A Defense of Bill Clinton

KT:

His "omission" does have that level of deniability, though. Even you can see that, I hope.

I honestly cannot say that he intended to exclude Obama or not, but Obama's recent political lynching is indeed the backdrop against what he said, and I would dare say that at the very least he was aware of the that backdrop.

THAT is deniability I would like, if I were out there trying to do the same thing, but, unlike Hillary, I have principles...

"Patriotism" is a word that has suffered severe abuse of late. While it used to mean love of one's country, it is rapidly being twisted to mean love of the military and blind acceptance of the staus quo.

I happen to consider myself patriotic. I love my country deeply. I particularly love the fact that I am free to point out when I think my Country is acting in an immoral manner and needs to change course.

People who don't understand this and instead use "patriotism" as a code word to enforce conformity sadden me.

Sorry, that's just the way I feel.

Some vacation.

Many people staying at home take Easter off. (Not me; I only become aware of Easter looming when I see people on the streets walking around with palm leaves.)

KT here--

What can I say? I am indeed on vacation, but Swampers, I just can't quit you.

KT:

We're a lovable bunch, ain't we...

We is as huggable as cholla!

But we have to love how there is all this talk about what Bill Clinton meant when he said nothing and there has been little discussion of what Obama SAID when he claimed his grandmother who he stated acted in racial ways was a "typical white person".

Karen,

I would say this defense of Bill Clinton comes from a very likely quarter.

Don't you know that the Clintons and the Vast Right Wing conspiracy are like two peas in a mutually beneficial pod?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/17/84038/4392/655/478370

And here is why the wingnuts would want to defend Bill Clinton on this....it's because the wingnuts want to use the exact same argument against Obama in the fall...and they don't like the idea of Democrats pushing back against their tried and true playbook to cast Dems as unpatriotic, which BIll CLinton is currently channelling.

You can read more of my thoughts on the subject here:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/22/124539/376/926/481150

I think it is great that unlike Kerry, Obama is not afraid to throw the unpatrioitc insinuations back in the faces of those who make them. Having a retired general do the dirty work is really smart as well.

I actually think it's possible that Bill Clinton wasn't suggesting Barack doesn't love his country,- and even if he was, it was too sobtle to have charged him with Mcarthyism for this quote. This doesn't help Barack.

On the other hand, it's simply unacceptible for Bill Clinton to suggest that the Republican nominee is nicer, more experienced, better seemingly in every way, than the other democratric nominee. That's gotten lost in the "two people who love their country" business.

Karen- glad to know you find the conversation irresistible. Most of us reciprocate.

KT here--

Okay, okay, RKA. Maybe I should quit posting when i'm in happy-thought vacation mode. Speaking of which, the Swampkids are spending a traditional Easter in Texas--which, of course, involves firearms. We are going out to my wonderful aunt's place in the country, where she is going to let them shoot a .22 at empty plastic bottles. Any actual bunnies that happen to cross their path will be safe. Being Villager children, they are terrible shots. Like Dick Cheney.

One question: Show me ONE thing that demonstrates Barak Obama's patriotism?

>i>Show me ONE thing that demonstrates Barak Obama's patriotism?

Being willing to take on the leadership of our country through these perilous times is inadequate?

I'm not sure what YOU mean by patriotism but I suspect your among those people who confuses loving one's country with loving the small subset of it that lives within your comfort zone.

Thank God the USA is bigger and greater than that.

Rusty the Wonder Dog:

I think the real patriots here are the ones willing to criticize this country on all of its' faults, and, in the last two weeks, I've seen PLENTY. Obama is a patriot. For all you know Rusty the Wonder Dog, some of those you criticize may have served their country, too.

Are you saying YOU are patriotic? As ignorant as your views are? You, eric, and Jim have all forgotten that Obama is also White, and that you are CHOOSING to interpret his comments that way. You don't look at all Americans the same way, and THAT's just as unpatriotic.

By the way, Wonder Dog, what is that constant shrill crap I hear from Fox you so furiously ignore?

Isn't that White racist hate speech? The real thing?

I've had my fill of hypocrates this morning (not KT).

Sorry KT! But SOMEONE's gotta call these things...

Happy easter! I'm out.

Thanks so much for wishing me well in my stupid flu, Karen.

Also, this is a great story--thanks for this post.

And finally, thank you so much again for your interactive posts & commentary, it is very appreciated.

I have to, as a parting shot:

-------------------------------------------------
On the "vocal" Republican base of Limbaugh, et al
-------------------------------------------------
What all of you who criticise Obama have done is give them a pass, without criticism unless forced to.

Obama has been on the recieving end of the very thing the Republican "base" is doing constantly. This applies to these ignorant Democrats, too, by the way.

If Republicans would expend as much energy as they and ignorant Dems have in unfairly lynching Obama politically, they would have been silenced in short order.

My point is, Hagee is worse than Rev Wright, and so is this "base". Why?

Because there ARE no instances where there are "White" versions of Jena, or of the Katrina debacle, or of the medical experiments. There is no constant blowing of the winds of rage and hate from the Black community even.

In short, their hate speech has NO precedent, and, is truly based on only one thing:

Hate.

What is completely ridiculous is the fact that we have to sit here and try and do our best to keep Obama from being tarred by association by the angry divisive speech of Wright, but NO ONE is attacking those who consort with this "base".

Hillary didn't have to suffer this over Ferraro. She has successfully avoided it. So has McCain, obviously. And Fox? Even death threats get a pass.

But, NOT Obama, and for far, FAR, less...

ASTOUNDING hypocracy!

And further, on those four unfortunate words that some of you CHOOSE to believe are racist:

Obama is ALSO White...

Sorry again, KT!

ABSOLUTE filthy SHAME!

Stuart: You are alive!

You know with the flu, you need to avoid dehydration.

And as much as I know you like to drink kool-aid, gatorade is a much better choice. It has the electrolytes in it, you know?

And Karen, I sincerely hope you enjoy your vacation. While I don't always agree with your posts and writing, they are far more fair than that of the rest of the village. You do get points for remaining somewhat normal in spite of the abyss in which you operate.

Off topic, but it'd be EPUed if put in the right place:

Joe Klein:

This is hate speech. Do you not see the difference between this and what Wright said?

BTW, since I'm offtopic on this, it was a very good sign that there was a front page story in the NYT on Obama's speech affecting what's being said in pulpits today, and in the next few weeks.

And the Week in Review included an article on the Southern Strategy. They did not run the Atwater quote which I think is essential to understanding both the strategy, and how the strategy is at the Republican core. (You can't get any closer to the core than Atwater.)

So this may be a sign that the confrontation of the issues Obama raised may take place.

And, as I said, masks will be ripped off. The link above, via Glenn G, who got via the ol' perfesser at instapundit, is what I mean when I say that.

53_2, you are right on the merits, but remember that the purpose of trolls are to get under your skin....they are not worth it....

CLINTON'S BODY LANGUAGE GIVES HIM AWAY

Here's what's missing in this whole discussion:

Notice, in the video of Bill Clinton's remarks, that at the exact moment that Clinton is finishing his comment, he's starting to bite his lip.

That's the tell -- it's always the tell, with Clinton, that he's saying something premeditatedly untruthful and disingenuous.

Sometimes the tell is different, such as when Clinton compared Obama to Jesse Jackson.

Look at the clip. As Wolf Blitzer asks the question, Clinton is standing still. But as soon as he opens his mouth to answer, he starts shuffling from one foot to the other, lurching from side to side.

It's pretty obvious that he has cotton mouth, too.

Bill Clinton always gives himself away -- haven't we learned that yet?

"CLINTON'S BODY LANGUAGE GIVES HIM AWAY"

I didn't know Bill O'Reilly posts here.

I'm going to talk in my indoor voice now. I apologize for the shouting this Easter.

I'm also finding it hard to leave this subject as it is the most damningly hypocrical political event I have ever seen.

I honestly think that if Jim and rustythedog really want to stamp out hate and racial divisiveness in this country, they had better look in the direction of Fox, Ferraro, Hagee, Limbaugh, and others rather than wasting so much useful energy on attacking Obama, who has tried now, twice, to be understood on the subject of race.

In addition, note that Obama is also White!

As an American, I am ashamed of the conduct of fellow Americans in their unabashed pursuit of Obama while they indulge in the utmost hypocracy by furiously ignoring their own "vocal" base, in the case of Republicans, and for their own ignorance, at minimum, in the case of "fellow" Democrats who seem to be so blindly participating in this.

I am truly ashamed that these individuals have chosen to indulge in this ridiculous, un-Godly, and un-American act of utter unfiltered and unfettered hypocracy.

No wonder Limbaugh et al can push their hate without so much as a bat of an eye, or even a wink. It's because many of you have CHOSEN to ignore it in your rabid haste for blood.

This is an occasion to be ashamed of, and without a doubt, our country has been diminished by your actions. It has been a display of utter, total filth...

RKA, you are right, but what I'm really angry about is described best in my above post.

The trolls will always be trolls.

What I've seen is the utter morphology of racial filth pushed by those very individuals, trolls or otherwise, who claim innocensce. It's time to put a foot down and call it what it is.

If Clinton didn't mean to question Obama's patriotism, he should say that and clarify things for people, rather then simply attacking McPeak for getting defensive.

KT, thanks for taking time out of your vacation to post this article.

Ironically, the entrenched desire on some people to believe BC is racebaiting in his comments proves almost more than anything that we need an honest debate on race.

In order to show how totally non-racist they are some in the media end up making the issue more explosive.

53_2,

Take a look at this...it might cheer you up a bit:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/23/8655/70291/506/482579

It's kind of like what jayackroyd talks about with "the mask being lifted."

As awful it is to see this crap come out of the woodwork, this may be the first step to eradicting it....

53 and RKA, that was a great post at DKos. I'm a proud member of that board and have been for four years.

But, the thing is the Obamaites do the same thing. Many Obama supporters constantly keep flaming the race issue by taking out of context stuff being said by the Clinton camp and twisting it to suit their own agenda.

Some Obama supporters go on and on about the "as far as I know" words HRC uttered on 60 Minutes and ignore what she said after that about smears. And they really don't get that they are doing to HRC what the Fox/Rush people are doing to Obama.

Yes, RKA!

And it IS time to go after that dirt!

With all due respect to Southern Bell:

I understand your concerns on sexism, and I beleive that Hillary's campaign is less likely to practice it than Obama's simply because of differnt perspectives (a man vs that of a woman), sexism is not a good enough reason to ignore the racial hatred that HAS been tacitly accepted by Hillary.

I don't think Obama hates women any more than Hillary hates Blacks. After all of this, I just cannot say that she does hate Blacks, and I remain convinced she doesn't.

My brother-in-law has pointed out that there is a difference between one who is a racist and one who takes advantage of racial hatred for their own ambitions.

Hillary belongs in the latter, not the former, category, and has been percieved so by the Black community in general. It is clearly within my purview to categorically state that this is the most common perception in the Black community (keep in mind my exceedingly harsh response to Jim on getting feedback from Black Americans on Where's Hillary?).

Hillary is percieved as yet another politician who has given into the temptation using "White fears" to futher her own ambitions.

There IS no escaping the end result:

In "winning" this horrid episode, she has lost.

She has NO CHANCE of being able to mend fences with the Black community.

Jim can't imagine that ANY Black voter is conservative enough to vote Republican, but in reality, that only reflects his ignorance of the cross section of opinions there.

The polls being quoted are not any more reliable than any of the others, due to the specter of the reverse of the "Bradley Effect" that has so often been bandied about in this election cycle.

I maintain, for all of you who cheer this "victory":

She went racial. As a consequence, she WILL lose in November. She now, in her ambitios lust for the presidency, has shot the dog.

The Black vote will not be there...

Southern Belle:

I am really not ignoring anything in this sordid affair. Some things stand out as more important than others.

I point out that she was, and still is, involved in a joint 3-way attack on Obmaa on issues of race, patriotism, and other aspects of his life. The other two lines of attack are rooted in deep racial hatred. She joined them in attacking Obama.

Her co-participation in these events without ever drawing a moral line in the sand over McCain's and Fox's racial hatred (their "base") is what has doomed her.

She has shot the dog...

Like I said, KT, we're about as huggable as cholla, ain't we?

I hope your Easter is not being spoiled by this, but what must be said, must be said.

53
I disagree with you. I do not believe she is attacking Obama on race at all. I have yet to see anything that suggests that.

It is perfectly fine to use the issue of Obama's electability to her advantage, just as Obama tried to do the same. People keep trying to make the public's anger about Wright into a racial thing but what people disliked were the "goddamn America" words and if a white, "liberal" minister had said the same thing there would still be this outrage.

At this point I really don't see any difference between the more hysterical diaries posted at DKos and the stuff that the rightwingers are churning out. Both of those sides are posting stuff that is shrill and hyperbolic.

The press allows the Obama people to get away with such blatant misinterpretation because they themselves do not want to be labled as being racist if they don't offer outrage at HRC!

Can you all just stop it?

If WJC is making the electability argument and bringing up Obama's race as a reason, that's not a good thing.

If BO's people are blaming HRC for not managing Kroft's reasking a question she had already answered, when he was expressly trying to create tension where none existed, they should get over it.

You are not each others' enemies. This passion is understandable, because both the misogyny and racism is real. But your respective opponents are neither misogynist or racist.

Just stop it. The media is taking every little crack and driving a wedge into it, and you're falling for it.

Obama and Clinton are opponents, with common goals, and common commitments. They are not the enemy.

"People keep trying to make the public's anger about Wright into a racial thing but what people disliked were the "goddamn America" words and if a white, "liberal" minister had said the same thing there would still be this outrage."

And, I've pointed out, Southern Bell, that Hillary escaped association by guilt with Ferraro. McCain escaped association by guilt the things Hagee said.

Obama?

No. He IS being tarred and feathered by association with Wright, and Wrights' speech is not in the class of either Hagee's, Ferroro's, Limbaugh's, and others.

It is a wonder that you are so upset with Wright's speech, or can empathize with those that are, when it is abundantly clear his speech is not in the same class as the shrill, unadulterated hate speech from the right. You spend time attacking someone who, at worst is divisive and angry while giving the foul stream of hate speech going on EVEN AS WE DEBATE, a complete and utter pass.

Why do you spend time focusing on Obama and imposing guilt by association, when Clinton gets a pass on Ferraro and McCain gets a pass on Hagee? That is, Southern Bell, while you give a COMPLETE pass on the shrill Fox hate machine.

UTTER hypocracy!

THAT is my point!

Like I've said. Hillary has shot the dog...

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03232008/postopinion/editorials/typical_obama__103084.htm

The Obama statement that his grandmother is a typical white person may come back to haunt him.

The MSM is really failing to distinguish between talking about running a positive campaign, and actually running a positive campaign. Accusing your opponent's husband of McCarthyism because he talks up his wife's electability is ridiculous. The MSM's Obama is good, Hillary will do anything to win narrative just isn't supported by the evidence.

"sexism is not a good enough reason to ignore the racial hatred that HAS been tacitly accepted by Hillary." - That's a very good point, 53_2. I don't agree with the assumptions you're making, but it's still a good point. It's also true that racism is not a good enough reason to ignore the blatant sexism that has been tacitly accepted by Obama.

Southern Bell, great points. Obama and his supporters need to realize that they can't change things if they use the same old divide and conquer tactics that Rove has perfected. The same methods will produce the same results. As for why the MSM is falling for the Obama campaign talking points, I don't really think that they are motivated by a fear of appearing racist. I think they are more motivated by sexism. After the SNL sketch, and women in NH, Ohio and Texas getting really upset about the blatant sexism that has been tolerated in this campaign, the MSM was forced to tone it down a little. But now they've realized that if they buy into this whole "Hillary is an evil racist" narrative, they are free to go back to being horrifyingly sexist. So America's history of racial hatred is now being exploited by the white men who run the MSM to indulge their hatred of women in power. And well-meaning people like 53_2 are falling for the whole thing.

Rustydog, I have great respect for your high moral standards. Obviously you would never consider voting for someone who actively sought the endorsement of a man like Hagee, so I guess you'll be voting for Nader in November.

Thanks for trying to put this in context, even if you are a day late and a dollar short.

This seems to be yet another example of the proclivity of the Obama campaign to roll around on the floor and cry everyone a river at the drop of a hat. Sure, in modern politics playing the victim can be a useful and (given the sensationalistic tendencies of the MSM) perhaps even a necessary tactic. But it strikes me as somewhat dangerous when you have, on the one hand a campaign whose first political instinct is to play the victim, and on the other hand a candidate whose major Achilles heal is a lack of experience and accomplishment. In that context, I'm afraid the constant whining is liable to strike many peopole (independents in particular) as petulant and immature over time, giving McSame all the opening he needs to win the personality contest which our elections inevitably seem to degenerate into.

And on that last note, a more substantive critique of Clinton's statement might be to simply ask what the hell has he been smoking if he really thinks this election could be decided on the issues (and where can I get some)?

None of you yet are able to explain WHY, since Wright is not in the same class as these others, Obama is being tarred by association? Why does he get it, and Hillary, with Ferraro, was, and is worse than Wright, insulting even White voters, and McCain, with Hagee, who is patently racist.

NONE of you are adressing this. You avoid it like the plague, but you are hypocrates!

Sexism IS important, but it can be separated from the racism - and I've acknowledged MANY times the issue of sexism, but I have not focused on it. Even there, Fox and McCain is given a pass, while you attempt to tar Obama with that brush. Southern Bell even gives Limbaugh a pass, but only comments when forced to - and I'll venture his history is FAR worse than Obama's EVER was.

Hypocracy!

eric:
That is what you CHOOSE to believe. Obama is White, too, and he doesn't strike me as someone who hates himself. Take that where you want.

NONE of you have yet to address the hypocracy. State CLEARLY and EXPLICITYLY why Obama does not get a pass where no hate speech is involved, and Hillary, with Ferraro's, and McCains, with Hagee's hate speech, TRUE hae speech without ANY grounds whatever, get a pass.

Hypocrates!

Um, Bill in Chicago, if you want to decry victimization then I am sure you might want to criticize John McCain and the conservative movement for playing victim of the New York Times when the Iseman story broke.

Or when conservatives claim they are the victims of Hollywood, the librul media, affirmitive action, islamofascsits, and taxes.

I don't think conseravtives or theie apologists are in any position to be accuse others of playing the victim card.

It is a pretty bipartisan political tactic, actually.

ANSWER ME!

I'm sick of this internecine Dem fighting and say--okay give Clinton the benefit of the doubt! Go Bill!

But I don't understand how Parker's statement clears anything up except that she personally didn't hear the statement that way. Karen, I trust your reporting, but this rebuttal is weird--it doesn't even mention what Clinton said about patriotism, and it admits she stopped typing. How does this change anything we hear in the clip? Is it context??

53_2,

The answer to you question is that the media use guilt by association with Obama because that is all they have. They have nothing on him personally, and becasue their twisted standard of fairness demand that everyone needs to have dirt of some kind, they just make stuff up with Obama.

There is no doubt, they are applying a double standard...whether it is on religious figures like Wright or political associates like Rezko..

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/15/101352/194/794/477206

These are among the many reasons that the notion of media bias in favor of Obama is a bunch of BS..

Actually, I am sick of it too.

I think I've made my point, very nicely, thank you.

Happy Easter!

Obama's new at the business of answering attacks,and that may account for some of the excessive pushback. I'm hoping he'll show the steep learning curve on this that he has on other things. I think he genuinely wants to run a positive campaign, but clearly he has to be quick to respond when attacked.

This may also be another surrogate problem (with mcPeak). Part of Hillary's problem is that Bill's not in the same category of surrogate quite a surrogate

"but Obama's recent political lynching is indeed the backdrop against what he said"

ugh

Well, RKA, at least I have been able to stand on a patch of real estate, morally, and have been able to point out some of the major flaws in this sorded, foul episode.

I'm not going to bust a gasket, but I DO hope that I am forcing a rethink this whole hypocritical affair.

I don't expect that my efforts will make a difference, but at least no one can say I havn't given it a good try.

They will come back, trotting out the same twisted rationalizations, but they really can't avoid their own hypocracy.

One thing I will ad though, 53_2, is that I think the media's desire to bring down Obama has little to do with race and everything to do with profits. As corporate entities I think they genuinely fear the changes that Obama might be able to bring out in terms of economic fairness. They hate the fact that he won't take money from their lobbyists like McCain and Hillary do. Furthermore, they hate the idea of a unifying figure in our politics because their entire business models are predicated on hyperpartisan circus politics to feed the beast of the 24 hour news cylce that needs something to chew on.

I think the issue is not that the media or the clintons are all that racist themselves, but more that they are willing to fan the flames of racism to bring down a candidate who they don't want for other reasons.

Actually, I havn't said that Hllary is racist and I've even said so.

I've stated that Hillary is taking advantage of it to further her own ambitions. I don't see racists behind every corner.

As a matter of fact, you observations are exactly right, in my opinion, and are at the core of this most recent crap.

I wrote, in my posts about 20 above:
"I don't think Obama hates women any more than Hillary hates Blacks. After all of this, I just cannot say that she does hate Blacks, and I remain convinced she doesn't."

Obama has messed up both McCains ambitions, driven by the belief he can beat Hillary because of her baggage, and Hillary's, because this is her last shot.

They are both "Business as Ususal" candidates. And you have hit it exactly spot on.

What I have done is to try to force the individuals who are getting rightous about this to actually look at just how dark and futile this "victory" really is.

That is why I have been drilling directly at the core issues, and what they really are.

Bill Clinton is the most careful politician with words that any of us have ever seen in our lives. The obvious example is the "sexual relations" quote. Those words were specifically used because by his narrow definition of sexual relations, his affair with Lewinsky did not rise to those words. As angry as he appeared that day, he knew exactly the words he was using.

Also, his discussion of the meaning of the word "is." Another incident where he parsed the language within an inch of its life. The incidents are numerous. Some flattering, some not.

So when I see him make that statement (he spends the entire previous paragraph praising McCain, so there is no doubt he is referring to McCain & Hillary) I have a very long history of looking at Bill using language in this way as supporting evidence.

This is the first shot in the "patriot" games portion of the campaign.

The point that I am making is that some (not you) seem to see racism like pregnancy: either you are or you aren't.

And because it considered beyond the pale to call someone "a racist" the term is reserved for the most egregious of violations and a lot of other stuff is allowed because we don't have a pithy term for it.

So, the media and the clintons may not personally hate black people all that much, but they are perfectly willing to appeal, subtly and not-so-subtly-to voters who do harbor these feelings through the use of dog whistle tactics. If there is one word to me that best describes the clintons and the media on this issue, it is amoral. Not necessrily immoral which is harder to prove, but amoral which to me seems obvious.

If the media see a fire burning, they don't call 911, they throw some gasoline on it and then get out their camera.

Similarly, the press is willing to "go there" in order to preserve its interests, as they perceive them. What their dinasaur boomer executives don't realize is that they are committing suicide with the younger generation with these attitudes, and Stengel feigning hipness by creating a blog at Time will not correct for the underlying bankruptcy of thought and plethora of cynicism in the MSM. You can just point to the downsizing rife in the MSM that they simply don't get it...and frankly, their chickens are coming home to roost, so to speak.

The MSM executives are just like the american cell phonesmakers who were slow to transition from analog to digital, or automakers slow to transition from conventional to hybrid....and look at what is happening to their businesses is similar. They need to realize that cosmetic changes in how these dinosaurs do business is not going to prevent them from eventual extinction.

"Patriot Games"

If you choose to use that term (I must admit I find it catchy) when this becomes the next campaign issue (and it will, trust me), please at least give me a hat tip.

53_2, I may be wrong, but I'm not hypocritical. I have strongly criticized Fox News, Limbaugh, Hagee and all the others on numerous occasions. What I'm trying to do is hold everyone to the same standards.

Also, I really don't get why you're equating Obama's relationship with Wright and Clinton's relationship with Ferraro. It's not even a matter of better or worse; the relationships are just very different. Obama has known Wright for 20 years, and describes him as a close member of his family. Wright is also, as Obama's supporters have pointed out, a preacher whose job is to challenge people. Clinton and Ferraro are not close friends, and Ferraro is merely a politician (which means that she has less reason than Wright to be excused for crossing the line). So I'm not seeing how these relationships are equivalent. I still think that a better comparison would be to imagine that Clinton had spent her Sundays for 20 years with a radical feminist like Andrea Dworkin. Like Wright, Dworkin said a lot of things that were both highly controversial and true. But it would be a huge problem for Clinton. Acknowledging the existence of the double standard that both Clinton and Obama face isn't the same thing as personally accepting that double standard.

And of course we know why Obama is being more criticized for his relationship with Wright than Republicans are for their relationships with people like Hagee: It's racism. But I'm not the one who is doing that; it's Fox News and the rest of the right-wing media. All I am doing is trying to hold everyone to the same standard. As I've said before, I actually agree with the vast majority of Wright's controversial statements. But I do believe that his comments about 9/11, America being basically like Al Qaeda, and AIDS crossed a line. And all the hateful, racist and ignorant comments from people like Hagee don't make those comments from Wright okay. I can understand why you would disagree with me on that, but my position is not hypocritical.

Also, about the AIDS comment, it's true the U.S. government does have a history of racist medical experiments like the Tuskagee Experiment. But it's also true that Wright, who has a Ph.D., should have known better than to claim that the extraordinarily complex AIDS virus was created by the U.S. government.

Anyway, right now the media is divided into two sides. The Fox News/talk radio side is helping McCain by their blatant racism. The other side - Olbermann's side - is indirectly helping McCain by hurting Clinton with their blatant sexism, which they attempt to justify by saying that she is exploiting racial divisions. I refuse to join either side.

This goes so much deeper than he said - she said. This is about American politics being rotten to the core. This is a great, great country. But the politics that they are playing here makes a mockery of democracy. And it makes a mockery of the Founding Fathers and everyong that died for this country. There is no honor in politics over here. I have decided to stop blogging about politics, because it is just not worth it. it is not about what people stand for - but rather what the othe side do not stand for. You should be ashamed of yourself for making a joke out of this great country - those on the left, right and centre. And you want to know why people are not interested anymore. http://angryafrican.net/2008/03/23/the-founding-fathers-will-be-ashamed/

I am tired of all the arguments and I am really sick of Bill Clinton.

He's like the uncle that you had fond memories of but hadn't seen since you were a kid.

Then when you see him again, you realize that he really was a creep all along.

Karen, have fun while you're home and watch out for the jackalopes. U know they are deadly this time of the year. ;-)

Snarling, snapping, howling. Fur flies. Claws raked and wounds bled. The unfortunate suffered more serious wounds, and left the scene, entrails dragging in the dust. The more fortunate escaped with rather badly dented egos and puncture wounds across the sides of their psyches. Howling, rabid mayhem. The carnage diminished as the tide turned against the intruders. Small animals scattered, probably the trolls from the Lords of Hate living on that hill above the scene.

But they will be back, and probably are now, eyeing the horizon nervously for approaching danger while they take tentative nips at the freshly killed carcass. Up on the hill, the Lords of hate continue to live, and these nervous scavangers, their minds are small..

THIS is YOUR politics, America!

Be proud...

RKA, I understand, I just wanted to clarify.

Rose, WHEN you can explain just HOW it is, specifically and exactly, that McCain and Hillary get a pass, and Obama does NOT, THEN you can talk to me about hypocracy.

I have NEVER said that Wright hasn't been offensive, that is NOT the point.

Meanwhile, go to the feed, you scavanger...

This country should be ASHAMED!

BTW, just so you scavengers of hate know, the man that posted above, where, a few years ago, the price of defiance against the Lords of Hate was sometimes death, or at least a LONG prison sentance. He lived in South Africa.

You scavengers are a filthy, hideous embarrassment. Take your filthy bite...

With Richardson staying away from any criticism of Bill on FNS today, look for this storyline to vanish.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Meanwhile, plant your "victory" flag in that rubble over THERE.

Yes, you guessed it.

That IS Jim's "treasure"...

53_2 chew on this for awhile!!
Carrie Budoff Brown sends over the transcript from Obama's appearance, airing tomorrow 3/24/8, on the Michael Smerconish Show on 1210 AM WPHT in Philadelphia, from audio the show provided.

OBAMA: I will be honest with you that I didn’t have that many conversations with him over the last year just because I have been so busy. I haven't been going to church. I wasn’t hearing a lot of these comments. The ones that are most offensive are ones that I never knew about until they were reported on. I had had conversations with him in the past – in fact from the day I first met him -- about some of his views. Understand this, something else that has not been reported on enough is despite these very offensive views, this guy has built one of the finest churches in Chicago. This is not a crackpot church. Witness the fact that Bill Clinton invited him to the White House when he was having his personal crises. This is a pillar of the community and if you go there on Easter on this Easter Sunday and you sat down there in the pew you would think this is just like any other church. ... So I don’t want to suggest that somehow, the loops you have been seeing typifies the services all the time. That is the danger of the YouTube era. It doesn't excuse what he said. But it gives it some perspective.

Q: Would the speech have come as a surprise to Wright?

OBAMA: No, I think he recognizes. When some these remarks first came to light were a year ago, and I actually called him and it created some tensions that were reported in the newspapers. He understood that his perspective on some of these issues were very different from mine and hopefully we could agree to disagree on some of these issues. I wasn’t familiar with some of the most offensive remarks that had come up otherwise we probably would have a more intense conversation.

GUILT by association. GUILT by not coming clean from the get-go. GUILT for pandering the entire country. He's going down in a blaze on this one folks!! Tell me a lie and let me believe, shame on me. Tell me a LIE a second time SHAME ON YOU!!

Fiddy, at the risk of looking like a spelling Nazi, I have to ask you to look at these three words:

hypocrisy

hypocrite

hypocritical

Sorry man, but you;'re killin' me...

It's ok. The filth is back...

Rusty the Wonder Pooch still hasn't figured this one out yet.

That's ok. He's actively participating in the hypocracy, but that's ok. At least it's out.

Not a WORD about that foul wind blowing from fox, where the REAL hate is, not a WORD about Limbaugh, Ferraro, or anyone else.

We can't have a conversation, hypocrate.

Go feed with the jackals...

53_2,

Okay, I'll try one last time to explain my thinking. As I have pointed out in countless other posts, I don't think that Clinton has been exploiting racial divisions. That's just the latest excuse the non-openly right-wing MSM has been using to justify their blatantly sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton. I also explained in my last post that I really don't see Clinton's and Obama's relationships with Ferraro and Wright, respectively, as equivalent. I do also think that Ferraro has even less of an excuse than Wright to cross the line because of her occupation. So since Wright's and Ferraro's relationships with the candidates are different, and their occupations are different, I really don't see how the coverage of their comments should be the same. Obviously you disagree, but you haven't explained why.

Clinton doesn't have an equivalent to Wright in her background. Which explains my reference to a hypothetical relationship with a radical feminist. You have to enter the realm of the hypothetical to find Clinton's equivalent to Wright (that's why she is electable); It's definitely not Ferraro. Ferraro's equivalent is closer to McPeak.

I have said that racism is the reason why McCain and the other Republicans who openly associate with hateful bigots like Hagee are criticized far less than Obama is for his much more understandable relationship with Wright. I imagine that you agree with me on this point; It seems very clear to me. And to make myself very clear, this is my point about the double standard both Clinton and Obama face. It's entirely caused by prejudice, and I am appalled by it. But that doesn't mean I'm going to ignore its existence, because if we do that we risk nominating someone who can't meet that unfair standard, and then McCain will win.

Anyway, it seems that the core of our disagreement is that you think Clinton has been exploiting racial divisions and I don't. We actually agree on McCain and the other Republicans. And we basically agree on Wright. I don't expect to convince you that I am right, but it would be great if you would slightly expand your perspective.

You said in another post that racism and sexism can be separated. The whole point of my argument is that they can't be separated in this campaign, and in the MSM coverage of it. I do hope that you can see that even if you're right, and Clinton is exploiting racial divisions, then the MSM is also exploiting those divisions in order to justify their sexist attacks on Clinton. And even if you really don't care if Clinton is the target of sexism, I'm sure you agree that it does matter that sexism is tolerated in American society, just as it matters that racism is tolerated in American society.

Also, I think you may really enrich your argument if you examine the sexism that the Obama campaign has been exploiting. Just to make myself clear, I'm not saying that sexism ever excuses racism (or vice versa). But my point about the electoral problems of the Democrats is that both campaigns have been the target of prejudice, and of course that means both campaigns have benefited from prejudice. That has consequences for a lot of demographics. If we ignore those consequences we won't be united in November, regardless of who the nominee is.

PDA:

My slinger fipped. Either that or my vocabulary.

I would rather have a spelling nazi looking over my shoulder than the real thing, anyway.

It's "pandering" and "guilt", now from Rusty the Wonder Pooch. Him and the others are still h-y-p-o-c-r-a-t-e-s and havn't been able to avoid that tag. So he'll flaunt it instead. Typical Southern Strategy stuff, no originality at all...

Will be a bit more careful, thanks.

I'm sorry Rose, but the fact that you and others REFUSE to let this pass, and give Obama a pass on this as well is the red marker.

It is a red light, and the clear sign. It is the GSSP tag in the strata. The Golden Spike. The boundary marker. It is the confirming results of experiment, the corraboration of a theory, the light at the end of the tunnel.

When you do, give him a pass, and actively turn on the fomenters of REAL hate, let me know. I'll be the first one to congratualate you.

WITHOUT it, and without something better than "it wasn't me", you OWN that tag.

Oh, I forgot.

Litmus test. You all understand THAT don't you?

So far, you have ABSOLUTELY failed.

53_2:

Can we please acknowledge that rightwingnut commentators are in fact rightwingnuts spewing hate (appealing to an ever-shrinking base of influence) and agree to reject them and discuss the issues?

I am not sure about your current viewpoint on this, but you seem to be unsatisfied about any coverage that does not bring the full hammer down on Hagee, Limbaugh, and the others. Can we actually do anything about this other than agree to call them morons whenever something about them comes up and move on to more important discussions?

Actually, Yoshi, we could.

But I have stated EXACTLY and EXPLICITLY what the problem is.

NONE of you have take that first step of acknowledging it. You've seen what I wrote, can you deny the hypocracy?

You, and others don't really want to look at what you have done, and what you are doing.

I've pointed it out, and I'm not talking about "coverage". You seem to be of a "in one ear and out the other" mentality when you guys attack this guy relentlessly, yet Hillary has already gotten a pass, and so has McCain - and their surrogates are worse.

Is that NOT as clear as a bell?

Rose, your last two posts are excellent. The corollary between Wright and Dworkin was very well made.

Furthermore, I could even, for the sake of argument, agree that Wright is as bad as the others, and my point would STILL be made!

Feed on, you scavengers...

Of course Bill Clinton's remarks about anything will be considered in the most negative and/or controversial light possible, because the Obama campaign will do their jobs and paint them as such, and because the Villagers have given them permission to do so. The Village reached consensus months ago that Bill Clinton's participation in his wife's campaign is by definition a) controversial, and b) unseemly, and as such must be interpreted solely in order to support that consensus.

Clarence Page today on the Matthews show said it perfectly. He said (literally) "Bill Clinton is by definition a political being". This is the justification for "everyone knowing" exactly what Bill Clinton means when he says anything with respect to the Obama campaign, and also what he's implying when he doesn't even mention the Obama campaign. It's perfectly clear to all those savvy political reporters--it's proof positive of "savviness", in fact. All one has to do in order to demonstrate having met entrance requirements for a Beltway Media Star cocktail party or televised panel (same thing, really) is to interpret a reasonably ordinary political remark by one of the Clintons during this campaign in the most "controversial" or "attack-dog" or "race-bating" or "angry" or "out of control" or even "McCarthyist by omission" light. Describe in a serious tone how Bill Clinton not actually talking about Hillary's opponent is further evidence of their "constant, almost instinctual calculus of attack" and her "continuing problem with his role", and one's bona fides are guaranteed to be self evident, at least to the self-appointed enforcers of our nation's political narratives.

Such is the nature of the Villagers' jealous guard over the privileges of their caste. As brilliant and inspiring as the speech Obama gave on race was, so terribly disappointing has it been to watch his campaign and supporters (especially in the netroots) throw their candidates' lot in with John McCain's professional fan club, the people who brought you "Al Gore: insufferable, pompous, phony bore vs. W: plain-spoken, humble, authentic, cowboy man-of-the-people and all-around-fun-guy-to-have-around-for-four-years".
The same people, we might well remember, who brought us the Iraq war--and automatically assigned anybody who actually bothered to think the matter through even worse motives and intentions than they currently do the Clintons.

One of the biggest problems I have with Obama's campaign and supporters (and remember, I actually voted for the guy) is the apparent willingness to let the shallow, corrupt, ethically moribund denizens of our current-day Versailles choose candidates for the country's highest office--as long as it's their candidate who is lucky enough to be selected by our national Home-Coming Crown Committee. At first I attributed this shocking lack of foresight to the relative political and media newcomer status of many of the Obama faithful. I thought that people simply needed access to decent analysis to help them better understand the phenomena we were witnessing, to help them grasp that a campaign predicated on validating the right-wing Clinton-smear cottage industry (now mega-conglomerate) of the '90s, and upholding the protocols of permanent press corps courtiers was by definition illiberal and anti-democratic, no matter how fervently they imagined themselves in some fantasy civil-rights or anti-war march with Barack Obama leading the way.

Later I began to appreciate how little many of these fine folks (fellow Democrats with whom I will ultimately stand) care about anything other than getting their way, no matter how they get it--or who gives it to them. Also, some people will always need enemies to hate, oppressors of whom to be victims, transcendent struggles to give politics meaning otherwise diminished by attention to detail, be they Republicans or even other Democrats. I didn't fully realize the triumph of the Right in this country--that, given half a chance, so many on the Left will leap at the chance to literally take their place, to become their enemies.

I didn't know. Who's the newcomer? Me, I suppose.

I feel a little better--was that last post coherent at all?

Okay, I understand what you mean now. You want acknowledgment that we are unduly attacking Wright and ignoring McCain/Hagee and Clinton/(one of her offending surrogates). If this is wrong, correct me.

Thus, I will post what I posted on the other topic:

"Hagee is a rightwingnut. I can say nothing more. It was ridiculously wrong for McCain to seek and accept his endorsement.

While I don't believe Rev. Wright is on the same level of Hagee..."

53_2, there is almost nothing to discuss about the McCain/Hagee relationship. As James has posted to the point of borderline spamming, Hagee has asserted Katrina was caused in part by a gay pride parade. This alone is a more offending statement than anything Wright has said. It is hateful and unjust, besides unchristian and a blatant judgment of the sort condemned by the Bible.

Should we continue tarring and feathering Hagee, or would you just like us to break off Wright?

Remember, Ferraro was already attacked relentlessly in another thread. The Hagee matter is so cut-and-dried it hardly generates the kind of maelstrom over Wright.

HOW do you propose this problem will be solved?

thanks!!!!!!!!!!!! obama is spinning this.

here's a great article to read about the pattern of race baiting by obama

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

stuart:

I think you may have a case with this most recent Bill Clinton remark. The media has been particularly unkind to his, and by extension Hillary's, political fortunes in the primary. This recent firestorm could be, in my opinion, a simple misinterpretation or a slip of words by Clinton. It's rather outlandish to even think that the star Democrat of the 1990s would visit the patriotism smear upon another, rising Democrat, no matter how bad he wanted his wife to win.

However, I also think that the Clintons really hurt themselves in many ways, which acted to reinforce the media bias. Bill Clinton's remarks after the SC primary were extremely out of touch. Hillary Clinton's stunts with Obama's kindergarten essay and comparison to Rove were absolutely ridiculous. So I disagree when you said Obama's effort is "a campaign predicated on validating the right-wing Clinton-smear cottage industry."

Hillary Clinton's stunts with Obama's kindergarten essay and comparison to Rove were absolutely ridiculous. So I disagree when you said Obama's effort is "a campaign predicated on validating the right-wing Clinton-smear cottage industry."

Yoshi:

I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the Obama campaign's "electability" and "polarizing" rhetoric, with which they won Iowa. The Clinton campaign's comparisons of the Obama campaign with Republicans' is not totally unreasonable, given the similarity to reflexive demonization of Hillary by media Movement Conservatives, although obviously never officially reaching the "man-hating lesbian/murderess of Vince Foster" depth of the professional Rightists.

Bill Clinton's remarks after the SC primary could easily be seen as the product of a frustrated man relatively despondent and furious after having been the target of unjust accusations of racism for a month. To unquestioningly accept the narrative with respect to Bill Clinton in SC is to accept a version of reality that assumes the worst faith on the part of the Clintons a priori. It will give one cache with the people angrily wiping egg off of their faces after NH, though.

The media trying to bring down Obama? Obama getting tarred and feathered over Wright?

Boy, it is all about perception, isn't it!

Stuart:

What polarizing rhetoric did the Obama campaign use to win Iowa, exactly? I can certainly see examples of it now, but I didn't glimpse much negativity in the beginning stages of the primary season.

Perhaps the Rovian remark would be more reasonable now that the Obama campaign has started to denounce Clinton as having "severe trust issues" with voters. Yet, it hardly seemed reasonable then.

Regarding Bill Clinton and SC, why would a man frustrated by accusations of racism make a comment that could be construed as racially charge, if not actually racist?

It seemed that all was lost on Good Friday....would we ever hear from Stuart again?

Saturday...nothing...silence.....

And then on Easter, He is back!

And He has a message for Barack Obama and his supporters:

No matter what they do to you, you must turn the other cheek!

Miracle of miracles!

Yoshi:

What polarizing rhetoric did the Obama campaign use to win Iowa, exactly?

Not "polarizing rhetoric", rhetoric about "polarization"--rhetoric that casts Hillary Clinton as fundamentally flawed "perhaps unfairly" due to the virtual business model rightist talk-radio developed to perfection. The "electability" argument exploited the "for whatever reason, some Americans just hate her!" meme, a terrible method to attack a fellow Democrat, in as much as it validates demonization from the rightists.

Here is one of many articles documenting this line of attack starting in Iowa:

Repeating a line from his victory speech in South Carolina Obama added, "It's about the past versus the future. And when I am the nominee the Republicans won't be able to make this election about the past because you will have already chosen the future."

Obama went into a list of eleven detailed attacks regarding Senator Clinton including her votes on bankruptcy, trade, and foreign policy. But the thrust of his argument about Clinton was to cast her as a polarizing figure.

Speaking of a woman looking for health care, he said, "She can't afford to wait another four years or another fifteen years to get health care because we've put forward a nominee who can't bring Democrats and Republicans together to get things done." Using Clinton's own line against her, he added: "It's not enough to be ready from Day One -- you have to be right from Day One."

Like in Iowa, Obama's speech felt like a closing argument a blueprint for why he should be chosen as president over someone far more well known and equally qualified for the job. In Iowa, that argument brought many audiences to its feet as he delivered the same message, stop after stop, over course of seven days before the caucuses there. Obama has seven days to do the same thing again. But unlike Iowa, the groundwork for that closing argument has not been laid out as carefully and methodically.

Regarding Bill Clinton and SC, why would a man frustrated by accusations of racism make a comment that could be construed as racially charge, if not actually racist?

I'll let Bob Somerby theorize Bill Clinton's "Jesse Jackson" remark better than I possibly could:

...Which brings us around to Gene Robinson’s recent unfortunate column.

Robinson seems like a thoroughly decent man—as most people are. But his column starts with a nasty charge, one that shouldn’t be offered up lightly. “Playing the race card against Barack Obama didn’t work out quite the way Bill Clinton had hoped,” he said at the start of his piece. That was a very serious charge. And here was the deeply unfortunate, disingenuous way Robinson chose to “defend” it:

ROBINSON (1/29/08): I wonder how all the Clintonistas who protested that Bill and Hillary Clinton would never, ever dream of stooping to racial politics must be feeling now, after Bill was videotaped in the act. On Saturday, as Democrats in South Carolina went to the polls, a reporter asked Bill about Obama's boast that it took two Clintons to try to beat him. Bill replied: "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88. Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here."

Now, the question had nothing to do with Jesse Jackson. So why do you suppose such an expert on American politics as Bill Clinton with no prompting, would bring up contests that took place decades ago—back when South Carolina picked its convention delegates in caucuses, not primaries? John Edwards's victory four years ago, in a primary, would have been much more relevant; he ran a good campaign, too.

Why did Clinton bring up those earlier contests? Well, here’s a painfully obvious answer: He was saying that a major African-American candidate has an advantage in South Carolina, due to its large black electorate! Indeed, that’s what Foreman said last night—and everyone had offered some variant of this obvious statement over the previous year. Everyone had mentioned the fact that Obama had an edge in the Palmetto State. Why, a certain Post pundit had even said it, fairly often—and his name was Gene Robinson! Last July, for example, Robinson wondered if blacks might fail to warm to Obama due to fears that a black candidate just couldn’t possibly win:

ROBINSON (7/31/07): [I]sn't Obama at least a bit concerned that black voters might succumb to a kind of historical fatalism about how race works in America?

"What I see is a lot of press fascination with a black candidate who does not yet have 100 percent of the African American vote," Obama said yesterday in a telephone interview. "It's fascinating to me that people would expect that somehow I would be getting unanimous black support at this stage of the campaign, when probably only about 50 percent of black voters know much about me at all."

Obama pointed out that "black folks have known the Clintons for a long time." He also noted that when he ran for the U.S. Senate, his poll numbers among African Americans started low but later went stratospheric as voters got to know him.

Still, the Obama campaign recognizes the importance of South Carolina as the first primary state with a substantial African American electorate. A win there could resonate in other states where the black vote will be a key factor in the Democratic primary. A bad loss in South Carolina would resonate, too—not in a good way, from Obama's point of view.

"Black folks have known the Clintons for a long time.” Obama said, perfectly sensibly—explaining away the fact that Hillary Clinton still led him in polls of black voters.

Duh. According to Robinson, Obama’s campaign thought he should win the Palmetto State—due to its large black electorate. And they said that such a win would resonate through other southern states, where there were lots of black voters. Indeed, that’s what Foreman said last night. But now, let’s get back to Bill Clinton:

In Tuesday’s column, Robinson was simply stumped about what Clinton had said. The fair-minded pundit just couldn’t imagine why Clinton had mentioned Jesse Jackson’s wins, instead of John Edwards’ win in 2004. This, of course, was completely absurd; presumably, Robinson was simply playing dumb here, the way his cohort so loves doing. Obviously, Clinton was in part stating the obvious—major black candidates have an edge in South Carolina, as Robinson himself noted back in July. The John Edwards win was irrelevant. But when your mainstream press corps attacks, they’re willing to treat you like perfect rubes. There is no charge that is so serious that they’ll handle it with care. As Robinson’s rumination continued, he made a ludicrous statement:

ROBINSON (1/29/08): Now, the question had nothing to do with Jesse Jackson. So why do you suppose such an expert on American politics as Bill Clinton with no prompting, would bring up contests that took place decades ago...John Edwards's victory four years ago, in a primary, would have been much more relevant; he ran a good campaign, too.

The only possible reason for invoking Jackson's name was to telegraph the following message: Barack Obama is black, so if a lot of black people decide to vote for him—doubtless out of racial solidarity—it doesn't really mean squat.

And the reasons to send that message would be to devalue an Obama victory in South Carolina; to inoculate the Clinton campaign against potential losses next Tuesday in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee—Southern states with large African American populations; and, most important, to pigeonhole Obama as "a black candidate" as opposed to a candidate who, among other characteristics, is black.

“The only possible reason!” In this passage, Robinson does what his colleagues so often do when they start to type preferred novels. He imagines the least flattering explanation for someone’s behavior—and then dim-wittedly tells his readers that no other possible explanation exists. Bill Clinton was “playing the race card,” he said—“stooping to racial politics.” It was “the only possible reason.” No other theory exists.

In part, Robinson’s account is correct; almost surely, Bill Clinton was trying “to devalue Obama’s victory in South Carolina” by saying what he did. But campaigns do that all the time—it’s as American as trashing Al Gore, one of Robinson’s favorite pastimes in June 1999 (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 8/14/07, with links to previous work). Yep! Campaigns routinely “explain away” their own defeats and try to devalue their opponents’ victories; it’s what the Obama campaign did this week in the wake of the Florida voting. (There’s nothing wrong with it.) For the Clinton campaign, it would be perfectly obvious to “explain” South Carolina by noting Obama’s advantage in the state—an advantage that Robinson had cited, several times, during the previous year. Obama did have an edge in the state. There’s nothing wrong with saying so.

Here at THE HOWLER, we said that Bill Clinton was very dumb to make that reference to Jesse Jackson, He was dumb because Washington pundits were looking for ways to call him a racist (in much the way Peter Beinart dusts up Gore again this morning). Why, Bill Clinton had already said “fairy tale!” It was the most racist thing we’ve ever heard, many pundits were prepared to pretend. For that reason, Clinton’s statement was, at the least, very dumb. In making the statement, he took the bait; he gave them the club they were after.

It was dumb for Clinton to say what he said. But was it also meant as a racial attack? Was it fair to say that he played a “race card”—that he had “stooped to racial politics?” Robinson made a very serious charge—and then, he said there was no other “possible” way to interpret what Clinton had said. That was perfect bull-roar, of course—but that’s how this cohort has long played its cards. That’s how they played their “liar card” against Gore. And it’s how they’re playing this new, pleasing card against the vile racist Bill Clinton.

Darlings, Bill Clinton said “hit job!” It’s the most racist thing ever said!

By the way: This is why the recent squabbling could badly damage a Nominee Clinton. And this again shows us the D-minus way your “press corps” hands you your world.

As a general matter, Gene Robinson seems like a very nice person. But he’s part of a nasty and stupid gang which has long made a joke of your discourse. In this, as in so many past matters, they can picture no “possible” story but the story they want to tell. They’ll simply tell you the story they like—and they’ll be too lazy and corrupt to argue for their case. They’ll make the most serious possible charge—and over these justifications.

RKA:

It seemed that all was lost on Good Friday....would we ever hear from Stuart again?

Saturday...nothing...silence.....

And then on Easter, He is back!

And He has a message for Barack Obama and his supporters:

No matter what they do to you, you must turn the other cheek!

Miracle of miracles!

I demand that you capitalize all pronouns employed in reference to Myself in all future posts from this day unto perpetuity.

I'm sorry, Yoshi--I forgot:

You're right, the Clintons (really Mark Penn and staff) have done innumerable stupid, destructive and disgraceful things over the course of this campaign, most of which the press corps haven't blinked an eye at, like, say, Hillary pressing Obama on Farrakhan at the debate. But since Russert poured that barrel of sh*t on Obama himself, nary a peep can be heard from the usual suspects on that revolting moment in political history.

You know what is depressing?

I expected republicans to go after Obama in a nasty and vicious manner.

I didn't expect my fellow democrats to do so. I understand that Clinton is fighting for her political life, but that doesn't make what she's doing even remotely right.

And all of you that are aiding and abetting her, I hope you can live with the consequences of seeing the republicans keep control of the WH.

Frankly, validations from the National Review don't count - except for negative points.

More Clinton Hypocrisy & Distortion -- Goes to Credibility - Hillary in Tuzla: The Tale of Bosnian Sniper Fire (TRAILER)- JedReport ,Sun Mar 23, 2008, Coming soon to a superdelegate near you: Hillary in Tuzla. - It's an unbelievable tale of heroism. The Baltimore Sun calls it a "whopper." - "Four Pinocchios!" says the Washington Post. "Requires enormous suspension of disbelief" raves the Huffington Post.

Here's the URL:
http://www.youtube.com/...
::

And, this Race would have been over in Texas except for the 100,000 Votes by Republicans edged on by Rush Limbaugh, which put Hillary over the top!

Paul Dirks, re your patriotism comment, what digby said. It's long, but it's very good.

This duplicitous Republican tactic is used to promote the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. The Republicans still know deep down that Hillary is easier to beat than Obama.

You know that ain't going to happen, Stuart...

Because if my comparison holds, you what that makes me....the anti-christ (which is how many of you probably view me anyway)

So, being the devil that I am, let me say a few heretical things.

First, Stuart I find it hilarious that, even after the Wright affair, you still mime the cocktail circuit CW that the media favors Obama over Hillary.

Here are 25 reasons why they do not:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/20/85158/0472/444/480615

But this has to be my favortite statement:

"I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I was referring to the Obama campaign's "electability" and "polarizing" rhetoric, with which they won Iowa. The Clinton campaign's comparisons of the Obama campaign with Republicans' is not totally unreasonable, given the similarity to reflexive demonization of Hillary by media Movement Conservatives, although obviously never officially reaching the "man-hating lesbian/murderess of Vince Foster" depth of the professional Rightists."

How do you know, Stuart, that this is how Obama won Iowa? Evidence, Evidence, please! As much as I know your talking points are to discredit all Obama victories, I have to call BS on that one. Most Iowa caucus voters made their decisions based on multiple in-person contacts with multiple candidates. It's interesting that in an environment in which the media had the least influence in favor of face-to-face contact, Obama placed 1st, Edwards 2nd, and Hillary 3rd. When you contrast that to Hillary's edge in bog states in which name ID, paid media, and beltway memes are far more determinitive of outcome than personal contact, the relationship is clear. The more voters are dependent on the media to make their decisions, the better Hillary does. Sorry, Stuart, but your theories on media bias are not supported by the facts even if they are supported by the beltway chattering class.

And since you brought up movement conservatives and Vince Foster and tried to say it is not so unreasonable to compare Obama to these people, perhaps you might like to explain why the clintons seem to be so cozy with Richard Mellon Scaife, Chris Ruddy, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3/17/84038/4392/655/478370

I do realize that these are heretical statements for a cult of clintonism that buys this notion that they have been persecuted by the media and right wing haters, when the fact remains that the endless soap opera is beneficial both to the clintons politically (through backlashes that consolodate progressive support) and the media/right wing financially (from ratings, publishing royalities, circulations, etc)

But I realize the power the belief, Stuart.

But the reality is that Clintons did not die for the sins of Progressives.

It's the other way around.

Will someone explain this, please: if Obama's supporters take every opportunity to attack Hillary and Hillary's supporters take every opportunity to attack Obama who benefits? I know posters love to justify their complaints against the candidate they do NOT support. I know what you are AGAINST. What are you FOR? What happen when the Democratic nominee is chosen? Will the approximately 50% of the supporters of the loser suddenly forget all the vitriol that has been spewed and engage in a love fest running up to the Nov vote?

Over time I have seen what looked like a certain Democratic victory in Nov become a rolling disaster. Add to that the mess in Michigan and Florida (Dr Dean!) and we have the usual recipe: Democrats doing themselves in while they engage in principled political discourse larded with offensive attacks againt each other.

Meanwhile the Republicans !!!!!!

Karen: You have to convince Jay Newton-Small to do something about her train wreck of a post on the passport thing. That's some embarrassing stuff there. Wild speculation, unforced errors, an attempt to cleanse the mistakes without correcting them, and it's drawing puzzled WTF-style looks around the blogosphere. (Here and here, for example.)

RKA, Clinton doesn't have an equivalent to Wright in her background (e.g. someone she has described as being like an uncle/aunt, who put out a DVD with a lot of controversial statements that the vast majority of the American public are shocked by). Arguing that the MSM coverage of the Wright issue shows their bias towards Clinton only makes sense if Clinton and Obama were getting unequal treatment on similar issues. But if Clinton did have her own Wright I'm sure the MSM would have already forced her out of the election. Look at their treatment of Bill Clinton, which Stuart has analyzed so clearly.

In addition, you have pointed out that Clinton benefits from a backlash against the media bias and sexism. That is true, but that doesn't prove she benefits from the actual bias and sexism. She would benefit a lot more from having her own staff of NY Times editorial writers, her own Rolling Stone messiah cover, and an MSM that bases their coverage on her campaign talking points.

About the Obama campaign's use of Rove style tactics, I wouldn't have such a problem with this if they didn't pretend that they want to really change things and run a positive campaign (I know pretend is a harsh word, but I find it impossible to believe that people as smart as Axelrod and Obama don't know what they are doing, and what the consequences will be). Of course elections aren't run with the highest of moral standards. But the Obama campaign's argument that the Clinton campaign's tactics show that she basically has no character depends on their continued denial of their own Rovian campaign tactics. In addition, since Obama's candidacy is based both on his supposed ability to unite people and his unfair and inaccurate criticisms about Clinton's polarizing personality, his campaign is actually ruining any chance Obama has of being the President he says he wants to be. You're not going to unite the country by using Rovian tactics on a fellow Democrat.

This paradox is central to the Obama campaign's desperate attempts in the past week to attack Clinton's character. Regardless of what you think of the Wright issue, it's clear that it will make Obama a more polarizing figure, especially after the 527 ads start. And that's a big risk for Obama because his candidacy is based on his being a uniting figure. Clearly the Obama campaign have decided that since they won't be able to argue that Obama is a uniting figure, they will have to argue that Clinton is even more polarizing than Obama, even if that means making absolutely ridiculous attacks that are completely unsupported by the evidence. Assuming he wins the nomination, he will have to run the same way against the very popular McCain, which will backfire terribly. It's too late to change the core of his candidacy.

And for everyone out there who is still convinced that Obama is the most electable Democrat, haven't you wondered why Matt Drudge is being so nice to Obama? Somehow I don't think he's just excited about Obama's message of change...

Posted by Rose | March 24, 2008 10:37 AM

And for everyone out there who is still convinced that Obama is the most electable Democrat, haven't you wondered why Matt Drudge is being so nice to Obama? Somehow I don't think he's just excited about Obama's message of change...

-----------------------------------------
Rose

Why did Limbaugh suggest Republicans vote for Hillary?

Why did Drudge publish the photo of Obama in "Muslim" attire?

"Describe in a serious tone how Bill Clinton not actually talking about Hillary's opponent is further evidence of their "constant, almost instinctual calculus of attack" and her "continuing problem with his role", and one's bona fides are guaranteed to be self evident, at least to the self-appointed enforcers of our nation's political narratives."

The problem I have with Stuart's take on this, as fair minded as it seems, is that he is asking us to believe that when Bill said how great it would be if this election had "two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this cou