Bringing Down The Democrats

[FOTD]

To distract from videotaped confirmation that Senator Clinton lied on multiple occasions about Bosnian landing, campaign goes nuclear in attack on Obama while Bill continues to praise McCain. We are seeing the birth of the second Joe Lieberman. On top of it, Senator Clinton a week late attacks Obama on Jeremiah Wright in interview with, get this, Richard Mellon Scaife's Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Clinton is going to bring down the Democratic Party.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_558930.html

It is simple to see who supports her campaign of racism and hate. Just look around....here, there and everywhere.

http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/03/25/buchanan-kristol-hannity/

[Conan71]

Fact of the matter is that the Rev. Wright situation has become the new "southern strategy".  The Clintons are engaging in reverse-racism, and it's defininitely served the purpose of stirring up the electorate.  Either it's going to end up in record numbers of black voters in November or a record boycot by them.

People far smarter and plugged in than humble ol' Conan are finally saying "Holy **** everyone forgot about McCain".  Quit dicking around Hillary and cede the race.  

You guys got yourselves into this huge mess with "superdelegates".  Call your races at a 100 delegate spread if you like, but these super-delegates are very much for sale till the convention.

Do what's right Democrats, unite behind the party of Bill & Hill.  It's the Wright thing to do.  That cute little Obama guy?  Why he's only 47, he can be president when he's 55.

Say, where are reverends Je$$e Jack$on and Al $harpton in all this?  Have they finally made up with Obama?  FWIW, $harpton looks like a hybrid of Ron Jeremy and Don King.

[RecycleMichael]

Oh please. Obama gives a major speech on race and his pastor...every newscaster in the country and half the preachers in America talk about it every day...then a week later Hillary mentions it. The Obama campaign was just waiting for her to say anything to smear her.

By the way, Hillary didn't say that Obama should leave the church, just that she would have. What do you know, an honest statement that most of America would agree with. Yet to FOTD, an opportunity to attack.

That is not what any rational person would say is a "campaign of racism and hate".

Stop your constant and unfair attacks. That is what is killing the democrats just as much as anything the Hillary supporters are saying.

If you want to say that Hillary lied about her Bosnia trip, ask Obama about his comments that he "passed nuclear legislation". His bill never passed the Senate, it only passed through a committee.

I believe that Hillary misspoke and I believe Obama misspoke. It happens.

[Conan71]

You know RM, I've never once heard you ask someone to stop constant and unfair attacks on President Bush.

That only helps lower the morale of the country as a whole and serves no greater good, don't you think?

[Neptune]

Because morale is what it's all about.  Doesn't matter if your president is a dumb**** and a puppet, as long as you click your heals and repeat "in charge and intelligent" it's all good.  It's called mind over matter.  

No one is claiming you can warp spoons with that kind of brain power, but you just might.

[cannon_fodder]

RM, I realize you support Hillary and you have loyally defended her.  Why I clearly don't agree with this, I think you have done so with earnest intentions and generally with sound statements.

However,

quote:I believe that Hillary misspoke and I believe Obama misspoke. It happens.

When Obama said he passed legislation he clearly meant to convey the impression that it became law.  But on the surface he has wiggle room because the statement merely says he passed legislation, which he did.  Albeit from a committee and not into law.  A dishonest tactic, but not really a lie (a knowingly false statement, because it context it was true).  

Clinton said she had no greeting party, sniper bullets whizzed by her head, and she was rushed ducking into a waiting car.  With no wiggle room, that is simply a lie.  It is not making a statement hoping people misinterpret it, it is not an exaggeration, nor is it a simple slip of words.  

She narrated an entire series of events that just never happened and then closed the statement with "now that's the truth."
Sorry, but saying that an entire narration was just accidentally misspoken doesn't fly.

[edit]She also "mispoke" on numerous other occasions apperently:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262008/news/nationalnews/now_bunko_hill_is_under_fire_103582.htm?page=2

Seriously, you mispeak if you say you have been in office for 7 years and it has been 6 and a half.  Not when you fabricate a story.[/edit]

[FOTD]

And down the stretch they come:

"If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, just 55% of Clinton voters say they are even somewhat likely to vote for him against John McCain. That's down two points from 57%.

If Clinton is the nominee, just 55% of Obama voters say they are at least somewhat likely to vote for her against McCain. That's down nine points from 64%. "

In other words, you republicans need to continue to fight for Billary....


http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_democratic_presidential_primary

"Rasmussen Markets data just prior to release of this poll shows that Clinton is overwhelming favored to end up victorious in Pennsylvania (current prices: Clinton 84.4% Obama 15.8%). Overall, the Markets give Obama a 81.0% chance to win the Democratic nomination while expectations for a Clinton victory are at 19.7%. "

Penn does not really matter a whole lot.....

[FOTD]

Moe mentions magic....
You have to look hard to find this classic op-ed stuff....

Hillary or Nobody?

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: March 26, 2008
WASHINGTON


While the cool cat's away, the Hillary mice will play.

As Barack Obama was floating in the pool with his daughters the last few days in St. Thomas, some Clinton disciples were floating the idea of St. Hillary as his vice president.

She can't win without him, said one Hillary adviser, and he can't win without her.

They're stuck with each other.

It's one of my favorite movie formulas, driving the dynamics in such classics as "A Few Good Men," "The Big Easy" and "Guys and Dolls": Charming, glib guy spars and quarrels with no-nonsense, driven girl, until they team up in the last reel. He spices up her life, and she stiffens his spine. And soon they hear the pitter-patter of little superdelegate feet, who are thrilled not to be pulled in two directions anymore.

And everybody's happy. Or are they?

A couple of weeks ago, when Hill and Bill mentioned the possibility of a joint ticket, it was an attempt to undermine Obama and urge voters and superdelegates to put Hillary on top; the implication was that this was the only way Democrats could have both their stars, and besides, it was her turn. The precocious boy wonder had plenty of time.

But with the math not in her favor, her options running out, Bill Richardson running out and her filigreed narrative of dodging bullets in Bosnia and securing peace in Northern Ireland unraveling, could Hillary actually think the vice presidency is the best she'll do?

One Hillary pal said she wouldn't want to go back to a Senate full of lawmakers who'd abandoned her for Obama. And even if she could get to be majority leader, would it be much fun working with Nancy Pelosi, whose distaste for the Clintons has led her to subtly maneuver for Obama?

Maybe The Terminator is thinking: if she could just get her pump in the door. Dick Cheney, after all, was able to run the White House and the world from the vice president's residence, calling every shot while serving under a less experienced and younger president. And Observatory Circle is just up the street from where Hillary now lives.

But, aside from Barack and Michelle Obama's certain resistance, would it fly? Many Hillary voters are hardening against Obama, and more and more Obama fans are getting turned off by the idea of dragging down the Obama brand with Clinton dysfunction.

"No drama, vote Obama" placards and T-shirts are popping up at Obama rallies, and one of his military advisers dubbed him "No Shock Barack."

It's hard to imagine that after spending her whole life playing second-fiddle to a superstar pol, Hillary wants to do it again. She's been vice president.

Could the veep talk be a red herring? A ploy designed to distract attention from the Clintons' real endgame?

Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill — which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight — is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain.

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she'd be 65.

Why else would Hillary suggest that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, and why else would Bill imply that Obama was less patriotic — and attended by more static — than McCain?

Why else would Phil Singer, a Hillary spokesman, say in a conference call with reporters on Tuesday that Obama was trying to disenfranchise the voters of Florida and Michigan. "When it comes to voting, Senator Obama has turned the audacity of hope into the audacity of nope," he said, adding, "There's a basic reality here, which is we could have avoided the entire George W. Bush presidency if we had counted votes in Florida." So is Singer making the case that Obama is as anti-democratic as W. was when he snatched Florida from Al Gore?

Some top Democrats are increasingly worried that the Clintons' divide-and-conquer strategy is nihilistic: Hillary or no democrat.

(Or, as one Democrat described it to ABC's Jake Tapper: Hillary is going for "the Tonya Harding option" — if she can't get the gold, kneecap her rival.)

After all, the Clintons think of themselves as The Democratic Party. When Bill and Dick Morris triangulated during the first term, it was what was best for Bill, not the party. In 1996, when Bill turned the White House into Motel 1600 for fund-raisers, it was more about his re-election than the re-elections of his fellow Democrats in Congress; in 2000, the White House focused its energies more on Hillary's Senate win than Al Gore's presidential run.

And even Clinton supporters know that Bill does not want to be replaced as the first black president, especially by a black president with enough magic to possibly eclipse him in the history books.


Black magic Maureen....indeed!

[RecycleMichael]

This says what I was trying to say about both candidates and telling the complete truth. To only point out Hillary's statements is unfair to her.

Honestly, candidates, stop the truth-parsing
By Joan Vennochi
Globe Columnist / March 27, 2008
MEMORY PLAYS funny tricks on the political mind.

Hillary Clinton remembers sniper fire during a 1996 visit to war-torn Bosnia. Barack Obama can't remember exactly what he heard at church over the past 20 years. After the past eight years, it's no joke. The truth matters.

In 2000, George W. Bush campaigned for the presidency as the candidate who would bring honesty back to the White House. Now, many statements he made in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and afterward are considered blatant lies. Today, the president's credibility on subjects foreign and domestic is in tatters.

Clinton was rightly forced to acknowledge that she did not land "under sniper fire" and did not run for her life afterward. Confronted with video news clips that showed her greeting smiling children on the tarmac, she said, "I made a mistake. That proves I'm human, which for some people is a revelation."

Obama had trouble acknowledging what he heard from the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright and when he heard it. In the speech on race he delivered on March 18, Obama said: "Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes." Yet, in a March 14 posting on Huffington Post, Obama wrote: "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach." Note the Clintonian phrasing: Obama was addressing only the statements "that are the cause of this controversy," referring to specific video clips of Wright's inflammatory remarks.

Speaking of Clintonian phrasing, Bill Clinton remembered smoking marijuana, but not inhaling it. Bush remembered showing up for National Guard duty, even though no one else remembered seeing him. John Kerry remembered being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968, when he may have only been near the Cambodian border, not across it. Mitt Romney remembered marching with his father and Martin Luther King Jr. through the streets of Detroit, an event he was forced to acknowledge never took place. On the other hand, John McCain conveniently forgets the lobbyists or former lobbyists who raised money for him. Amnesia is the only explanation for this McCain statement of November 2007: "Everybody says they're against the special interests, but I'm the only one the special interests don't give any money to."

For Hillary Clinton, lack of credibility is a real political problem. When asked whether the candidates were "honest and trustworthy," voters in a recent USA Today/Gallup survey gave Clinton the lowest rating - 44 percent. McCain won with 67 percent, and Obama scored 63 percent. As a candidate, Clinton carries the weight of her husband's long list of lies about sex and other matters, as well as her own dishonesty during and after his administration. Dick Morris, a onetime Clinton friend turned nemesis, lists as Hillary Clinton's "admitted lies": being under sniper fire in Bosnia; saying that daughter Chelsea Clinton was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, when she was actually watching it on TV; contending that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary; and learning from the Wall Street Journal how to play the futures market. His list of "whoppers she won't confess to" is even longer.

Obama does some truth-parsing, too. The Wright matter is one example; a recent report involving Canada and the North American Free Trade Agreement is another. The candidate at first denied a story that a top staffer from his campaign telephoned the Canadian ambassador to warn him that the candidate would be speaking against the trade agreement but that it would only be campaign rhetoric. As it turned out, a senior Obama campaign staffer did talk about NAFTA with a senior Canadian diplomat. Judicial Watch, a Washington-based public interest group, which forced the release of Clinton's White House schedules as first lady, also contends that Obama has a "records problem" from his time in the Illinois Legislature. His "story keeps changing" about whether such records exist, the group charged yesterday.

At some point, selective memory syndrome turns into outright lying. And for any presidential candidate, that's no laughing matter.

[FOTD]

McCain will have the perfect excuse. He will say he's too old to remember what it was he said or did.

"He looks like the guy at the movies whose wife has to repeat everything..." D. Letterman

[Gaspar]

In the next couple of weeks they can't help but devour each-other.

There will be nothing left for the Republicans.

If Obama or Hillary lose this election they need only to look to each-other and their party for blame.