Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Clinton Running Late, Couldn’t Fill Auditorium

By

Bill Clinton true to form ran at least 2 hours late to the Niki Tsongas Rally.  I stood outside the rally to try and get pictures for the blog but decided to come home after he hadn’t shown up yet at 845 pm, close to two hours after the scheduled start of the event.  Apparently he missed his flight and was being driven up from Chappaqua.  The Ogonowski Campaign has seized on Clinton’s lateness and offered ten places  he could have been, instead of the Niki Tsongas event:

The Top Ten Places Bill Clinton Could Be While Niki Tsongas Waits for Him to Arrive

1.  Thought fundraiser would be where Niki Tsongas actually lives, so he went to her Charlestown Town House

2.  Wanted a tan, went to Niki Tsongas’s Chatham Mansion

3.  Campaigning for Hillary against Barack Obama in New Hampshire seemed more pressing

4.  Went wrong way, thought he was going to Nancy Pelosi fundraiser in San Francisco

5.  Eating at the 99 Restaurant down the street from Ogonowski Headquarters

6.  Attending a Richard Hsu fundraiser

7.  When told of “sinking ship” assumed fundraiser was in Boston Harbor

8.  Lowell, Indiana

9.  Still in New York City. “I just love this City.” – Bill Clinton on Saturday Night Live

10.  He just may still have some unresolved issues with the Tsongas folks

In addition the AP is reporting  That only 2,000 people are expected for the free portion of the Tsongas event.  That means the hall will only be 2/3 full for this event, as the auditorium seats 3000 for events such as this.  That is amazing, Bill Clinton couldn’t fill a room in Massachusetts of all places, despite free tickets.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

    • …just to let you know, Scarlet O’Hara also invoked God in the end–of the first act of Gone With The Wind.

      <

      p>
      Your point is rather obscure.  Maybe you would wish to expand on your point, because it makes no sense whatsoever.

          • But in a previous thread, I recall seeing the fact that the Democratic candidates that it was apparently “disgusting” that  they got asked a question about their favorite Bible passage. 

            <

            p>
            I think expecting vitriol over a man campaigning for Niki invoking God would ruffle their feathers a bit.  He’s pandering! Paaandering!

            • BMG’s Atheist Congregation

              <

              p>
              …it is fairly obvious from your initial caps on “Atheist Congregation” and your use of “congregation” at all (as far as I know, atheists don’t have congregations–certainly not in a religious sense–that you were merely baiting. 

              <

              p>
              And I was ridiculing your comment for what it obviously was–merely baiting.

            • I recall seeing the fact that the Democratic candidates that it was apparently “disgusting” that  they got asked a question about their favorite Bible passage.

              <

              p>
              Yes, it was a stupid question.  It was about as dumb as the question in one of the presidential debates in 2000 or 2004 (I forget which) as to who the candidates’ favorite philosopher was.  What does that have to do with government policy?

              <

              p>
              In elections, we aren’t hiring a priest, pastor, or whatever.  We are hiring a government official.  If these interrogators are unable to come up with questions relating to governmental policy, they shouldn’t be hired to do the rather ridiculous interrogation that they are apparently carrying out.

              • Yes, it was a stupid question.  It was about as dumb as the question in one of the presidential debates in 2000 or 2004 (I forget which) as to who the candidates’ favorite philosopher was.  What does that have to do with government policy?

                <

                p>
                The post that i referred to also mentioned how the candidates were asked about the world series.  However, outrage was only expressed over the Bible Passage question.  If questions should only be asked if relevant to the governorship of the country, why was there nobody going “I can’t believe they asked a question about baseball! it’s so irrelevant!”

                • The post that i referred to also mentioned how the candidates were asked about the world series.

                  <

                  p>
                  …I did not see any links in your comments above, and I’m not going to speculate as to what you are referring.

                • …you are going to point out that what from the comments there evidences an Atheist Congregation at BMG, I presume.

                  <

                  p>
                  I skimmed through the comments there, and saw nothing there that would evidence an Atheist Congregation.

                  <

                  p>
                  Feel free to be as expansive as you like.

                • for someone who seems to pride themselves on witty sayings (bush maladministration, wholly babble, many others) you seem very unable to take what you dish out. 

                  <

                  p>
                  =,(

                • …you are unable to point to any comment on your cited page that evidences an Atheist Congregation at BMG.

                  <

                  p>
                  As to your two little jibes in the above comment, neither “Bush malAdministration” nor “Wholly Babble” were original with me, but I will continue to use them to express sarcasm.  As to the first, I really doubt that you would like it for me to go through the litany as to why the “mal” part of malAdministration.  As to the second, for some of us who have reviewed a number of us over the Internet, there are so many internal inconsistencies in the Bible that it really is a Babble.

                  <

                  p>
                  On a more general matter, let me point out that you were purporting to attack people at BMG (“BMG’s Atheist Congregation”).  On the other hand, my jibes were not directed to people at BMG; I have not noticed that anyone posting here is part of the Bush malAdministration, and I’m fairly certain that the Wholly Babble isn’t posting or commenting here.

                • How can I be attack the Atheist Congregation Inc. if there isn’t one?  Are you admitting there is one?  Are you the Archbishop of Cant-be-religious-urbury?  The leader?

                • As an aside, I notice that you still haven’t provided any notice as to which posts on your cited page evidence atheism.  Why do you keep evading that issue?

                • Don’t presume that people can necessarily tell what is a joke or what is intended to be serious merely from the text.

                • … there are any constituents who are really interested in elected officials enacting policy based on what their favorite sports team is. 

                  <

                  p>
                  There are plenty of people who want religion to inform policy decisions.

                  <

                  p>
                  Thats the difference and thats why one is harmless while the other is worrying in a country that espouses freedom of religion.

                • but a lot of policy decisions are people decisions, and religion is an extremely important people factor.  While I know religion has no place in a lot of policy areas, to pretend that it’s an institution that can be separated from the country like apples from oranges, it’s impossible.  I think its all part of the big big puzzle of finding the right candidate.  Do they answer questions about blacks?  Gays?  Poor people? Rich people?  To think that simply because we have an institutional seperation of church and state doesn’t mean it has to be avoided.  Avoiding something won’t make it go away.

                • … litmus test is exactly what the founders ensconced in the Constitution.  I don’t have a problem with discussion of religion, but any time it turns up in a debate it is (potentially or actually) too dangerously close to a consideration of religion as a qualification for office.  Thus is is better to avoid it all together, as far as debate questions go.

                  <

                  p>
                  OTH, if a candidate wants to quote the bible and his or her religious convictions in response to a given question, that is perfectly reasonable.

                • …he may not bring it up that often.

                  <

                  p>
                  But on the Romney youtube channel, there are three videos specifically about faith. Granted, someone else brought it up, but the campaign does make the effort to showcase Romney speaking of faith.

                  <

                  p>
                  Also, in this clip some asshole tries to assault Romney’s Mormonism saying he doesn’t believe in Jesus. Yes, the questioner broached the subject, but Romney goes on to say that the US President must be a person of faith. Sounds to me like Romney is endorsing a de facto religious test for the presidency. I’d also say that “person of faith” is often a code word for Christianity. That’s how I interpret it.  Even if intentionally using “person f faith” as a code word, I would bet Mitt and his campaign would be happy not to disabuse his audience of the notion that he meant that the US must have a Christian president. 

                • … at the heart of his policy decisions, I don’t really care.  The problem is that there are too many media consumers (and presumably potential voters) who do.

                  <

                  p>
                  The point of any evaluation of a candidate is to evaluate how he or she would serve.  If religion is so central to their character that it is informative in knowing how they would serve, it could be considered relevant.  Any inquiry into the religion of a candidate, therefore, best serves the public by first figuring out the answer to that question.  If, like JFK, they espouse (and evidence doesn’t contradict) that their tenets of policy serve their constituents quite differently than their tenets of religion, then any further inquiry into religion is not informative any more.

                  <

                  p>
                  This all assumes, of course, the ideal where the voter understands that policy considerations are what is salient toward evaluation of candidates for office.  Unfortunately, many voters do have a religious litmus test, despite the efforts of our founding fathers to illustrate the folly in that.  That is why the media doesn’t often let it drop.

                • …the sad fact that you have is that candidates, particularly  at the national level have, over the last 20-30 years, been wearing their religions on their sleeves.  The purpose is, of course, to pander to voters, and whether or not the candidates actually live according the the religion that they supposedly practice.

                • … on your sleeve, then it is reasonable to assume it informs your decisions.  As such, it can and should then become fair game. 

              • …has anyone else noticed yet that Kucinich chose a passage that isn’t IN the Bible?

                <

                p>
                I would have thought that would free up St. Augustine for somebody else…’Oh, Lord, give me chastity – but not yet…’

                • I would have been curious as to his answer to the argument raj and I had over what planetary body revolves around what.

                • …”I’m from Cleveland, so I’d prefer the Indians to either the Yankees or the Red Sox.”

                  <

                  p>
                  BTW, after you have solved the N-body problem (which heretofore has been insoluble) we can discuss what revolves around what, and where.

  5. …any of the top ten lists I’ve ever seen on the Letterman show.  The author should consider going into another line of work.

  6. Oh my!  This campaign is being so uncivil and childish to a former president!  It’s almost as bad as not using his name at all!

    <

    p>
    Quick, have the underpaid illegal immigrants bring the fainting couch out to the media room!  I have garments to rend!

    • It’s interesting when it is pointed out that the very thing that got eabo’s patnties in a bunch (not addressing an opponent by name) is common practice and that Bush didn’t address Kerry once by name in a ’04 debate Eabo cuts and runs from the argument. He doesn’t attempt to reconcile Bush’s actions with his attempted criticism.

      <

      p>
      He also cuts and run from criticism. I’ll repeat David’s comment because he hits the nail on the head:

      <

      p>

      Actually, I’ve noticed that that’s a pattern with you.  You put out some incendiary “fact,” someone calls you on it and provides actual information showing that your “fact” was wrong, and then you go away.  No apology, no retraction, no “hey, thanks for the info.”  Just radio silence.  Poor netiquette, at best.

      <

      p>
      How many threaads of died because someone confronts cut and run eabo with the facts and eabo finds himself out matched? I don’t think it’s just David who sees this pattern.

      <

      p>
      I’d also like to point out that eabo called me an “ass wipe” and expended the effort to devote an entire diary to an ad hominem attack against me (a diary that was rightly turned into a laughing stock) claiming I somehow gave “aid and comfort to the enemy” and “endangered American lives”, yet when confronted with a a thorough and substantive treatment of the facts, eabo cuts and runs and refuses to engage the text and the support materials. Eabo’s MO is posting a combination of misrepresented, misinformed incendiary “fact”, an ad hominem attack, and then cutting and running.

      <

      p>
      Eabo, operating this way is tacit admission that you are out-matched and out-classed here.  It’s embarrassing. How about instead of hurling crass insults and cutting and pasting Ogonowski campaign spam you go back and tie-up some of your old threads – for old times sake?  Or is it impossible for you to not to attack the source and ignore the text and the facts?  People here are pretty laid back and your reputation here is likely to be salvageable.

  7. I had thought it was at noon and already had plans to go to the aquarium that morning so I didn’t think I’d make it. I should pay attention more.

      • We got reference to over 2000 people, then max capacity is actually around 2800 for certain events.  The place was well packet for the event.  Don’t kid yourself.

        • Maybe in your opinion. But to me….it wasn't. If Clinton (of all ex presidents) can't fill a 2800 – 3000 seat room (in Massachusetts of all states) that is a flop in my book. I'm also hearing rumors that it was free….Damn!

           

          But between you and me……I wasn't surprised. 

Archives