As The Guardian reported today:
The Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama today accused Bill Clinton of habitual dishonesty over his portrayal of him.
In an attack that suggested the fight between Obama and Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination was becoming increasingly bitter, Obama accused the former president of making comments that “weren’t supported by facts” in his campaign to support his wife.
“I have to say just broadly, you know, the former president – who I think all of us have a lot of regard for – has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling,” he told Good Morning America.
Quite right. Senator Clinton should attack Obama directly if she wants to do it, not get her husband to do all the dirty work.
So what about when Obama has Michelle doing his dirty work, that’s okay?
<
p>Looks to me like the Politics of Change is turning into the Politics of a Politician.
Bill Clinton is more like George HW Bush was in the last election – a former President related to a candidate. He’s not in the same position as Michelle, who is merely a candidate’s spouse. Old Presidents are allowed to offer their opinions unsupported by facts, it’s their prerogative. And candidate’s spouses are allowed to make offensive personal slights, they aren’t expected to be making cogent arguments about anything, even if that’s what they think they are doing.
Judging by the lack of a cogent argument presented above, “they” has revealed “they”-selves to be a candidate’s spouse. My handwriting analysis suggests Mrs. Fred Thompson: any other guesses?
Some of the comments come in way past the Thompsons’ bedtime.
but, Bill is still a spouse of a candidate running for President.
<
p>I don’t know where you got this idea that spouses aren’t expected to be making cogent arguments. If they are supporting their husband/wife publicly, which happens all the time, they are going to be held response for anything they say.
<
p>Remember when Elizabeth went after Michelle? No one seemed to care about that. But god forbid a Clinton goes after the Obama’s with some truthful information…it’s like treason!
<
p>No double-standards please.
He is unlike no other, because a woman running for Presidient, let alone a former First Lady, is without precedent.
<
p>I think that the: “He isn’t allowed into the fray” is simply designed by Obama partisans to neutralize a big advantage of their competitor. No more and no less.
At least Bill’s attacks aren’t personal:
<
p>
I hadn’t seen that. It’s really nasty. The Obama campaign should apologize.
it’s obviously ridiculous. JFK/Jackie O wasn’t exactly a perfect marriage (“Happy Birthday, Mr. President …”), yet I haven’t heard Obama (or Mrs. Obama) criticizing the Kennedy White House.
You see, Obama is different. He’s above petty politics. He’s all about Change! When Obama becomes POTUS (after all those delusional/extremist Edwards supporters get on board) he’ll unite the country, and reach out to bring those entrenched powers to the table for some compromising.
<
p>It’s a good cop/bad cop routine. His wife is playing bad cop here, but Obama will eventually charm Hillary (and Bill) with his good cop jujitsu of Hope & Change. He’ll then turn it loose on the GOP, who will fall in line, thus uniting the country. The Party of Faux, Rove & DeLay will be mesmerized by his audacious message of Change! Peace & Prosperity ensue.
winter. It died down quickly. I dont remember if it was taken out of context–and I think she was talking about troubled families in the black community–that being the “we”. I dont remember exactly but I do remember the controversy died down very quickly.
The Obamas should stick to serious issues.
bystander in this cycle (not supporting anyone except for a wonderful young man who is campaigning for a local library trustee spot), is giving me a whole new perspective on Kool Aid drinking. I finally understand why people tune it all out, especially when it gets to the he said/she said stuff. I hope it’s over soon.
Obama should hold himself to the same standard he demands of others…his silence in repudiating the UNITE HERE nasty, negative ads in Nevada targeted at the Latinos was deafening…(Even Edwards called him out on that nasty business)
<
p>The Obama campaign positions people cleverly…if you disagree with or criticize Obama, you are a racist. If you disagree with or criticize Clinton, it’s “all’s fair in tough politics…suck it up.”
<
p>SUGGESTION FOR ALL CANDIATES:
<
p>If people criticize you for not being substantive, for not having experience, for not having a strong record, for not have programs/solutions to offer…the best way to counter is to show ’em what you’ve got in those departments…
<
p>Shooting the messenger is not a great strategy…Kerry tried to Shoot the messengers who delivered attacks from Swiftboats, had he just proved them wrong with hard, irrefutable and swift evidence, the outcome could have been different!
<
p>Stop the whining and bickering…it makes you all look weak and petty.
Your memory must be fraying. It was because Kerry thought responding to the the swiftboat attacks was undignified that he let them hurt him. Just like Wille Horton. You gotta fire back.
<
p>And its time Obama fired back hard at BILL. Hope can take a break. The Clintons will do anything, say anything. Obama may not like it, but he has to get down to their scummy level.
<
p>Think about it – they brought up his admitted drug use – at least he was man enough to admit he inhaled. I mean that says it all. That is the Clintons in a freakin nutshell – tried weed and didn’t inhale. What a load of BS. Having it both ways.
<
p>And Hillary the other night when asked for a weakness said she was just too impatient for change. Are you kidding me? No weaknesses for Hill. None. None she can admit. And then Obama is man enough to say he is disorganised and she says he is essentially unfit for the presidency because of it.
<
p>I’ll give it to her – that level of dishonesty and say-anythingness has to be respected. I guess she deserves the White House because if you are willing to sound that fake then you really should be running the friggin country.
oh give them a break. They all did fine with a truly stupid question. “I have a messy desk.” Honest to God.
they would be saying that proves he wouldnt be able to respond to Republican attacks. The Clintons would spin it either way.
<
p>Obama did not say anything particularly nasty about Bill.
In describing Clinton’s behavior Obama made the mistake of saying …. “a level that I think IS pretty troubling”.
<
p>IS pretty troubling?
Where you been Obama?
Everyone knows that Bill has major problems figuring out what the meaning of IS IS đŸ™‚
<
p>{I couldnt resist this one}
Bob, candidates always have someone else do the brunt of the attacking for them. If Barack were married to a former President who had particular gifts in giving feint praise, you could bet he’d be making good use of it too. What’s Bill Clinton supposed to do? Hide for the remainder of the election? The only difference between him now and during the 90s, that I see, is the fact that he’s campaigning for his wife instead of himself.
If she wants to win the Presidential election. That is my point. She should step out and attack Obama herself, if she believes the charges.
<
p>Many of the commenters seem to think that my point was the same as Obama’s: that the attacks by Bill Clinton are untrue. That’s as may be — and I do agree it is an incredible thing to see Bill Clinton, of all people, attack someone else for not being accurate about the truth — but it’s a different subject.
<
p>[Personally, just to wrap up the loose end, I do think that (a) Obama is right at a matter of record, however (b) like many of the commenters, that that is politics, and thus (c) since it’s politics, Obama is right to counter-attack.]
Hillary should come out more and be leading the swings – she definitely did at last night’s debate, though. And I’ve listened to one or two things that Bill’s said which he clearly should have not said (ie a particular Nevada quote about something Bill “overheard”). But I don’t think it necessarily bad that Bill’s on the attack. I will say that he should stick to the issues, because that’s what he’s good at.
stay home and knit ?
I’ve had enough of Bill Clinton beating up Obama, seizing every opportunity to take a shot at him, mischaracterizing his words and record. Not dignified for a former President – but when was Bill Clinton ever dignified.
I think it is high time that Barack started taking it to Hill via Bill. Something like this should come into his stump speech:
<
p>” Sometimes it get’s a little confusing remembering who I’m running against these days – you know I mean which Clinton is running for president – they’re both out there attacking me so much its hard to keep it straight whose saying what about me.
<
p>Bill’s been out there a lot lately – arguing with reporters, defending his time in office, saying my candidacy is a fairly tale – sometimes I kinda forget he’s the former president and not a candidate himself again. And honestly it makes me kinda wonder whose gonna speak for the administration if Hillary wins. Some say you’ re buying two presidents for the price of one – but if you ask me its more like the price of confusion.
<
p>And all this negative campaigning by Bill has me thinking about the past – about our history, about what our country has faced in the past few decades. I think about Bush’s dad – you know he took us to war in the middle east too – but at least he had the sense to have an exit strategy before we got bogged down in a civil war in Iraq.
<
p>Then Bill got elected and then Bush junior and you know where that has gotten us – stuck in Iraq, on the cusp of a recession, with middle class folks struggling to make ends meet.
<
p>And now Bill is back out there again – certainly acting like the candidate, wants another shot at the White House, although this time as first man – he’s beating me up, he and Senator Clinton are Washington experts running a textbook Washington campaign. And all this repetition, all this recent history – Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton – one war in Iraq and then another one – middle class families still struggling to get by – it makes me wonder about all these so-called experienced candidates and where they’ve gotten us – because it certainly doesn’t feel like they’ve gotten us very far.
<
p>We seem to be running in place, electing one family, then the other and then back again – all the while real change in our country isn’t happening.
<
p>And you know folks, I have a lot of respect for the Clintons and their service to our nation – but going backwards in time isn’t an option even if we wanted it to be. And I guess I’ll be blunt about this because someone has to – the Clintons had eight years in the White House to make change only seven years ago and look where are we today.
<
p>Now I know you and I would agree that much of the reason for us falling backwards is because of Bush and the politics of division that he practiced. You’re not gonna get an argument from me about who is at fault for reversing much of the progress our country made in the 1990s.
<
p>But I ask you to think about what our country needs now. The challenges we face today – terrorism and global warming, economic problems and the high cost of living for average folks. While there are new elements to each of these challenges, none of these problems is necessarily new to us. But, it strikes me, if the same folks who’ve been running Washington for the past two decades couldn’t solve these problems the first time, what should make us think they can do it a second time. 12 years of Bushes, 8 years of Clintons. Its time to turn the page.
<
p>Our country doesn’t need to fall backwards to go forward. We need a new direction – a fundamental change of course, change that stands the test of time, that can’t be erased so easily after the next election or after the next four elections for that matter. And to do that frankly we can’t just repeat the political fights we’ve had for the past 15 years – Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton – like the Hatfields and McCoys – Iraq once, Iraq again. That is not change.
<
p>To make real change we can’t just engage in the same old Washington attack politics that the Bushes and Clintons have been so good at over the years. I know that type of politics might win elections. Sadly, it might even win this election. But, it doesn’t change the country, that is why I’m running. I’m hoping that we are willing to break free from the chains of division that are holding us back, break free from the cycles of the past — chart a new course for a new age and with a new sense of purpose.
<
p>I know change can be scary. But we all know that in today’s world ireal lasting change is necessary.”
<
p>That is the type hard hitting direct stuff Obama needs. I know it may come off sexist (a risk of backfire I know) – but Hillary has played the race card, she’s played the gender card and she is using the former president to beat up our greatest hope. Its time to bring the noise.
<
p>lanugo :: Time to take Bill on
Bill’s been out there a lot lately – arguing with reporters, defending his time in office, saying my candidacy is a fairly tale – sometimes I kinda forget he’s the former president and not a candidate himself again. And honestly it makes me kinda wonder whose gonna speak for the administration if Hillary wins. Some say you’ re buying two presidents for the price of one – but if you ask me its more like the price of confusion.
And all this negative campaigning by Bill has me thinking about the past – about our history, about what our country has faced in the past few decades. I think about Bush’s dad – you know he took us to war in the middle east too – but at least he had the sense to have an exit strategy before we got bogged down in a civil war in Iraq.
<
p>Then Bill got elected and then Bush junior and you know where that has gotten us – stuck in Iraq, on the cusp of a recession, with middle class folks struggling to make ends meet.
<
p>And now Bill is back out there again – certainly acting like the candidate, wants another shot at the White House, although this time as first man – he’s beating me up, he and Senator Clinton are Washington experts running a textbook Washington campaign. And all this repetition, all this recent history – Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton – one war in Iraq and then another one – middle class families still struggling to get by – it makes me wonder about all these so-called experienced candidates and where they’ve gotten us – because it certainly doesn’t feel like they’ve gotten us very far.
<
p>We seem to be running in place, electing one family, then the other and then back again – all the while real change in our country isn’t happening.
<
p>And you know folks, I have a lot of respect for the Clintons and their service to our nation – but going backwards in time isn’t an option even if we wanted it to be. And I guess I’ll be blunt about this because someone has to – the Clintons had eight years in the White House to make change only seven years ago and look where are we today.
<
p>Now I know you and I would agree that much of the reason for us falling backwards is because of Bush and the politics of division that he practiced. You’re not gonna get an argument from me about who is at fault for reversing much of the progress our country made in the 1990s.
<
p>But I ask you to think about what our country needs now. The challenges we face today – terrorism and global warming, economic problems and the high cost of living for average folks. While there are new elements to each of these challenges, none of these problems is necessarily new to us. But, it strikes me, if the same folks who’ve been running Washington for the past two decades couldn’t solve these problems the first time, what should make us think they can do it a second time. 12 years of Bushes, 8 years of Clintons. Its time to turn the page.
<
p>Our country doesn’t need to fall backw
ards to go forward. We need a new direction – a fundamental change of course, change that stands the test of time, that can’t be erased so easily after the next election or after the next four elections for that matter. And to do that frankly we can’t just repeat the political fights we’ve had for the past 15 years – Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton – like the Hatfields and McCoys – Iraq once, Iraq again. That is not change.
<
p>To make real change we can’t just engage in the same old Washington attack politics that the Bushes and Clintons have been so good at over the years. I know that type of politics might win elections. Sadly, it might even win this election. But, it doesn’t change the country, that is why I’m running. I’m hoping that we are willing to break free from the chains of division that are holding us back, break free from the cycles of the past — chart a new course for a new age and with a new sense of purpose.
<
p>I know change can be scary. But we all know that in today’s world real lasting change is necessary.”
<
p>That is the type hard hitting direct stuff Obama needs. I know it may come off sexist (a risk of backfire I know) – but Hillary has played the race card, she’s played the gender card and she is using the former president to beat up our greatest hope. Its time to bring the noise.
speech writing and campaign consulting may not be your forte.
<
p>People want A CHANGE…and the CHANGE they want is first and foremost to have GW Bush and his cronies gone from DC, at last. They will get that no matter who wins in Nov.
<
p>Change is only “scary” as you put it when people do not know exactly what is being proposed as change…all the high-minded rhetoric can get a crowd going for an hour or two, but eventually you have to leave the hall or shut off the TV and wonder…where will this rhetoric get us in the Situation Room beneath the WH when the pressure is really on…that’s when experience, life experience included, and wisdom and procedural knowledge, and political know-how will speak louder than any words a speechwriter can come up with…
<
p>David Axelrod’s (of Edwards 2004, Obama for US Senate, Patrick for Gov, Obama for President) playbook may go the way of Joe Trippi (Dean, 2004, Edwards, 2008)…you can only use the same lines so many times before they sound stale and slick…Axelrod and Trippi will not be in the Situation Room with talking points.
All Obama has to do is win for America to change – he embodies it.
<
p>And don’t tell me Hillary has a better chance of making a difference in DC. So what if she knows how to get from the Lincoln Bedroom to the West Wing already. Doesn’t mean she can form a working majority in Congress. She is the most divisive centrist in history. Partisan to the core and yet a wannabee compromiser all the same.
<
p>And how many times is Bill gonna mouth off when she’s in the White House. Or maybe hit on one of her interns.
<
p>I backed Bill Clinton big time in 1992. Against Tsongas, my home state Senator and all the others. I was let down big time. Talk about rookie mistakes. Nothing in Clinton’s first two years went right except for his deficit reduction package and where is that now – the toilet. I can’t think of one lasting legacy the Clinton’s left us. Of course they wanted to come back to power. They didn’t leave us with jack the first time. Name a problem they solved that isn’t now worse. And yes we can all blame Bush, but if wasn’t for Clinton sleaze Gore would be president now. Its amazing they get a pass for this shit.
<
p>Let’s recall Clinton brought us the Gingrich era. GOP majorities across the land. All he could do is win elections and then just barely – never topping 50 percent.
<
p>All these cynical Hillarycrats. Think that change is just a slogan and they are the practical veterans – that we are just some naive newbees ready for school. It is because of you and your ilk that for the first time in my life I may not vote for our nominee. I am that fet up with the dynasties and the entitlement and the pettiness of Clinton politics. Triangulation and Dick Morris. She brought that sleazeball back in to the tent. Nuff said.
How do you feel about Paul Krugman?
I think he made unfortunate comments about Obama’s progressive ideas. Interjecting himself into the race in a poor manner. His prerogative of course, but I don’t have to agree with it. I like him a lot better when he trains his fire on Republicans and not rising party stars.
<
p>And I will say that Krugman’s support for the Clintons belies their record and his. Let’s remember, it was the Clinton’s that brought us NAFTA and Rubinomics. Krugman is now questioning all that. What makes him think the Clintons have changed their views.
The last, worst hope of Obama…following the Republican playbook (again!) in re-writing history. It’s not enough to promote Regan, now we gotta tear down Bill Clinton.
<
p>The facts: Any idiot can cherry pick three decisions over eight years. However, 1993-2001 saw the longest period of uninterrupted growth in American history. Also a period when the gap between rich and poor narrowed. It also saw a period of peace so widespread the Fukuyama declared it “the end of history”.
<
p>He balanced the budget, and left us with a surplus. American respect abroad has as high as it has ever been. He got an Israeli Prime Minister and PLO leader to shake hands. He was a major force behind the peace that reigns in Northern Ireland. Clinton was in hot pursuit of bin Laden over Republican protests, and led quite possibly the only post-war attempt to halt a genocide in Bosnia and Croatia.
<
p>Of course, Gingrich is Clinton’s fault too, the election coming less than 2 years into his term! Even though Clinton faced them down in the government shutdown (at a time when Barry Obama was an associate lawyer), even though almost all of Gingrich’s allies are out of the House now, even though his impeachment circus embarrassed the party nationwide.
<
p>The fact that Gore couldn’t campaign, wasted his time in Tennessee, was ineffective during the recount, chose an absolute tool as a VP candidate, is Clinton’s fault, too!
<
p>What is this, Free Republic?
He is making this race a referendum on all the good and bad of his years. And while the Clinton years were peaceful and prosperous, none of it has lasted.
<
p>And there is no arguing that “Clinton fatigue” – the Lincoln Bedroom fund raising scandals, Lewinsky, etc… contributed to Gore’s defeat. Gore was a poor campaigner, certainly compared to Bill. But, he could he carried the Clinton baggage into the race without the benefit of being Bill Clinton.
Bill is making this a referendum on Hillary versus Obama, and he’s doing it by attacking Obama’s record. Obama and what passes for a campaign are responding not by dealing with Hillary, but with Bill. It’s working just as the Clintons want, and Obama’s constant complaints of losing his political innocence are pointless.
<
p>Obama is successfully campaigning against somebody who isn’t on the ballot.
It also saw a period of peace so widespread the Fukuyama declared it “the end of history”
<
p>I’ve never read much of Fukoyama, but the little that I’ve read by him never made any sense (which is why I didn’t read much by him).
<
p>Regarding Clinton’s supposed “period of peace,” I’ll merely remind you of the following:
<
p>1993, Somalia part two, which had noting to do with the US, and led to Blackhawk down> Shades of the bombing of the US Marine baracks in Beiruit in 1982.
<
p>1995 (to whenever) US involvement in Bosnia Herzegovinea , which had nothing to do with the US. And there continues to be US troops there.
<
p>1998, the US bombings in Sudan and Afghanistan following al-Qiade’s bombings of the American embassies in eastern Africa.
<
p>1998-1999, intervenng in Serbia/Kosovo agatnst the Serbs. Also had nothing to do with the US. US troops still there.
<
p>1993 to the end of his term, maintaining “no fly zones” in Iraq to benefit the Kurds and the Shi’ites to the expense of the Sunnies.
<
p>Regarding the 1998 bombing of Sudan, it must be remembered that the Sudanese government in 1996 offered to extradite bin Ladin to the US provided that the US government could produce evidence to a “probable cause” standard to the effect that bin Laden had violated US law. Clinton’s government was either unable or unwilling to produce such evidence, and so he was not extradited to the US. Nevertheless, the Clinton government demanded that he be expelled from Sudan. bin Laden’s home country, Saudi Arabia, refused to take him in, but Afghanistan allowwed him to enter. You know the rest.
Did I say global peace? Of course not.
<
p>But compare to other eras, the odd examples you mention don’t add up to much.
Can someone pleas tell me what the phrase “I embody change” means? What are you, a freakin’ shape-shifter? A chameleon? Do you emulate Mitt Romney by changing your opinion all the time?
<
p>Far as I can tell each of the Dems has said close to if not exactly “I embody change.” It is a really, really dumb phrase that I think the American public sees through… and doesn’t like. Can somebody please tell them to bury the phrase and stop saying it?
Why — because he’s black? That’s not much of an argument, and it’s certainly not the campaign he’s running. Moreover, Hillary’s a woman, so she “embodies change” too, if that’s the kind of “change” you’re talking about.
<
p>Anything other than that, and you’ve got to go a lot deeper about what Obama wants to do and how he wants to do it. Obviously, you’re not a Clinton (Bill or Hill) fan. Fair enough — don’t vote for her. But the claim that Obama “embodies change” in any serious way requires a lot of explanation.
and could be president says something about America. A black man named Barack Hussein Obama, President. That would be change. Immense, massive change for our country.
<
p>And c’mon, you’re really trying to tell me that voting for Deval Patrick, our first African-American Governor wasn’t more momentous or inspiring because he was black. That is just BS – you know it and I know it. Race wasn’t the only reason or even a big reason we voted for him – we liked his platform and message, but part of his appeal was his story as well, poor kid from the South Side of Chitown makes it to Harvard Law and runs against the establishment in this State and wins. We all bought into that.
<
p>And it sounds familiar doesn’t it. You can’t get more establishment than the Clintons and Obama, great story, improbable candidacy against the odds. I’m just surprised more BMGers aren’t there yet. Maybe many of us think we owe the Clintons a debt of gratitude.
<
p>But now all of a sudden, BMG has gotten sort of “establishment” itself.
Sure Deval’s election was momentous and represented vast change upon his inauguration.
<
p>But, as we have seen with Deval, that change lasted about 10 minutes– until the end of his inauguration speech, but the term is three years, three hundred sixty four days, twenty three hours and fifty minutes longer than that.
I understand that Deval has a somewhat mixed record in his first year but in subtle ways he has already changed the tone and debate on Beacon Hill.
<
p>1) He has changed the debate from cutting taxes to raising revenues top pay for vital services. BIG SHIFT and something will come from it. No one is clamoring anymore for an income tax cut. Every debate between Governor and legislature is not the same tired dance of tax cuts versus hold the line. He has created space for needed investment.
<
p>2) He is actually focused on economic development – not just talking about it. We may not all like all his proposals, but he has brought ideas/issues to the table.
<
p>3) He got the social issues out of the way – helping to kill the anti-gay marriage amendment. I worked on Beacon Hill and that issue sucked so much oxygen out of the place, it is huge that he was able to work with legislators to kill it and kill it the right way – with a formal vote.
<
p>Now you could say some of this may have happened if any Democrat got elected – but I’m not so sure. I’m not convinced Reilly or Gabrieli would have put up the political capital on some of these issues – certainly not gay marriage.
<
p>I am have at time been bummed about Deval but Massachusetts is a better place having elected him.
I guess the ballot question proposing to cut the rate to zero won’t get enough signtures to get on the ballot then.
Hillary ever been in the situation room? NO
And Mark Penn ain’t exactly putting in a stellar performance. His bags were packed at the Manchester Holiday Inn when he looked up and surprise, Hillary, tears and all, had won in New Hampshire. Quite a reprieve.
<
p>The thing is I like Hillary. I just don’t like the Clintons. I don’t like their timidity, their lust for power, their egocentrism, their entitlement. I respect their skill, their warrior instincts. But, once they leave the campaign trail those skills are detrimental. They can only further divide our country. Even when they are sincere about something – and I do think they care, they are mistrusted. That is a recipe for stagnation. I am sick of that.
<
p>And you can’t separate him from her – his foibles from hers. Unfair, maybe. He slept around and she stuck by him all those years so he has to do whatever he can for her. Some marriage/partnership. And while they may be the wiser for their years in the White House, are they bolder? Or just more hesitant. She ran a hesitant campaign until she was almost out. She’ll run a scared White House, small and deliberate. It might run well, but it won’t make much of a difference. And she’s gonna be under constant pressure to look tough on security. Bill was and she will.
<
p>I could go on…
Barack Obama has become increasingly arrogant and nasty as this campaign progresses. As someone who once considered supporting his candidacy, I am so disappointed in the way he is conducting himself.
<
p>From his sexist “You’re likeable enough, Hillary” comment during one of the debates to his subtle playing of the race card, I am extremely disappointed in him.
<
p>And now he goes after Bill Clinton…the best President this country has seen in a long time. Not perfect, but the best we have had in a very long time. If Barack Obama could be a quarter as good as Bill Clinton, he would have my vote…but that won’t be happening.
<
p>
have you decided who does have your vote?
…and it’s not Obama.
…and have you decided whom you are going to support?
by chance? No peeking.
Are you seriously disappointed in him because you think Obama is playing the race card? Have you watched the news or read the papers in the last 12+ months? There was a period that every third article seemed to be asking “Can a black man win the presidency?” Were those stories placed by him or by an over-medicated media looking for a story?
…much to my consternation and disappointment. I thought he was above that.
<
p>His effort to portray Hillary Clinton as “dissing” Martin Luther King, with her comments about LBJ making some of King’s dreams a reality, really turned my stomach.
<
p>If you saw Clinton’s comments, you saw that she was in no way denigrating MLK…she was making the point that a strong leader can make these kinds of dreams become a reality. Yet, the Obama camp sought to portray her as questioning the influence of MLK. Very sad.
<
p>At one point in this campaign, I was leaning toward Obama…but I don’t think he’s at all ready for prime time. Sorry.
There are better lines of argument against Senator Clinton. First, because her comment wasn’t derogatory toward King. Second, because claiming that she is a racist is not a winning argument, in my judgment.
narrative among activists to discourage him from getting into the race because a black man could not win in the beginning.
Or is the junior high schoolism mainstream media crap becoming echoed through the internet.
Politicians must appeal to the lowest common denominator in gaining the widest possible support. In doing so they address .00000001% of the real issues which might make a difference in my life and yours. They have names for it like Overton window and such.
<
p>I have found comic relief in brasschecktv.com. This one is very creative.
http://www.brasschecktv.com/pa…
person the world and he is constantly attacking Obama. Obama goes nowhere by just letting him get away with it and comes out stronger if he wins. By attacking Obama as intensely as he has been — it is starting to look like Clinton cares more about his and Hillary’s ambitions than anything else.