bill would logically think that Barack has no chance of winning, since he's a man, thus he's being sexist towards his wife (by implying she can only win by getting votes from women). Now, if that last statement is utterly ridiculous, then so is your conclusion that the quote proves his racism. Look, once and for all, it's very possible of Clinton to be dismissive of Obama by using Jesse Jackson as an example (because he lost in the end) but also not be a racist, just very agressive in his tactics and brutally honest, is that so hard to conceive? (And that's not saying that Clinton, in his heart of hearts, might not in the end be a racist, I can't read his mind; but I did not think of him as such in his years in office, and I don't think he is now.)
I just wish there was more shading in people's examination of these quotes and comments, not just the immediate jumping to 11 on the meter of accusations - which is just as irritating as the constant trotting out of Hitler as a comparison to any even slightly less-than-moral action done by anyone that one doesn't like. All that does is end any real conversation and get people screaming at each other.
vamure, i want to echo you in that we all should calm down a little.
to answer you he IS being somewhat sexist, but in a very calculated manner. If you box Hillary in as the 'white woman' candidate she wins, simple as that. As I showed before white women are the majority, plus some (if not the majority) of white men would also vote for her, this is their strategy and it may still work.
things have gotten out of hand, and i want to apologize to beta and wonderk. that last post i made was idiotic. sorry. really.
i've watched the mcclaughlin group since i was ten. i've always loved political debate, and while i agree with almost nothing he says, i like pat almost as much as i like eleanor. we can agree to disagree, but with no hard feelings.
Well, OK Elimelech, that could very well be their strategy.
Beta, to answer your question from above, I would say your first example is definitely racist, the second maybe not as clearly racist, and Clinton's even more difficult to call. But I'll play along: let's say Clinton did pick the example of Jackson to marginalize Obama, to say that Obama has about as much chance of winning the nomination as Jackson did: if Bill really believes that, then he's really an idiot. And I don't think he believes that. First, he very well knows that Obama won in Iowa for very different reasons than in SC, and second, he's just witnessed an overwhelming victory by Obama. You don't attack, viciously or sublty, someone you think has no chance of beating you or is a chump: you just ignore them (see John Edwards). You attack someone you fear and in some ways respect as a strong opponent (and that's no paradox).
Jesse Jackson's victories is South Carolina were of a much different sort than today. First, South Carolina had a caucus. Second, Jesse Jackson is from South Carolina and it was homecoming for him. And he was unchallenged there. Basically Hart, Mondale, Glenn, et al. ceded South Carolina to Jackson. They put their resources into other states. Jackson also referred to jews as "hymies" and NY as "hymietown".
That's why Bill's comment comparing Obama's victory to Jackson's victories is really disingenuous. On the surface, to someone who knows nothing of the history, it seems harmless enough but Bill and Hillary spent a lot of time in South Carolina and brought in the founder of BET who said""As an African-American, I'm frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book -- when they have been involved," and Magic Johnson to belittle Obama with the rookie comments.
The Clintons desperately wanted to win in South Carolina and really hit Obama with everything they had. This was not the case in the 84 and 88 caucuses when the opposing candidates bypassed the state.
I hope this clarifies why many of us find Bill Clinton's comments to be so condescending and divisive. Jackson emerged as the "Black" candidate after his "Hymie" remarks and Obama is totally different. A better comparison of Jackson would be to Edwards as Edwards is also a native son and that's why his third place finish really hurt him.
PS jafidler, you're a MccLaughlin Group fan... Do you think he is actually the real voice of Tennessee Tuxedo? ;-)
Im honestly fucking tired of this argument. Rep. James Clyburn, the house majority whip, long-time friend of the Clintons, and probably the most serious expert on South Carolina politics, agreed that there was an organized effort by Hillary Clinton to inject racial divisions into this election in order to hurt Obama. YOU may not be offended by the Jackson remark, a comparison and analysis so blatantly flawed the only cogent connection between the two is their race, or raising the absurd possibility obama is an ex-coke-dealer, or any of a number of systematic attempts by the Clintons to raise Obamas race in a negative light, but the people of south carolina sure as hell were.
It was interesting to watch the contest evolve by looking at Clyburn. Clyburn stated that he was going to remain neutral but he went silent on the Clintons and spoke glowingly of Obama in the last week or so.
What do the Clintons do now? Do they roll out Chelsea and put Bill away until all of this blows over?
I try not to take this too seriously. I am not always successful though. I remember when I met the Democratic candidates in 88 and thought what a decent bunch of men they were. Especially Paul Simon, who endorsed Obama before he passed away, was really warm, humble and good natured. I thought-what if their supporters were held to the same standard? Food for thought...
jafidler, no hard feelings for sure. I try to not truly berate people until after I meet them, LOL.
That said, this is all very interesting. It's amazing to me how quickly, in this TV and internet age, the national "mood" about something can swing so swiftly. Reading the NYTimes at this point is pretty wild.....you've got the Times endorsement of Hillary right next to an op-ed by Caroline Kennedy endorsing Obama, and you've got the article about Teddy Kennedy coming out swinging for Obama next to the one about Bill Clinton not being able to keep his mouth shut. Talk about a Democratic cage fight!
I feel bad for Hillary in a way.....I have to think that Bill wants to support her and got a little too talkative in his enthusiasm for doing so, but he's such a slippery political evil genius that anything that comes out of his mouth gets analyzed 10x over.
I just want the playing field to be level. No dirty tricks, no "co-candidates", and for god's sakes, leave the racism/gender crap at home already. Basically I want the media to report the news and shut the hell up otherwise.
Ja, again, like bill and hillary clinton, you too take things out of context in order to invent or fabricate some kind of "truth." the fact of the matter, and one no one here will bother to look at, is that my response was completely on point and for this reason - THE PERSON POSTING THEIR COMMENT[S] IS NAMED POSTNAZI!
vamure, of course bill clinton knew what he was saying was bunk, he does not have to believe in what he says. he knows that their is a segment of the population that is uncommitted in the party and any negative - you know smoke and fire - will have the effect of negating a positive message. he knows if he can pull Obama off message and have him responding to himself and not hillary, he can have the double effect of having hillary speak on point, looking positive, and make Obama look like he's exploiting race and becoming the "black" candidate.
beta, i'm sorry about that post. what more can i say?
pull obama off message
what message?! unity? that's the problem with obama. there is no message, and that in my opinion is why he will likely win the nomination. america doesn't want a thinker, it doesn't want ideas. after the last eight years of bush, i think most everyone is content to sit and look pretty for the next four, and considering how our reputation has been diminished in the world view, maybe that's not such a bad thing. the only problem with that is now is a time when we need someone with experience and ideas. there's a war, the economy is in rough shape, there is growing awareness of an environmental crisis - and obama is the person to take on those issues? not if i'm doing the hiring.
Beta, now that I agree with: it's political tactics. But this bandying about of "evil" is just comic book stuff to me. I mean, I don't much like the sitting president, but I certainly don't think he's evil: incompetent or deluded, maybe, but not evil (now Rumsfeld, I think he may have been evil; I swear the man has a piece of granite where his heart should be).
after breaking her promise not to campaign in florida (and after all the other democratic candidates kept that promise), hillary will probably whine and complain until the florida delegation is reinstated. that's winning at all costs indeed...
I may have been willing to vote for Hillary over any Republican candidate in the general election, even if it meant holding my nose while doing so.
But if she stoops that low and succeeds, I'll cast my vote for whatever Socialist or Green candidate is on the ballot, even if it's some nobody I've never heard of before, rather than vote for her.
I urge you to stop talking about Hillary so much, let's go to the Obama '08 thread and write all the reasons why we support Obama.
One such thing is how Obama is better suited to go against McCain. I like McCain a lot (specially his stances on Climate Change and immigration), but Obama is better on both of those issues plus he bests him in domestic issues such as:
-healthcare
-choice for women
Also, McCain's support of Bush over Iraq gives Obama a great boost. She-who-should-not-be-named would not be able to take on McCain on this issue. Finally she will give McCain a majority; uniting Republicans and pushing away independents and even some democrats, as simple as that.
An Obama - McCain campaign would be hard but probably mud free, a Clinton-McCain would be bloody and nasty, and it would end with a Republican administration.
I cant believe Im going to defend her but she didnt break the rules in Fla. - Her constituants hit the streets for her - not technically illeagal.
That said, dont be fooled by the turnout - there was a disproportionate number of elderly, especially property owners, because there was a huge statewide referendum to lower property taxes accross the state. From what I heard on CNN and MSN it was actually more heated than the primaries - young couples want taxes to go to schools while old folks wintering in Fla dont want to be taxed more - a timeless debate.
I agree with LIG. Hillary and Bill will sell out anyone and/or their souls to get back into the White House. I don't think Obama is that way. Nor is Dodd or Richardson but they are not in the race anymore. The mood of the country is more anti-incumbent than in 2000. Let's face it.... if Bill and Hillary weren't busy commuting the sentences of Marc Rich and instead were more focused on putting a classy finish onto their 8 years, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election by a landslide and we wouldn't be in this position.
Run Hillary Run
Wait - You can never, ever leave out the Monica Lewinsky mess. 55 year old man diddling a girl his own daughters age and wife, the feminist does nothing, knows nothing. I would have so much more respect for Hillary if she had showed her spine, dumped his hillbilly ass. But instead she showed she is weak. People say dont dig up the past, well i say this is the ultimate character assemssment of the both of them.
I was watching a republican tv show that listed felony charges against Hillary from the late 80s, failed real estate pyramid schemes she was involved that she got of on some leagal technicalites ( not whitewater) Obama so far has been weak in his attacks on her - the republicans wont be so nice. I cant wait to see who they pull out of the woodwork for round Clinton's V.3.
vamure, I agree with everything you say, I expect it and have to confess I even enjoy good attacks as they make fun political theater.
The use of race is what is shocking. Tell me how to read Bill's comments about Jesse Jackson? He is saying that SC blacks do not have a serious political voice and we should ignore it. silly blacks, serious voting is for whites.
I think it's whistling past the graveyard. Bill wants to dismiss this win by Obama, but at the same time he knows it could signal the death knell of his wife's campaign: he can't be sure. Please note that he also praises Obama's campaign while sneaking in a not so subtle dig at this win. I just don't see such racial evil in that comment, rather just insecurity and defensiveness.
vamure, let me ask you something when Al Campanis former president/gm of LA Dodger goes on Nightline and tells america the reason why there are no black managers in baseball is because perhaps they lack the skills, or when the NFL makes the lame argument that the reason there are were no black head coaches is because they "lack experience" is that racist or just simply stating facts? point is, people that really listen to the underlying message of bill clinton, hear just that same kind of logic...jesse jackson was not an elected senator, he was and is a reverend, equating the two is just by association an attempt by clinton to marginalize Obama and the victory in SC.
oh, in case you wanted to know, i voted for clinton in 1996 and would have lined up to vote for hillary at the end of this, if she did become the nominee, but after these tactics, i don't know if i can in good conscience do that. even at the peril of not seeing a dem take over the white house. i will still vote Obama, on principle alone.
i maintain it is the barack's supporters, i.e. all of you, that have made race an issue and not the clintons. period.
and beta,
trying to understand something, Obama supporters ARE the campaign, but Bill Clinton's words and actions are not? and criticism of him and her = Billary are not good form? your logic is so convoluted it almost begs for psychoanalysis.
aside from being simply rude, which you often are, i would argue that there are two campaign methods going on. hillary is running a traditional campaign where she and other notable supporters, like bill, are featured on television, radio, and newspapers; obama's campaign is made up of young internet savvy bloggers, like yourselves. now there are problems with this: a.) we rarely get to hear obama actually speak, only occasionally after a primary or a debate; instead he is represented by the blogosphere who in essense speaks for him. we never know exactly where obama stands on anything, and that actually works in his favor. he is so neutral as to not raise the slightest hint of controversy, but at the same time, he really stands for nothing. b.) the second problem is that while clinton is making a traditional campaign through the mainstream media, she never gets to respond directly to her critics, i.e. the blogosphere. therefore the blogosphere can make allegations against her (i.e. she is racist, weak, what have you), but she can never respond directly and thus her response is always too slow; the allegation spreads like a nasty rumor in alarmingly quick fashion. this democratic race is not shaping up to be black versus white (at least not unless the blogosphere says so), but instead, young versus old, gen-x versus the baby boomers, and at this point, gen x, at least in its presence on the internet, is kicking ass.
If Hillary and John McCain become the nominees, what percentage of democrats do you think will defect and vote republican?
My dad is a lifelong democrat, as is my wife, but both have suggested that if Hillary is the nominee, they don't think they can in good conscience vote for her.
The events this week with her husband just solidified that fact for them.
rude?
This just defies reality. It was just the Clintons' friends who are race, religion and drug-baiting!
Arent' there bigger issues than "who's more focused on race"? It's stupid and divisive to continue these arguments.
ja, dude among friends, can you look at Bill's comments on Jesse Jackson and blame us (Obama supporters) for the race talk? be honest now...
eli, post the specific quote you are talking about. that clip you posted above was a 15 second soundbyte. i have no idea what the context was, and honestly, no, i heard not the slightest hint of racism in what bill said. he simply said something about jesse jackson winning s.c. in '84 and '88. big deal.
and to my ear, whomever that reporter was, was intentionally trying to bait him.
so it is CNN's fault that Bill compared Obama to Jesse, who is seen by many as a fringe figure? There is no context, you saw it all, he was asked a simple question, which frankly is important to know.
-Why do you think it is taking two of you to beat Obama?
To which he answered:
"This is is bait" basically blaming the media and Obama for his next statement, because Bill cannot take responsibility for his actions
"Jesse Jackson won here in '84 and '88" Obama is obviously just like Jesse, both are black, right?
Why didn't Bill compare Obama to John Edwards? Or perhaps a better comparison would have been to one William Jefferson Clinton, the new face that won the state in '92. He chose Jesse because:
"As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," - Bill Clinton in SC
obviously Obama can only win among blacks, at least in Bill's logic.
okay, the opening question, "Why do you think it is taking two of you to beat Obama?" was condescending and antagonistic. i don't know how you can deny that. it immediately put bill on the defensive as you can tell by the pause and the smile before he spoke. i interpreted what bill was saying was that jesse jackson, a black candidate won s.c. on two different occasions, but did not win the party's nomination (mondale and dukakis did). explain to me why that is racist. is it racist to simply talk about race?
Look hes not a racist. He knows there was more to obamas win down there than just his race, but hes intensionally explaining that victory in racial terms in order to marginalize him. Let me say that again, hes marginalizing obama on the basis of race. Are we connecting the dots? That really doesnt bother you? So fine, by 1950's standards thats pretty acceptable, but shouldnt we expect more from a president who owes his political existence to strong black support than to make an organized effort to use race as a wedge issue?
At any rate it looks like were banging our heads against a wall here.
Hopefully the numbers from SC can kill this issue so we can talk about real shit.
Like jafidler, I didn't find what Clinton said racist. He was pointing out that the last major black candidate to run had been nominated twice in South Carolina. So South Carolina democrats have a history of supporting black candidate who don't go on to win either the party nomination or the presidency. This is a fact.
I'm an Obama supporter. While I found what Clinton said a little testy, I don't think it was in any way racist.
oe, he's not marginalizing obama. he's saying that race has had a significant impact on the voting history of south carolina and its effect on the democrats' selection process of its presidential candidate. good lord, if this is the extent of the clinton's "racial tactics" then obama's supporters are certainly making a mountain out of a mole hill.
My favorite part of this thread, besides all the crazy at the top of this page, is all of the negative platitudes that jafidler keeps whipping out to put everyone else on the defensive about Hillary. If a person comes on this thread and tries to ask legitimate questions about the way that Hillary (and now, Bill) are conducting their campaign expecting to try to formulate an opinion, do you think that calling complete strangers "rude" is going to help them change their mind? Or disregarding the question asked while discounting whatever the other candidate does by referring to an ever-changing set of political rules? It's just unhelpful, jaf.
As for Hillary, I don't think Bill did her any favors this week. I like Bill and I have a lot of respect for what he's done for the country, and the world, but she needs to stand on her own.
ja, you are wrong. bill is a grown ass man, former president and supposedly this wickedly intelligent person, but yet some naive baiting reporter got him off his game? give me a fucking break. 2-1, Barack got 2 times as many votes as hillary, more people came out to vote in SC than did in the 2004 election, and this is a primary. that had nothing to do with 1984, 1988, bill clinton or hillary clinton.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKOjXho8dfE
political campaigns get nasty. they should get nasty. these people want the second most powerful job in the world dammit. i want a goddamn brawl since i get no choice in who gets the nomination i want to see who is the most politically savvy to fuck the republicans over or they will do it to mr/mrs nambypamby in the election.
what's the first most powerful job, vado?
i don't want any premature ejaculate on me, so i think i'll wait for the real thing.
federal reverse chairman, of course...
here here! vado. This stuff with bill is kid gloves compared to what Karl Rove pulled on McCain in SC.
I might guess the head of the Fed. could be more powerful...
wonderk, here is an assortment of quotes from mr. beta in this thread:
hey Nazi, eat me, hill brought this on herself. post nazi someplace else.
ja just for you babeee!
funny thing is i searched this thread for something substantive that either of you might have contributed to this thread, and the only thing worth responding to is the shiite you have thrown at moi. so put that in your hookah and puff.
nazis.
ja, you can let the NYT think for you and speak for you, i'll let the man - Obama - do it for me; he's much more eloquent.
then there are the quotes from the obama thread, but i don't feel like looking for them. real stand up kinda guy. i'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for hillary, least of all you or beta.
People, people, let's keep it civil! (that includes me)
There's a lot to respond to here, but let me just harp on some faulty logic being used by some in this thread. Emilemech, you wrote:
" "As far as I can tell, neither Senator Obama nor Hillary have lost votes because of their race or gender. They are getting votes, to be sure, because of their race or gender — that's why people tell me Hillary doesn't have a chance of winning here," - Bill Clinton in SC
obviously Obama can only win among blacks, at least in Bill's logic."
Well, if you believe that Bill's statement implied what you wrote, and shows him to be racist, then he also insulted his wife and is also sexist, because he said race AND gender, twice. So in another state with a majority of women, Bill would logically think that Barack has no chance of winning, since he's a man, thus he's being sexist towards his wife (by implying she can only win by getting votes from women). Now, if that last statement is utterly ridiculous, then so is your conclusion that the quote proves his racism. Look, once and for all, it's very possible of Clinton to be dismissive of Obama by using Jesse Jackson as an example (because he lost in the end) but also not be a racist, just very agressive in his tactics and brutally honest, is that so hard to conceive? (And that's not saying that Clinton, in his heart of hearts, might not in the end be a racist, I can't read his mind; but I did not think of him as such in his years in office, and I don't think he is now.)
I just wish there was more shading in people's examination of these quotes and comments, not just the immediate jumping to 11 on the meter of accusations - which is just as irritating as the constant trotting out of Hitler as a comparison to any even slightly less-than-moral action done by anyone that one doesn't like. All that does is end any real conversation and get people screaming at each other.
vamure, i want to echo you in that we all should calm down a little.
to answer you he IS being somewhat sexist, but in a very calculated manner. If you box Hillary in as the 'white woman' candidate she wins, simple as that. As I showed before white women are the majority, plus some (if not the majority) of white men would also vote for her, this is their strategy and it may still work.
things have gotten out of hand, and i want to apologize to beta and wonderk. that last post i made was idiotic. sorry. really.
i've watched the mcclaughlin group since i was ten. i've always loved political debate, and while i agree with almost nothing he says, i like pat almost as much as i like eleanor. we can agree to disagree, but with no hard feelings.
Well, OK Elimelech, that could very well be their strategy.
Beta, to answer your question from above, I would say your first example is definitely racist, the second maybe not as clearly racist, and Clinton's even more difficult to call. But I'll play along: let's say Clinton did pick the example of Jackson to marginalize Obama, to say that Obama has about as much chance of winning the nomination as Jackson did: if Bill really believes that, then he's really an idiot. And I don't think he believes that. First, he very well knows that Obama won in Iowa for very different reasons than in SC, and second, he's just witnessed an overwhelming victory by Obama. You don't attack, viciously or sublty, someone you think has no chance of beating you or is a chump: you just ignore them (see John Edwards). You attack someone you fear and in some ways respect as a strong opponent (and that's no paradox).
JUst a little context
Jesse Jackson's victories is South Carolina were of a much different sort than today. First, South Carolina had a caucus. Second, Jesse Jackson is from South Carolina and it was homecoming for him. And he was unchallenged there. Basically Hart, Mondale, Glenn, et al. ceded South Carolina to Jackson. They put their resources into other states. Jackson also referred to jews as "hymies" and NY as "hymietown".
That's why Bill's comment comparing Obama's victory to Jackson's victories is really disingenuous. On the surface, to someone who knows nothing of the history, it seems harmless enough but Bill and Hillary spent a lot of time in South Carolina and brought in the founder of BET who said""As an African-American, I'm frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Bill and Hillary Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that -- and I won't say what he was doing, but he said it in his book -- when they have been involved," and Magic Johnson to belittle Obama with the rookie comments.
The Clintons desperately wanted to win in South Carolina and really hit Obama with everything they had. This was not the case in the 84 and 88 caucuses when the opposing candidates bypassed the state.
I hope this clarifies why many of us find Bill Clinton's comments to be so condescending and divisive. Jackson emerged as the "Black" candidate after his "Hymie" remarks and Obama is totally different. A better comparison of Jackson would be to Edwards as Edwards is also a native son and that's why his third place finish really hurt him.
PS jafidler, you're a MccLaughlin Group fan... Do you think he is actually the real voice of Tennessee Tuxedo? ;-)
Im honestly fucking tired of this argument. Rep. James Clyburn, the house majority whip, long-time friend of the Clintons, and probably the most serious expert on South Carolina politics, agreed that there was an organized effort by Hillary Clinton to inject racial divisions into this election in order to hurt Obama. YOU may not be offended by the Jackson remark, a comparison and analysis so blatantly flawed the only cogent connection between the two is their race, or raising the absurd possibility obama is an ex-coke-dealer, or any of a number of systematic attempts by the Clintons to raise Obamas race in a negative light, but the people of south carolina sure as hell were.
It was interesting to watch the contest evolve by looking at Clyburn. Clyburn stated that he was going to remain neutral but he went silent on the Clintons and spoke glowingly of Obama in the last week or so.
What do the Clintons do now? Do they roll out Chelsea and put Bill away until all of this blows over?
It's getting to be serial or a soap opera? ;-)
Man I always get pissed and fly off the handle just as everyones apologizing to eachother ha ha...
*rolleyeyes*
I try not to take this too seriously. I am not always successful though. I remember when I met the Democratic candidates in 88 and thought what a decent bunch of men they were. Especially Paul Simon, who endorsed Obama before he passed away, was really warm, humble and good natured. I thought-what if their supporters were held to the same standard? Food for thought...
jafidler, no hard feelings for sure. I try to not truly berate people until after I meet them, LOL.
That said, this is all very interesting. It's amazing to me how quickly, in this TV and internet age, the national "mood" about something can swing so swiftly. Reading the NYTimes at this point is pretty wild.....you've got the Times endorsement of Hillary right next to an op-ed by Caroline Kennedy endorsing Obama, and you've got the article about Teddy Kennedy coming out swinging for Obama next to the one about Bill Clinton not being able to keep his mouth shut. Talk about a Democratic cage fight!
I feel bad for Hillary in a way.....I have to think that Bill wants to support her and got a little too talkative in his enthusiasm for doing so, but he's such a slippery political evil genius that anything that comes out of his mouth gets analyzed 10x over.
I just want the playing field to be level. No dirty tricks, no "co-candidates", and for god's sakes, leave the racism/gender crap at home already. Basically I want the media to report the news and shut the hell up otherwise.
Ja, again, like bill and hillary clinton, you too take things out of context in order to invent or fabricate some kind of "truth." the fact of the matter, and one no one here will bother to look at, is that my response was completely on point and for this reason - THE PERSON POSTING THEIR COMMENT[S] IS NAMED POSTNAZI!
vamure, of course bill clinton knew what he was saying was bunk, he does not have to believe in what he says. he knows that their is a segment of the population that is uncommitted in the party and any negative - you know smoke and fire - will have the effect of negating a positive message. he knows if he can pull Obama off message and have him responding to himself and not hillary, he can have the double effect of having hillary speak on point, looking positive, and make Obama look like he's exploiting race and becoming the "black" candidate.
tone and context.
beta, i'm sorry about that post. what more can i say?
pull obama off message
what message?! unity? that's the problem with obama. there is no message, and that in my opinion is why he will likely win the nomination. america doesn't want a thinker, it doesn't want ideas. after the last eight years of bush, i think most everyone is content to sit and look pretty for the next four, and considering how our reputation has been diminished in the world view, maybe that's not such a bad thing. the only problem with that is now is a time when we need someone with experience and ideas. there's a war, the economy is in rough shape, there is growing awareness of an environmental crisis - and obama is the person to take on those issues? not if i'm doing the hiring.
Beta, now that I agree with: it's political tactics. But this bandying about of "evil" is just comic book stuff to me. I mean, I don't much like the sitting president, but I certainly don't think he's evil: incompetent or deluded, maybe, but not evil (now Rumsfeld, I think he may have been evil; I swear the man has a piece of granite where his heart should be).
The other day I read that 1 in 4 people only know our president as being Bush or Clinton. Is this really all our country has to offer?
for people that think Bill Clinton helped African Americans
http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/clinton/clinton.html
new york NOW chapter regarding kennedy's backing of obama: "Women have just experienced the ultimate betrayal."
i want a real woman to run, not a woman with her husband's hand up her back...that's not feminism.
no, hillary clinton doesn't want to just win, she wants to win at all costs...
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/01/25/clinton-rewrite-the-rules-for-me/
what does she know that we don't? could it be she made a pact with satan?
this just in!: edwards is out.
after breaking her promise not to campaign in florida (and after all the other democratic candidates kept that promise), hillary will probably whine and complain until the florida delegation is reinstated. that's winning at all costs indeed...
I may have been willing to vote for Hillary over any Republican candidate in the general election, even if it meant holding my nose while doing so.
But if she stoops that low and succeeds, I'll cast my vote for whatever Socialist or Green candidate is on the ballot, even if it's some nobody I've never heard of before, rather than vote for her.
beta and fellow obama supporters,
I urge you to stop talking about Hillary so much, let's go to the Obama '08 thread and write all the reasons why we support Obama.
One such thing is how Obama is better suited to go against McCain. I like McCain a lot (specially his stances on Climate Change and immigration), but Obama is better on both of those issues plus he bests him in domestic issues such as:
-healthcare
-choice for women
Also, McCain's support of Bush over Iraq gives Obama a great boost. She-who-should-not-be-named would not be able to take on McCain on this issue. Finally she will give McCain a majority; uniting Republicans and pushing away independents and even some democrats, as simple as that.
An Obama - McCain campaign would be hard but probably mud free, a Clinton-McCain would be bloody and nasty, and it would end with a Republican administration.
I cant believe Im going to defend her but she didnt break the rules in Fla. - Her constituants hit the streets for her - not technically illeagal.
That said, dont be fooled by the turnout - there was a disproportionate number of elderly, especially property owners, because there was a huge statewide referendum to lower property taxes accross the state. From what I heard on CNN and MSN it was actually more heated than the primaries - young couples want taxes to go to schools while old folks wintering in Fla dont want to be taxed more - a timeless debate.
I agree with LIG. Hillary and Bill will sell out anyone and/or their souls to get back into the White House. I don't think Obama is that way. Nor is Dodd or Richardson but they are not in the race anymore. The mood of the country is more anti-incumbent than in 2000. Let's face it.... if Bill and Hillary weren't busy commuting the sentences of Marc Rich and instead were more focused on putting a classy finish onto their 8 years, Al Gore would have won the 2000 election by a landslide and we wouldn't be in this position.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.